RE: Perfect, Best of Possible, or Better than Nothing: Which criterion?
May 16, 2015 at 11:00 am
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2015 at 11:10 am by Whateverist.)
(May 15, 2015 at 4:20 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: 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 find all talk of world-evaluation ridiculous. (Forgive me if I am repeating myself. Expect that to increase.)
You choose to emphasize "what we can show" (my bolding). I'm far more interested in what you can possibly know. The world we're in is the only one any of us have or ever will know. There is no actual basis for comparison. However the world may appear to someone, they are just telling you about their own state of happiness.
I understand why the point (nonsensical or not) is important to you, or at least doctrinal religionists. After all you're the ones who like to imagine that a god (some of) you imagine as omni-everything put it all together the same way a watchmaker assembles a time piece.
I don't understand why anyone without such a belief cares to get caught up in assigning a rating to 'the world' we live in, especially not when those ratings are couched in terms of "the best anyone can do". Newsflash, none of us is ever going to get a chance to construct their own better world. (Sorry Mormons.) I see no point in engaging in a critique of 'this particular world' -you know, out of all the ones there could be if they were being put together by clever assemblers like ourselves.
(May 16, 2015 at 10:24 am)robvalue Wrote: A god that wants to test us is bound to try and justify it by making us seemingly get stronger after testing.
Since he apparently did the design, he could just make us fit and capable to do whatever we want and be happy all the time without all this jerking around.
He's either really rubbish, or he's using us for cheap laughs.
That is because god wants us to have free will so we can choose to slit our wrists instead of rising to His challenges. Didn't you get the memo?
(May 16, 2015 at 10:06 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: 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.
And in others theologies deity has no idea or interest that we're here at all. I prefer to liken the creation act to taking a dump. If deities there must be (gag), perhaps galaxies are their excrement. An unintended byproduct of what ever sustains them. Personally I don't choose my meals with the intention of creating good worlds for the tiny life which will make it their world.
