This cruel universe I love so dearly

[Pippy]

So there is no room for theory? It is 'common knowledge' that you have access to and I do not, that death is the 'big sleep'. And it is in no way a theory that death is a big sleep, since everyone knows it is the case. And since everyone knows that death is the big sleep, there is 'no room for theories', of which the "Big Sleep Certainty" is not one?

I don't know Kyu.

[Giff]

As you Kyu said, Pippy, it's not a theory it's just wishful thinking. The most logical is that nothing happens. It's as when you get unconsious. You don't dream or anything.

Since your brain isn't working when you'r dead are you not gonna experience anything when you are dead.

[Purple Rabbit]

As you Kyu said, Pippy, it's not a theory it's just wishful thinking. The most logical is that nothing happens. It's as when you get unconsious. You don't dream or anything.

Since your brain isn't working when you'r dead are you not gonna experience anything when you are dead.

Of course we could all be living in a computer simulation and wake up at death. This certainly is the scenario a god with some awareness on sustainability would prefer, the cosmos seems a rather perverted waste of resources for divine experiments on humans in this deserted corner of the visible universe (some 94 billons lightyears across). But in the end the simulation argument is like the dream argument: possible (in a way yet to be found) but not probable, and certainly nothing beyond speculation.

[Kyuuketsuki]

So there is no room for theory? It is 'common knowledge' that you have access to and I do not, that death is the 'big sleep'. And it is in no way a theory that death is a big sleep, since everyone knows it is the case. And since everyone knows that death is the big sleep, there is 'no room for theories', of which the "Big Sleep Certainty" is not one?

A theory is not a hunch or a guess but an extensive, well defined set of data complete with fully outlined mechanisms and so on ... a theory is the HIGHEST form of scientific explanation available and implies nothing of guesswork or uncertainty.

OTOH you know [expletive deleted] all about what happens on the other side of life so no it isn't a theory, it's wishful thinking!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't fear death. I fear dying. As in the process (it's not always very nice :S). But I don't fear it now, only if it's coming lol.

EvF

[Ryft]

1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

I didn't say 'purpose' but stated that "those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place". This is so because theirs is the claim to know the intentions of the supposed designer. Surely this means that they can answer the simple question whether its design was intended to have this cruel consequences on humans.

First, to ask that someone explain why X is "intended" is asking them to explain its purpose, if "intention" has any teleological implications at all. Second, you are mistaken: Christian theology does not claim "to know the intentions" of God with respect to human "ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others." If Smith tells Jones that he has a purpose behind something, it does not follow that Jones knows what that purpose is. Third, pointing to someone's ability to explain does not somehow establish their obligation to explain. Why do you assert they have this obligation?

2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

The primary conclusion is about the truth value of these asserters of intended design. It shows their understanding of design is too poor to credit the claim. ... [Y]ou might conclude that they are full of shit for worshipping a designer God whose moral they haven't checked. They could be worshipping the devil in disguise.

"These asserters ... their understanding ... they are full of shit ... they haven't checked ..." In short, no conclusion about an intentional designer can be drawn. If those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what an intentional designer's purpose is, you can draw a conclusion only about them.

3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

Have you any indications for that, for at this moment it is only wild speculation?

First, I do not need to establish that this is in fact the case, only that it is logically possible. For if it is possible in a logical way (i.e., the premises do not self-contradict), then any argument for a logical contradiction vanishes. Second, nevertheless there are indications for this; e.g., "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (Gen. 50:20).

I could also speculate that the purpose is net moral evil ...

You could, but to be a valid and legitimate criticism of Christian theology, you would have to argue in favour of that speculation from Scriptures or orthodox Christian theology. Otherwise it would amount to nothing other than a competing view that leaves the Christian view untouched.

[Purple Rabbit]

1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

I didn't say 'purpose' but stated that "those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place". This is so because theirs is the claim to know the intentions of the supposed designer. Surely this means that they can answer the simple question whether its design was intended to have this cruel consequences on humans.

