Originally posted by LemonJelloWell I don't count myself as a theist because when I introspect I find no belief in the existence of a deity. But arguments from induction are always provisional. I wonder if they belong in theological arguments. Of course theologically based beliefs that venture into the realm of science, such as geocentrism or the age of the earth, should be at least compared to the apparent evidence and people can draw their own conclusions. When the convolutions seem more unlikely than the simple conclusions, they speak for themselves and those who reject them are beyond reach.
Yeah, that's the basic gist of the crux of the argument (or what many would take to be the crux of this argument). Although others may have various other objections against the argument as well.
So, yeah, I am interested in what you and others make of this inductive move and whether you think it is successful or not. The article in the link I provided has quite a bit of discussion regarding the move from 8 to 9 as well.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe free will that we speak of for humans is limited because we are limited. You seem to think we are giving humans the same free will that God has. Of course, that is not the case at all.
You might have spotted earlier that I pointed out that an Omnimax god is
logically impossible anyway, because of examples like the one you mentioned.
However even if you make god as "Omnimax as logically possible" it still by
definition must understand how we suffer because that knowledge is not
logically impossible for an "Omnimax as logically po ...[text shortened]... and sex.
Anyhow, none of this is actually important for dealing with the argument in the OP.
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo, it doesn't. In fact, there is no mention of a being at all. There is only mention of actions. Yes, actions need a being to perform them, but P1 does not limit the choice of being at all. It could possibly be you or me.
it assumes a being we do not understand, a being that we assign incredible characteristics to, would see the world the same as we do.
Because I could possibly do both of the things in P1. I could see that a deer was trapped as a forest fire drew close to it, and sit idly by and let it die in the flames. I could discover a cure for cancer, yet not give it to my neighbor's suffering child. All P1 is saying is that those actions (or rather, choices not to act) carry very serious consequences, and I am very likely acting wrongly by ignoring them.
Originally posted by googlefudge"Omnimax as logically possible"
You might have spotted earlier that I pointed out that an Omnimax god is
logically impossible anyway, because of examples like the one you mentioned.
However even if you make god as "Omnimax as logically possible" it still by
definition must understand how we suffer because that knowledge is not
logically impossible for an "Omnimax as logically po ...[text shortened]... and sex.
Anyhow, none of this is actually important for dealing with the argument in the OP.
if we remove the unstoppable force vs immovable object paradox, we still can have an omnimax god, we simply exclude logical contradictions from his "powers". why then is it such a stretch for we to exclude him knowing pain since he never had nerve endings, ever, to experience pain with?
"Who says we DO have free will. I would say that free will doesn't and cannot exist."
i do. but yes, that is another discussion.
"Being able to 'RELATE' to humans is irrelevant"
i believe it is relevant actually. know how you sometimes tell a kid to "walk it off" if he stubs his toe on a chair and acts as if he was stabbed multiple times? god may simply tell us to walk cancer off, we have an eternity of bliss awaiting us, why are we complaining about non-infinite things?
"the gap between us and it is not equivalent to that
between us an a microbe"
i believe this argument leads to a greater difficulty of communication, not less.
"Because we are thinking sentient beings. You literally cannot talk to a microbe because they can't think"
how can you tell? obviously they can't think like we do, but how can you tell they have no sentience at all?
in the game Alpha centauri, the whole planet is a living organism, with a singular consciousness, entire fungal forests acting as neural networks. how would you recognize such a consciousness unless you stop viewing everything from a human's perspective.
you might have sentient stars. sentient beings made of radiation. microscopic civilizations. AI. sentient crystals. if such beings existed, obviously they would find some of our notions hard to understand.
"A better example might be us trying to talk to dolphins,
who probably mostly talk about fish and sex."
it is not a better example to the point i am trying to make. yes, it is more feasible to try and communicate with a dolphin, because they are also mammals, and most of our notions would probably have equivalents in dolphin society.
this is what i am talking about. if you dismiss the possibility of relating with anyone outside your group, you miss out on different perspectives.
"Anyhow, none of this is actually important for dealing with the argument in the OP"
agreed. but it is more fun than a (in my opinion) long winded argument about a particular definition of god is impossible.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Omnimax as logically possible"
if we remove the unstoppable force vs immovable object paradox, we still can have an omnimax god, we simply exclude logical contradictions from his "powers". why then is it such a stretch for we to exclude him knowing pain since he never had nerve endings, ever, to experience pain with?
"Who says we DO have free will. ...[text shortened]... than a (in my opinion) long winded argument about a particular definition of god is impossible.
i believe it is relevant actually. know how you sometimes tell a kid to "walk it off" if he stubs his toe on a chair and acts as if he was stabbed multiple times? god may simply tell us to walk cancer off, we have an eternity of bliss awaiting us, why are we complaining about non-infinite things?
The god you are describing is epically fracking stupid.
You don't have to be able to experience cancer to be able to intellectually understand that for a human
cancer is horrible and often fatal.
