Amended Problem of Evil

[lunamoth]

Hi Meow Mix, thank you for you reply. I see you found a lot of those threads.

Ok, so you're attacking an MCS-free world here. I don't necessarily disagree -- I don't necessarily think it would be very easy to argue for an MCS-free universe without getting into some very strange metaphysics. However, you also seem to be saying that an MCS-reduced world is plausible, which still works in my argument.

I was saying that an MCS-reduced world is only plausible if we also make it unpredictable, or if we eliminate free will.

I think it's an interesting point that you mention "the smallest dislike will be experienced as suffering." This is an interesting point, but would sentient beings rather experience the tang of a sour orange or have their faces eaten off by leishmaniasis? There are some truly powerful forces of suffering in the world that we exist in currently, and if it's possible for it to even be a little less severe we have to wonder why a creator God didn't make it so.

Yes, I agree with your point. I took my example to an absurd level, equating simple aesthetic likes and dislikes with suffering. I was trying to illustrate, poorly I guess, that to some extent suffering is relative. If we only reduced the worst suffering, there would still be some some suffering and that would seem very bad to us still. So, we could maybe prevent people from ever getting third degree burns, but should we still let them get slivers? If we could prevent murder and rape, should we still allow kids to fall off bikes and get skinned knees? Where do we draw the line?

But, this is a quibble. I'll proceed on the basis that God could pick some acceptable level of suffering that is less than it is now.

Why would humans require anything in a world without NCS? Requirement implies the capacity to not have what's required, which wouldn't exist in an NCS-free universe. I feel that answers the point but I'll go further so you don't feel cheated.

This gets to my point about separateness (sorry for the clunky word, it's just that the word dualism comes with a lot of baggage). To have any kind of change, any kind of experience, or any kind of life, we need to have differentials and movement. We need to have need, and have that need filled. And if the need can be filled, it might also not be filled. Perhaps you agree and are saying that as soon as we have a need, it should be filled before we reach a point of suffering.

So, I'll go with your world where no one requires anything. The basis of choice is now desire or aesthetic preference (or am I missing something?).

Let's say that God does create a world where it simply rains whenever humans want, and the rain doesn't fall on anyone who doesn't want to be rained on -- or whatever. In what way is this an unpredictable nature? "When someone desires rain it will rain" would be a natural law that you could count on every time in this universe. "If someone doesn't want to be rained on then it won't rain on them" would be another.

Of course, it would be difficult for a meteorologist to predict when it's going to rain, but it wouldn't be difficult for a philosopher to assert that the universe would be fundamentally predictable as described by these laws.

Humans wouldn't need to be predictable for the universe to be fundamentally predictable (i.e., follow laws) if those laws are something like "If someone desires it then they acquire it." However, I still feel my point about "requirement" being unnecessary in an NCS-free universe stands as well.

It would be more than just making it difficult to predict the weather. The weather would be subject to human intent and desire, and human intents and desires conflict. The gardener wants rain, the golfer wants sun. Unless every human wants exactly the same thing at the same time, there can be no law that predicts or describes what will happen.

In an MCS-reduced or MCS-free world, there would be no tumors or splinters to remove in the first place. It would be easy to predict what would happen: is the action intended to cause harm? If so, then it will fail in some way. A clever human could write this as a fundamental and predictable law of the universe, I don't see why not.

"If a person sharpens a stick to a point and attempts to put the sharp end where another person's skin is, the stick turns into silly putty."

That might be in someone's physics textbook in an MCS-reduced or MCS-free world. The laws of nature wouldn't be "changing," they'd just be more complicated -- with more "if/then" qualifications than we see now. They could still be fundamentally predictable, assuming someone had infinite time to write all the if/then qualifications down.

This again has the laws of the universe changing based upon human intent and upon human actions. Further, what about accidental injury? What about when someone desires to harm themselves? I'm sure we can come up with 'if-then' statements to address each of these, but as we do the world gets flatter and flatter. The differentials become smaller and smaller. Things become more and more the same, options for choice less and less.

What will be a fun or interesting endeavor in your NCS/MCS-free world? Art? Only if it does not upset anyone. Science? How meaningful can our results be when they depend upon the intent of all the scientists involved, or subjects possibly affected by the test or observation. Literature? What will be the plot in a world that can't conceive of conflict or tension? Music? What moods do you hope to elevate?

Why would free will be denied? Humans could decide they wish to harm someone I suppose, but that doesn't mean that if they're unable to that they don't have free will. I'm unable to morph into a pink elephant, but does that mean I lack free will? I wouldn't say so.