First, to ask that someone explain why X is "intended" is asking them to explain its purpose, if "intention" has any teleological implications at all. Second, you are mistaken: Christian theology does not claim "to know the intentions" of God with respect to human "ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others." If Smith tells Jones that he has a purpose behind something, it does not follow that Jones knows what that purpose is. Third, pointing to someone's ability to explain does not somehow establish their obligation to explain. Why do you assert they have this obligation?

There's another connotation for me in 'purpose' than in intended design. Intended design neutrally describes that the design in some way was intended but not necessarily for one purpose. The use of 'purpose' instead of 'purposes' narrows down possibilities a priori and is somewhat suggestive on it's way to the anthropic principle. But possibly I'm reading too much in it. If theology does not claim to know the intentions of god then how can it claim these are good intentions of a good god, or isn't that really in the book also?

2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

The primary conclusion is about the truth value of these asserters of intended design. It shows their understanding of design is too poor to credit the claim. ... [Y]ou might conclude that they are full of shit for worshipping a designer God whose moral they haven't checked. They could be worshipping the devil in disguise.

"These asserters ... their understanding ... they are full of shit ... they haven't checked ..." In short, no conclusion about an intentional designer can be drawn.

Non-sequitur. In the case that we have nothing else but written and oral accounts of believers to go by we have a choice:
(a) assume that the premisses thus presented are true and check the validity of the argument from there onwards
(b) disgard the truth of these premisses to begin with

If (a) then we can assess consistency of the presented argument with empirical evidence following from suggested intentions (such as: nature is specially designed for humans by a good god that loves you) and verifiable facts about nature (such as: nature is unmistakably lethal for humans in most places and is indifferent for personal suffering since there's no statistical significant mechanism in place to balance fortune and misfortune on a personal level). To conclude, the presented arguments are not consistent with facts and are invalid. Then there's no valid argument presented by claimers of intentional design, therefore no reason to assume intentional design, and therefore no reason to assume an intentional designer.

If (b) we must conclude that the conclusion is false, there's no valid argument leading to intentional design and therefore no reason to assume an intentional designer.

If those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what an intentional designer's purpose is, you can draw a conclusion only about them.

And in the absence of any further proof than written and oral accounts from such clueless claimers of intentional design we are led to the conclusion there is no valid evidence for intentional design and further that there's not evidence for an intentional designer. In short if you do not know what the intended design was you cannot claim intentional design. No skyhooks allowed in logic.

3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

Have you any indications for that, for at this moment it is only wild speculation?

First, I do not need to establish that this is in fact the case, only that it is logically possible. For if it is possible in a logical way (i.e., the premises do not self-contradict), then any argument for a logical contradiction vanishes.

But consistency with reality remains to be seen. The purple rabbit conception of the universe is equally logically possible but therefore not necessarily true. How are you gonna distinguish the purple rabbit accident from a universe with a net moral good mechanism? Please elaborate.

Second, nevertheless there are indications for this; e.g., "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (Gen. 50:20).

Non-sequitur and circular reasoning. It does not follow from scripture that statements of scripture provide any truth. Also kid cancer is a clear case of meaningless harm that could be prevented by an omnipotent god if he existed. Indeed in human legislature not assisting fellow human beings in severe death stress while being able to, is actionable.

I could also speculate that the purpose is net moral evil ...

You could, but to be a valid and legitimate criticism of Christian theology, you would have to argue in favour of that speculation from Scriptures or orthodox Christian theology. Otherwise it would amount to nothing other than a competing view that leaves the Christian view untouched.

There's more to reality than scripture my friend. To invalidate christian theology I do not need scripture unless your scripture is describing some other reality than the reality you and I live in. So just look around and see what's happening. I see severe indifference regarding the harm done to people by the workings of our universe. I just gave you an excellent example. Please show me how the kid cancer nets out into moral good.