22 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJello
free will is a process by which the agent may sufficiently endorse the underlying maxim of an action (or of the attempted undertaking of such action); free will has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of any undertaken action.
The risk of (logically unnecessary) suffering is logically necessary.
how is this going to get you anywhe ...[text shortened]... ecessary suffering are compatible. so god can have his cake and eat it too! why doesn't he? [/b]
free will is a process by which the agent may sufficiently endorse the underlying maxim of an action (or of the attempted undertaking of such action); free will has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of any undertaken action.
What you are forgetting, is that in a world without suffering, there are no choices left to the individual, because for each choice A, there cannot be a choice B where the result would be better than A. Therefore, there cannot be any choice in a world without suffering.
You are forgetting as well that a world without suffering would also imply that all individuals must have perfect knowledge of the result of their actions to prevent such suffering.
Risk is the essence of free-will and risk must imply suffering.
even if true, this doesn't matter; free will and an absence of logically unnecessary suffering are compatible. so god can have his cake and eat it too! why doesn't he?
How are they compatible? I disagree. Suffering is relative, so in a world without suffering:
- for every action A, there cannot be an action B which is better than A;
- There cannot be any risk of not choosing A (individuals must know perfectly the outcome of their results - perfect information);
- All individuals must be rational (between two options, the best is always chosen since there is perfect information)
Therefore, in a suffering world without suffering, for every action A taken, there was a 0% possibility of A not being taken (before A). Where's the free-will if every A must necessarily be chosen?
22 Jul 05
Originally posted by Palynka- for every action A, there cannot be an action B which is better than A;
[b]free will is a process by which the agent may sufficiently endorse the underlying maxim of an action (or of the attempted undertaking of such action); free will has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of any undertaken action.
What you are forgetting, is that in a world without suffering, there are no choices left to the individual, because f ...[text shortened]... of A not being taken (before A). Where's the free-will if every A must necessarily be chosen? [/b]
- There cannot be any risk of not choosing A (individuals must know perfectly the outcome of their results - perfect information);
- All individuals must be rational (between two options, the best is always chosen since there is perfect information)
As an economist, which do you choose? If information is perfect (a standard assumption of competitive market theory), and agents choose rationally among known preferences, then A (the preferred choice) is always chosen. If information is less than perfect (and costly), even perfectly rational agents may choose imperfectly (given information costs at the margin). Just curious.
22 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeewould you love your wife if she had some gangsters kill your kids because you didn't worship her?
You miss the point.
The husband CANNOT do what he likes because the Wife is Physically preventing him. Thus he is coerced against his will. Therefore he does not have free will.
If the husband choses not to do something for fear of hurting her feelings, then he still has made a choice, and hence has free will.
This is why my example uses the former, not the latter explanation.
22 Jul 05
I would just like to say this. In March I went back to the Church for the first time in 17 years because I thought it would be better than before. I was very wrong. All I did was speak up about a certain issue that was bothering me a lot ie this person picking on me every single Sunday that I went to Church and their basic attitude was that I can either like it or lump it, because she is a full and valued member of the Church and I am the one who has to change my attitude not her. Then I went to their Market morning on Thursday and I got abused just because I wanted two lots of morning tea which I might add I was prepared to pay for, and as far as I'm concerned Church is not all it's cracked up to be. It's still full of power games and I haven't got time to try to work out what they are. And I believe in God but don't believe that I have to go to Church to show it and won't. Also I don't agree with my minister saying all the time that we are all sinners. We are human beings and God loves us all and He knows that a lot of us try our best in life, and life is hard enough without the minister giving us all labels of being sinners. I find that particular Church very judgemental. Thanks for reading.
22 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdSome points:
[b]- for every action A, there cannot be an action B which is better than A;
- There cannot be any risk of not choosing A (individuals must know perfectly the outcome of their results - perfect information);
- All individuals must be rational (between two options, the best is always chosen since there is perfect information)
As an economist, whic ...[text shortened]... ional agents may choose imperfectly (given information costs at the margin). Just curious.
[/b]
Agents deal with expectations. Additional information can help reduce the variability of the results, but it does not provide for the absence of risk/suffering.
E(A) > E(B) does not necessarily mean that ex-post A > B.
Also, agents can choose rationally B over A if the variability of B is high enough (e.g. national lotteries). Agents can also choose rationally B if A presents a high risk (risk is, in general, seen as a minus).
Perfect information is an assumption that serves only theoretical purposes. Better models assume that information costs money and therefore agents will prefer some risk over (expensive) certainty.
My point is that in a world without suffering, agents cannot choose imperfectly, in fact, they cannot choose, since any B would contradict the premise of the suffering-less world.
22 Jul 05
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd the agent will only pay for information up to the margin, where the cost of additional information is balanced by the potential cost (suffering) of making a wrong decision.
Some points:
Agents deal with expectations. Additional information can help reduce the variability of the results, but it does not provide for the absence of risk/suffering.
E(A) > E(B) does not necessarily mean that ex-post A > B.
Also, agents can choose rationally B over A if the variability of B is high enough (e.g. national lotteries). A ...[text shortened]... t, they cannot choose, since any B would contradict the premise of the suffering-less world.
Nice application of micro-economic theory to a philosophical problem. 🙂
22 Jul 05
3 edits
Originally posted by Palynkaman are you ever confused about a great many things. i would like to go through this slowly so that i can keep my thoughts organized:
in order to get around the GAFE's conclusion, you need to either: 1.) demonstrate that all suffering is logically necessary for the greater good OR 2.) argue on behalf of a callous god.
from what i can tell, your method is to deny the GAFE through option 1.) above by claiming the following: you claim free will necessarily implies suffering; despite this, the god defined by the GAFE still morally prefers free will; thus the suffering in the world is logically necessary and is the result of man's free will.