You have this bizarre notion that you have to personally experience something to be able to know
anything about it.
if we remove the unstoppable force vs immovable object paradox, we still can have an omnimax god, we simply exclude logical contradictions from his "powers". why then is it such a stretch for we to exclude him knowing pain since he never had nerve endings, ever, to experience pain with?
Omniscient means "Knows EVERYTHING".
Even if you make it Omniscient as logically possible it still means "Knows everything it is logically possible
to know".
It is not logically impossible for an Omniscient being to know about human suffering and even to know what
human suffering is like and thus, by definition, an Omniscient being WILL know about human suffering AND what
it is like to be a human.
THAT is the being this argument is directed against.
It does not apply to beings that don't meet these requirements.
Originally posted by JS357I have not read the whole thread but even as an atheist, I find the step from 8 to 9 logically rather shaky. I don't think you can logically say that
The inductive step seems to be from 7's
"no rightmaking characteristics that we are aware of"
which is part of 8
to 9's
"there are no rightmaking characteristics—including ones that we are not aware of"
IOW it seems to assume that because there are no RC's that we are aware of (or can conceive of) we can justifiably induce that there are no RC's.
Do I have it?
because there are no RC's that we are aware of (or can conceive of) we can justifiably induce that there are no RC's.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by googlefudge"the god you are describing is epically fracking stupid."i believe it is relevant actually. know how you sometimes tell a kid to "walk it off" if he stubs his toe on a chair and acts as if he was stabbed multiple times? god may simply tell us to walk cancer off, we have an eternity of bliss awaiting us, why are we complaining about non-infinite things?
The god you are describing is epically f ...[text shortened]... s argument is directed against.
It does not apply to beings that don't meet these requirements.
civility is gone, huh?
"You don't have to be able to experience cancer to be able to intellectually understand that for a human
cancer is horrible and often fatal."
so? from god's point of view, that human gets an eternity after. why should god register that event? do you register all the micrometers your hair has grown in the last second?
"You have this bizarre notion that you have to personally experience something to be able to know anything about it. "
wrong, that is not what i am really saying. you have to be similar to something in order to empathize with that something. you empathize with a cancer patient because you to might get it at some point, or have had a relative that got it, or simply because you both have pain receptors and have the same understanding of pain, even if you might never have had identical experiences.
you empathize with a mammal that is hurt. yet you draw the line at plants. nobody ever considers trees suffer. nobody can describe how trees feel when one of their branches are cut down. does a tree feel fear when winter comes and all his leafs are falling? does a tree dream? what does a bacteria feel when it divides itself?
as you are reading this, do you scoff at the notion of bacteria feeling anything? if yes, and considering the fact that someone already agreed the gap between humans and god might be infinitely larger than the gap between us and bacteria, why shouldn't god scoff at your notion of suffering? if you consider the scale at which he experiences time, (if he does at all), would it be so preposterous to consider god would dismiss your brief moment of anguish?
do you care about a nanosecond of pain?
"It is not logically impossible for an Omniscient being to know about human suffering "
you mean omniscient human like being? yes, i totally agree. omniscience has nothing to do with being able to empathize with humans. if a human becomes omniscient and omnipotent, he should still understand human suffering.
if a tree becomes omniscient and omnipotent, would it find morally repugnant to confine every human on a square meter without any possibility of movement?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by PenguinIt's a question of probability.
I have not read the whole thread but even as an atheist, I find the step from 8 to 9 logically rather shaky. I don't think you can logically say that
because there are no RC's that we are aware of (or can conceive of) we can justifiably induce that there are no RC's.
--- Penguin
Out of all the vast number of bad things that happen, and have happened...
There is not one single one of them that had no RC's that justified it?
The probability that NONE of the bad events have insufficient RC's is
tiny.
Obviously it's still a probabilistic assessment, but that doesn't make it shaky.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ZahlanziOk, lets take this slowly 1 point at a time because I'm finding it hard to know where to start with
"the god you are describing is epically fracking stupid."
civility is gone, huh?
"You don't have to be able to experience cancer to be able to intellectually understand that for a human
cancer is horrible and often fatal."
so? from god's point of view, that human gets an eternity after. why should god register that event? do you register all the ...[text shortened]... morally repugnant to confine every human on a square meter without any possibility of movement?
all the wrongness in your post.
Lets start with this.
To FEEL anything REQUIRES a mind.
Plants, bacteria... Don't have minds. Period.
This is not something beyond our ability to know.
The Gap between our minds and this hypothetical god might be infinite, [whether or not
the concept of an infinite mind makes any sense is a separate issue] But it is of a
different quality as the gap between us and microbes, or plants.
Because it's a gap between scales of minds, not a difference of having a mind and NOT having
a mind.
So can we please stop with the analogies pretending that the gap between us and god
is like the gap between us and microbes.
The analogy just doesn't work. And if nothing else I am not going to accept it on the above
grounds.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"the god you are describing is epically fracking stupid."
civility is gone, huh?
