The "Ultimate Why Evil" thread suddenly snapped shut; thus I've moved my response to parts of it here. As Stimbo says, this topic is loaded with speculation, some of which I engage in forthwith. An interesting preliminary problem, that of deciding what kind of world is needed as minimum for omnibenevolence remains unanswered, however, so I'll sum up at the end here.

(May 15, 2015 at 9:56 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: First: "the atheists" don't have to do anything...
Second: you have a real problem with this shit...  

As anyone can try toppling the statue of omnibenevolence, we can amend my sentence in post #32 (other thread, see top for link) with the impersonal "one" in place of "atheist." Note the latter word is there to make reference back to ChadWooter's post #23 clearer, not to rile you. However I don't apologize for it. Seems the religious aren't the only folks irritated by gadflies. Enjoy the day...I dig your username; indeed you do bite like the Tyrannosaur once did.  

(May 15, 2015 at 11:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: Just don't get adding an unnecessary and illiterate 'z' ...

It might have been Americans distancing themselves from Mother England; I dunno. But look, I've committed the sin again.  

(May 15, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: ...I will show that this is not the best of all possible worlds.  Let us consider penicillin.  When penicillin was introduced, that improved the world, as it reduced unnecessary suffering.  If there were a God, that being could have introduced penicillin in 1800 ... Since God did not do so, we know that this is not the best of all possible worlds.
...
The religionist refuses to accept any evidence of anything on this issue.
...
The theist needs to prove that creating a universe is better than not creating one.  Creating a bad universe is worse than nothing, and we have no reason to suppose that this universe is, overall, better than nothing.  Think of all of the suffering in the world, of children starving to death, children being raped and brutalized, children burning in fires, children dying of all manner of painful diseases, etc., etc., etc.  The idea that this world is better than nothing is ridiculous.

Voltaire had the proper response to these issues with his Candide.  The idea that this is the best of all possible worlds is more worthy of ridicule than of argument.

Now interest perks up a bit. I'm not a religionist, so it doesn't matter whether religionists are open to new information, though I suppose some of them are. But penicillin can be dispensed with. In "City on the Edge of Forever," a Star Trek episode from 1967, the starship officers Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock travel back in time to 1930 where they don't belong and don't know how to get around: even their starship clothes draw awkward glances from passersby. They enter a rescue mission shelter where they are aided by a social worker named Edith, a fine lady in all respects. But then they discover that something has gone wrong with the flow of history, and that unless Edith dies in an auto-pedestrian collision, she will persuade Roosevelt to delay U.S. entry into World War II, giving Hitler enough time to acquire nuclear weapons. Resulting in a world where the swastika flies everywhere. At the crucial moment when Edith is stepping into the street, Kirk sees the oncoming car and rushes forward to save Edith, but Mr. Spock blocks him to allow the accident to occur.

The premises of any science fiction show are of course questionable, yet this one dramatizes why what seems best to us at the time it occurs may not be best with respect to what it will lead to in the future. Emotionalism is a poor guide to selecting the good. Which was ChadWooter's take in post #45, now illustrated a bit. On the other hand, we also can't know it's not the worst of all worlds, either. We may be in for a rough ride.

Your final point is excellent. We've been trending down the perfection ladder from "perfect world" to "best anyone can do." I think it could indeed be the case that the "best of all possible worlds" isn't minimal enough, and that one (theist or a-) who is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of omnibenevolence needs only show that the universe we have is better than nothing. This seems easier than showing it's the best possible, but as you suggest, the task may not be easy at all. For one thing, it's hard to compare something with nothing. I haven't read Candide, so I won't attempt that task here.  

Yes, the closing of that thread was a temporary accident and has since been fixed. Long before the creation of this thread, as it happens.

Okay. This one's now different, about the basics of what we should show before we can take omnibenevolence seriously. None of the three kinds of world, perfect, best possible, or better than nothing, itself implies omnibenevolence is operant, only that it's still a contender in the ring. If Pyrrho is correct that we're in a "worse than nothing," then I'm lost. Maybe we would switch to "better than the worst possible world," as many worlds might be worse than none. Or even "the best of all worlds that are worse than nothing."

However, replies to the other (now open) thread should go there & not here, I suppose.  

I don't know what the best possible universe would be like. It has a great deal of subjectivity of course. The Star Trek reference is interesting because that is one hell of a good universe if you are a thinking being. The universe according to Christianity is great if you are a sheep. We are not sheep.

Neither universe is real but if I could choose one, it would be Star Trek by a long shot - as long as I'm nowhere near the Borg.