I was offering that the world could still have predictable physical laws in an MCS-reduced world if free will were denied. It is an alternative.

However, a being with the capacity to create a world without the capacity for suffering (or even a world with less capacity for suffering) who decides to create a world with more capacity for suffering anyway can only be said to be malicious, and to indeed be deliberately willing that suffering to occur. Otherwise, why not create the world with less suffering or without suffering?

I still contend that an omnipotent/omniscient creator being could create a world with at least less capacity for suffering without infringing free will. The question arises, why would the creator being create a world with a plethora of suffering when that didn't have to be the case?

If it is possible to create a world that is 1) predictable (not subject to change based upon conflicting individual human wills/intents/desires) and 2) includes free will, but 3) has reduced suffering, I would agree.

I think it is logically possible that this is not a possibility. :angel2:

If that is the case, and God is benevolent, then it is a matter of whether to create a world with free will (and risk of suffering) or not create.

I have never understood the omnimax God. Even the first two prerequisites seem to contradict each other. If God knows what is going to happen (omniscient), then how could he use His own Omnipotent powers to change anything?

We could still make meaningful choices about who our friends are, what we do with our joyous lives, what we think about, etc.

Why do we need the capacity to suffer to make a meaningful choice?

For instance, do I have less "meaningful choices" living without suffering than a person who's starving and has to choose whether to feed himself or, say, his equally starving family?

I wouldn't say so. If a creator-being with omnipotence/omniscience exists, then they have a lot to explain for the existence of suffering in this world, since it appears that it's logically possible for a world with less suffering to exist without denying our free will.

Don't get me wrong - I do not think we need suffering to make meaningful choices. I certainly do not think personal suffering adds meaning to our lives. Suffering is, though, a risk of a world with free will.

I'll concede, though, the PoE is not trivial. I don't have a solid argument against it as it is posed. My trust and hope is that God will make it all well somehow in the end, even for those who have suffered the most. If God is good, all shall be well. If God not good, or non-existent, it does not matter anyway. My view is that there is clearly terrible suffering in this world, and the response we must make to this is compassion and to take action to try to reduce suffering. I believe that it is good that we choose to do this. Without God and a greater meaning to life than what we personally might assign to it, I can't logically say why it is good, other than it makes us feel good due to some evolutionarily-derived instinct, or we hope for reciprocity when we are suffering.

Thank you for the interesting conversation.

 

[cottage]

Oh I think God is malicious, in his way of handling human existence, but his overall intent must be considered. If I cause you to suffer, and then at the end of your suffering, give you a life of peace and happiness before never experienced, then how should you judge my infliction on you then? And I think this is the real true way to evaluate God, if he exist. It is said that we will inherit eternal life with him after all of this. If this be true, what amount of human suffering wouldnot be worth that?

In my view, 100 years of suffering, is defintely worth eternal life in peace. But we just don't really know.

And not knowing, is a great suffering within itself.

And pretending to know, is just another form of suffering.

Peace.

There is nothing at all wrong with the above argument. This isn't theodicy, an apologetic to explain the problem of evil. God is good, and sometimes not. No contradiction, for it fits with experience. The two underlined sentences appear to be morally questionable, but only if God is pure goodness.

 

[mickiel]

There is nothing at all wrong with the above argument. This isn't theodicy, an apologetic to explain the problem of evil. God is good, and sometimes not. No contradiction, for it fits with experience. The two underlined sentences appear to be morally questionable, but only if God is pure goodness.

Well the problem of evil presents many challanges to the believer that is truly interested in God, but not given to foolish information and interpitation of the bible. I hold a unique intrest in God, and believe in him, but I hold no intrest in religions, including Christianity. I am interested in evil, because it has given me personal problems all of my life, and I have believed in God since I think age 7. I think God is uniquely using evil to accomplish thousands of things, he's getting interesting milage out of it.

There is an old biblical saying, " The Wound of a Friend is faithful." If a friend hurts you, in attempt to help you, that must be considered. I think Gods intent in evil is to really, eventually, help us all. But his methods are unusual. In example: Lets say that I am drowning in water. Along comes a person whos desire is to save me. They reach down, grab me by the nose and pull me out. Now, I am saved, but it hurt me for that person to save me by the method of pulling me by the nose. Now am I to argue against the pain they inflicted on me, while saving my life, or just be grateful? Or I could do both, be happy, but still inquire on their saving methods? Why not grab me by the arm or something, save me without hurting me.

I think this is the true imputus of many questions on God and evil. And I think we all have a right to inquire our questions to God, but he has not made himself avialible enough to everyone. And that just further promotes the anger in humanity about Gods saving methods.

Peace.