"You don't have to be able to experience cancer to be able to intellectually understand that for a human
cancer is horrible and often fatal."
so? from god's point of view, that human gets an eternity after. why should god register that event? do you register all the ...[text shortened]... morally repugnant to confine every human on a square meter without any possibility of movement?
if a tree becomes omniscient and omnipotent, would it find morally repugnant to confine every human on a square meter without any possibility of movement?
So an omniscient being is unable to relate to the needs of beings who have different needs and abilities to itself? You are saying that we as humans, even if we were omniscient, would be unable to feel sympathy for an eagle with clipped wings or to feel that it morally questionable to deprive such a bird of its freedom to fly.
Omniscience implies more knowledge than we currently have, not less!
--- Penguin
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, fair enough. But I think that is the step that many religious people would reject, and all the later steps that rely on it should, for consistency, include the phrase 'it is highly likely that..."
It's a question of probability.
Out of all the vast number of bad things that happen, and have happened...
There is not one single one of them that had no RC's that justified it?
The probability that NONE of the bad events have insufficient RC's is
tiny.
Obviously it's still a probabilistic assessment, but that doesn't make it shaky.
--- Penguin
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinHmmm, But all Premises for arguments about reality are probabilistic.
Well, fair enough. But I think that is the step that many religious people would reject, and all the later steps that rely on it should, for consistency, include the phrase 'it is highly likely that..."
--- Penguin
Once you take the step to 9, 9 becomes a premise for the remainder of the argument.
All the other steps are deductive, and I think that linguistically they should indicate that
with the language of logical certainty.
Otherwise you would have to make all steps in all logical arguments about reality
probabilistic.
EDIT: And yes I am sure that theists would reject this step... if any of them managed
to get that far in the argument... Or read it in order... Or at all.
Originally posted by googlefudge"To FEEL anything REQUIRES a mind."
Ok, lets take this slowly 1 point at a time because I'm finding it hard to know where to start with
all the wrongness in your post.
Lets start with this.
To FEEL anything REQUIRES a mind.
Plants, bacteria... Don't have minds. Period.
This is not something beyond our ability to know.
The Gap between our minds and this hypothetical god mig ...[text shortened]... alogy just doesn't work. And if nothing else I am not going to accept it on the above
grounds.
it requires a way to process input. not a mind. what you are saying is simply restricted to feeling like humans do. i am assuming that by mind you actually mean a nervous system. mind is something else. o course that if a microbe feels pain, it won't be the same pain we are feeling. a tree may start to "feel" "pain" if it doesn't get enough light.
you just said you don't believe in free will. so if we are all organic automatons, why is our "suffering" any different that what a tree experiences if he doesn't get sunlight?
"This is not something beyond our ability to know."
it is something beyond your ability to know if you assume consciousness can only be achieved by bipedal carbon based beings like ourselves. or whatever restrictions you would like to place.
"So can we please stop with the analogies pretending that the gap between us and god is like the gap between us and microbes."
never said anything like that.
"The analogy just doesn't work."
says who? you? why? because you refuse to allow for the possibility that a bacteria may feel something?
Originally posted by Penguini covered this before, no more than 10 posts before. omniscience or omnipotence in themselves do not prevent god from empathy towards humans.if a tree becomes omniscient and omnipotent, would it find morally repugnant to confine every human on a square meter without any possibility of movement?
So an omniscient being is unable to relate to the needs of beings who have different needs and abilities to itself? You are saying that we as humans, even if we were omniscient, would be ...[text shortened]... .
Omniscience implies [b]more knowledge than we currently have, not less!
--- Penguin[/b]
god being alien to us (not bound by time, eternal, not consisting of matter, or whatever other characteristics you assign to him) is what precludes him from being empathetic. we have a prime example of googlefudge dismissing categorically that microbes can feel anything, that there can be sentient microbes, or sentient trees. or sentient planets. simply because they are not like us.
you are right, and i mentioned it before, if a human achieves omniscience and omnipotence, he shouldn't have his empathy towards the rest of us changed. i still claim however that in time, he would drift further and further away, and in 1 million years in the future it would be hard to feel the same way towards our descendants. after a billion years even less. googlefudge feels no empathy towards bacteria, even though he is descendant from them
god was never human to begin with. i claim he should have less empathy that this hypothetical human turned "god"
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell that is not the god described in the Bible, Koran, or any other holy book or described by any theist who worships their deity. It's more like Spinoza's god or some sort of aloof 'cosmic consciousness'.
i covered this before, no more than 10 posts before. omniscience or omnipotence in themselves do not prevent god from empathy towards humans.
god being alien to us (not bound by time, eternal, not consisting of matter, or whatever other characteristics you assign to him) is what precludes him from being empathetic. we have a prime example of googlefudge ...[text shortened]... man to begin with. i claim he should have less empathy that this hypothetical human turned "god"
I also don't think such a god could really be called 'omniscient' and certainly not 'moral'. By that, I don't mean immoral, more amoral.
[edit]I apologise for jumping in mid-thread, I have only read the first page and last and probably missed the post where you elaborated on this.[/edit]
--- Penguin