(May 15, 2015 at 3:52 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: The "Ultimate Why Evil" thread suddenly snapped shut; thus I've moved my response to parts of it here. As Stimbo says, this topic is loaded with speculation, some of which I engage in forthwith. An interesting preliminary problem, that of deciding what kind of world is needed as minimum for omnibenevolence remains unanswered, however, so I'll sum up at the end here.

(May 15, 2015 at 9:56 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: First: "the atheists" don't have to do anything...
Second: you have a real problem with this shit...  

As anyone can try toppling the statue of omnibenevolence, we can amend my sentence in post #32 (other thread, see top for link) with the impersonal "one" in place of "atheist." Note the latter word is there to make reference back to ChadWooter's post #23 clearer, not to rile you. However I don't apologize for it. Seems the religious aren't the only folks irritated by gadflies. Enjoy the day...I dig your username; indeed you do bite like the Tyrannosaur once did.  

(May 15, 2015 at 11:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: Just don't get adding an unnecessary and illiterate 'z' ...

It might have been Americans distancing themselves from Mother England; I dunno. But look, I've committed the sin again.  

(May 15, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: ...I will show that this is not the best of all possible worlds.  Let us consider penicillin.  When penicillin was introduced, that improved the world, as it reduced unnecessary suffering.  If there were a God, that being could have introduced penicillin in 1800 ... Since God did not do so, we know that this is not the best of all possible worlds.
...
The religionist refuses to accept any evidence of anything on this issue.
...
The theist needs to prove that creating a universe is better than not creating one.  Creating a bad universe is worse than nothing, and we have no reason to suppose that this universe is, overall, better than nothing.  Think of all of the suffering in the world, of children starving to death, children being raped and brutalized, children burning in fires, children dying of all manner of painful diseases, etc., etc., etc.  The idea that this world is better than nothing is ridiculous.

Voltaire had the proper response to these issues with his Candide.  The idea that this is the best of all possible worlds is more worthy of ridicule than of argument.

Now interest perks up a bit. I'm not a religionist, so it doesn't matter whether religionists are open to new information, though I suppose some of them are. But penicillin can be dispensed with. In "City on the Edge of Forever," a Star Trek episode from 1967, the starship officers Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock travel back in time to 1930 where they don't belong and don't know how to get around: even their starship clothes draw awkward glances from passersby. They enter a rescue mission shelter where they are aided by a social worker named Edith, a fine lady in all respects. But then they discover that something has gone wrong with the flow of history, and that unless Edith dies in an auto-pedestrian collision, she will persuade Roosevelt to delay U.S. entry into World War II, giving Hitler enough time to acquire nuclear weapons. Resulting in a world where the swastika flies everywhere. At the crucial moment when Edith is stepping into the street, Kirk sees the oncoming car and rushes forward to save Edith, but Mr. Spock blocks him to allow the accident to occur.

The premises of any science fiction show are of course questionable, yet this one dramatizes why what seems best to us at the time it occurs may not be best with respect to what it will lead to in the future. Emotionalism is a poor guide to selecting the good. Which was ChadWooter's take in post #45, now illustrated a bit. On the other hand, we also can't know it's not the worst of all worlds, either. We may be in for a rough ride.

Your final point is excellent. We've been trending down the perfection ladder from "perfect world" to "best anyone can do." I think it could indeed be the case that the "best of all possible worlds" isn't minimal enough, and that one (theist or a-) who is attempting to demonstrate the possibility of omnibenevolence needs only show that the universe we have is better than nothing. This seems easier than showing it's the best possible, but as you suggest, the task may not be easy at all. For one thing, it's hard to compare something with nothing. I haven't read Candide, so I won't attempt that task here.  

You should read Candide.  It ridicule's Leibniz's idea that this is the best of all possible worlds.  It is a short book, and it is possible to read it in one day.  It is quite justly regarded as a great work of literature.

You should have looked a bit closer at the post of mine that you quote from that other thread (which is post #40).  I will quote a bit for you that you omit above that directly is relevant to what you are now saying:

(May 15, 2015 at 1:15 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: ...
Now, I will go back to what I was mentioning at first in my post, about how this will go.  The religionist refuses to accept any evidence of anything on this issue.  It does not matter what proofs one puts forth; they are rejected out of hand, with some bullshit like, "God's ways show infinite foresight, " etc.  Basically, they take a position in which there is nothing that they would accept as evidence against their position.  So it is a pretense to reason, as the reality is that they reject all reason on the matter and simply dogmatically assert that this is somehow best, in some mysterious, inscrutable way.

...

What you are saying with your Star Trek story is that nothing could possibly count one way or the other.  In other words, that the whole thing set up by the theist is dishonest and disingenuous.  Remember, the atheist response is a reaction to the theist making the prior claim that this is the best of all possible worlds.  We would not be having the conversation at all if theists did not make bullshit statements like that.

Additionally, your Star Trek analysis will not do.  Kirk is a human, with finite capabilities.  God is supposedly omnipotent, and if God were in Kirk's situation, God could save the woman's life and then God could simply persuade Roosevelt to enter the war when it pleases God to do so (or could just wipe out Hitler himself, which would be effortless for an omnipotent being).

In other words, even in your ridiculous story that involves an impossible situation (i.e., knowing the future), God could still deal with it.

(It is also ridiculous because the story, as you have described it, depends on Roosevelt not entering the war due to Pearl Harbor being attacked.  Do you think Kirk saving that woman would prevent Japan from bombing Pearl Harbor?  So even as an impossible story, it still does not work the way you need it to work for your argument.)

Furthermore, God could have created different laws of nature, had it pleased him to do so.  So God has even more options open to him.


Additionally, even if we grant you the absurd claim that this is the best of all possible worlds, that gives rise to yet another problem for Christianity (other than the fact that, if I am a murderous rapist child molester, that MUST be part of the best possible world, so I OUGHT TO DO IT!), it makes total hash of the idea that there is another world called "heaven" that is better than this one.  If this is the best of all possible worlds, heaven is logically impossible.

(May 15, 2015 at 6:19 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Kirk is a human, with finite capabilities.  God is supposedly omnipotent, and if God were in Kirk's situation, God could save the woman's life and then God could simply persuade Roosevelt to enter the war when it pleases God to do so (or could just wipe out Hitler himself, which would be effortless for an omnipotent being).

[Concerning] ... the idea that there is another world called "heaven" that is better than this one.  If this is the best of all possible worlds, heaven is logically impossible.

I don't like the whole "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent" thing either. It comes from the Middle Ages as thinkers newly possessed of more powerful logical tools began pushing these tools to the limit, without regard to the various complexities, contradictions, and paradoxes that can result. The truth is, we cannot conceive of an omniscient & onmipotent being, or give any meaningful statements about what such a being might or might not do. So, the Star Trek ditty is a bit silly. However, it's also unreasonable to presume that a god would just wipe away all the things we don't like and leave us with a bliss of our own fancy.

The concept of deity as Sugar Daddy is childish. There's little reason to think that deity should operate that way, or even that everything which is "good" is also pleasing and painless. This kind of emotionalism is also engaged in by fundamentalist church groups, and appeared in kid's books I used to read in Lutheran school where God just "fixes" everything as it happens. I remember reading a thing about how "they had miracles in bible days but we don't have them now" because "we can go to the supermarket" for our needs and they couldn't. I was only 7 then and didn't realize how stupid that idea is.  

I agree with you that if a heaven exists, then the position that we live in the best possible world becomes much harder to defend. The only counter I'm aware of is that heaven is a reward which has to be earned. Many people who accept the notion of a "benevolent" world do accept the existence of merit in such a world. Bliss and reward aren't just handed to everyone unconditionally. Indeed, if they were, the rewards would become meaningless. (That's a criticism applied to grade inflation where everyone gets an A.)

Meh, the counter doesn't actually address the statement....so calling it a counter is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.

I don't know why anyone needs testing or rewarding. He's just fucking around for his own amusement. Well, I'm not amused.

-Additionally, regarding childish thoughts attached to god claims...I think that if we went through and made an itemized list of childish things which might be attached to the periphery of god, we'd end up touching on just about every god claim ever made.  So, there's that.  /shrugs

(May 16, 2015 at 8:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: Meh, the counter doesn't actually address the statement....so calling it a counter is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.

(May 16, 2015 at 9:01 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't know why anyone needs testing or rewarding. He's just fucking around for his own amusement. Well, I'm not amused.

I think the question of whether merit, or earned status, exists in a "benevolent" world is quite legitimate. Americans generally consider "advancing from humble beginnings to success through hard work" a great virtue. Sure, the Horatio Alger myth glosses over a lot of the rigid class structure actually seen in the USA, yet a society without incentives stagnates. As eastern Europe did back in the Warsaw Pact days, when the shelves in the store were all empty, except that one bin that had a glut of shoddy boots.

Because I'm not an authority on God, I don't know whether deity tests people or not. In some theologies, it does, in others, it refrains. Some of the tests which have been postulated over the years are clearly petty or cruel. The truth of that still doesn't affect how we humans do seem to get stronger and more competent by overcoming challenges. We don't get physically fit by sitting on our rumps. Which means I'd better get out for my walk today, as soon as it stops raining....