FIRST, your claim that free will necessarily implies suffering is false. as i explained before, freedom of the will is independent of the outcome of undertaken actions. if suffering is the product of the outcome of the actions, then it follows that suffering is independent of the freedom of the will (free will and a world devoid of suffering are compatible regardless of the intentions of men, especially if you have an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect god at the helm). your economically inclined example of rational beings with perfect information does not demonstrate that there would be no free will in such a world; if anything, it only demonstrates that such men would invariably employ their free will to choose the good action. in fact, the god described in the GAFE could have produced men with dispositions such that free will and an absence of suffering are compatible even without his continual intervention. if you think this is an extreme objection, you should know that your arguments fall apart under even much, much weaker objections. for example, i don't think you realize how strong the claim that all suffering in the world is logically necessary really is. in short, you are saying that the greater good that exists now could not possibly have come about by any sequence of events possessing less suffering than that which has occurred. however, if you consider even one event of suffering (perhaps a rape, or a murder), if god had simply assigned the transgressor a slightly more benevolent character such that the transgressor would have used his own free will in that particular instance to abstain from committing the crime, then such suffering is avoided, and i fail to see how the same greater good is not achieved. indeed, god need not assign perfectly benevolent characters (or perfect information) to man -- he could simply have made some or all men somewhat more benevolent in character, and less suffering would result from man's free will. in other words, not only do you need to demonstrate that free will necessarily implies suffering (which it doesn't anyhow), but you also need to show that in order to produce the same greater good, man's free will could not possibly result in any less suffering than that which has happened/exists. good luck with all that 'cause you're going to need it.
SECOND, to my knowledge, you have not even demonstrated that free will is necessary for obtaining the greater good. of course, you must do so if you are to be convincing in your claim that god morally prefers free will over suffering. why is free will a necessary good? what other 'goods' are logically impossible without free will? why would the god of the GAFE morally prefer free will even in light of the suffering? (these questions are all also irrelevant if you cannot demonstrate that free will necessitates suffering, which i don't think you have).
THIRD, if you continue to assert that free will necessarily implies logically necessary suffering, you are going to run into some pesky contradictions. i say this because your notion of free will seems of the libertarian sort (if you were a compatibilist, i don't think you would be arguing that free will necessitates suffering). the crux of your problem is this: if you claim that suffering necessarily follows from free will and that such suffering (suffering which you claim is logically necessary for the greater good and thus it is morally preferrable to god that it occur) is the result of man's choosing the evil action, then it follows that in at least certain instances, man cannot help but commit the evil action (god would not allow otherwise since the suffering is logically necessary and morally preferrable). this would imply that in these instances, the will is not free, and thus your own claim is contradictory.
in short, your appeals to free will are anything but convincing in your attempts to get around the GAFE.
23 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloFIRST. All your rationale comes from this
man are you ever confused about a great many things. i would like to go through this slowly so that i can keep my thoughts organized:
in order to get around the GAFE's conclusion, you need to either: 1.) demonstrate that all sufferi ...[text shortened]... ything but convincing in your attempts to get around the GAFE.
as i explained before, freedom of the will is independent of the outcome of undertaken actions.
You make no credible defense for this statement, whereas I've made an exposition to prove otherwise. I see no rebutal of my case in your points, aside from statements of truisms like the one above.
Other points in first
for example, i don't think you realize how strong the claim that all suffering in the world is logically necessary really is. in short, you are saying that the greater good that exists now could not possibly have come about by any sequence of events possessing less suffering than that which has occurred.
Three things:
- I've never said that all suffering in the world is logically necessary, that is a cheap trick to go back to your dogmatic two choices and I resent it.
- You forget that there are two values in my view. Free-will and the RISK of suffering and there is a trade-off between the two, the perfect balance would imply the existence of the RISK of suffering, being up to the free-will of man to determine to what extent that suffering would be.
- Look at the statement in bold. Look at how similar the situation you describe is with my description of a suffering-less world. If you agree with that statement, I don't see how you it's possible for you not to agree with my explanation on why the absence of suffering implies the absence of free-will. What you said there is contrary to the concept of free will!
SECOND Like I said, my point is that the greater good is not the absence of suffering as free will is a value, so the greater good implies the RISK of suffering.
why is free will a necessary good?
Do you claim otherwise?
THIRD
man cannot help but commit the evil action (god would not allow otherwise since the suffering is logically necessary and morally preferrable).
Are you saying that Man has free-will to do Evil, but if he chooses Evil he had no free-will?
FINALLY I've done nothing to warrant your petty condescending remarks, it just shows you're running out of arguments. This is also obviously patent in the fact that you decided to repost your arguments and avoided by previous demonstration completely with a "I don't think that proves anything.
23 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAll your rationale comes from this as i explained before, freedom of the will is independent of the outcome of undertaken actions.
FIRST. All your rationale comes from this
as i explained before, freedom of the will is independent of the outcome of undertaken actions.
You make no credible defense for this statement, whereas I've made an exposition to prove ot ...[text shortened]... pletely with a "I don't think that proves anything.
no. this is not the totality of the rationale. even if you can show that free will necessitates suffering, to get around the GAFE you must further show that the existence of free will could not possibly have produced any less suffering than that which has happened/exists while still producing the same amount of greater good. like i said, good luck with that.
You make no credible defense for this statement
under compatibilism, the statement holds by definition. regardless of the view of free will, the statement holds since free will is a process of endorsement by the agent, as i have described previously.
I've never said that all suffering in the world is logically necessary, that is a cheap trick to go back to your dogmatic two choices and I resent it.
i don't care if you resent the 'two choice' claim i keep making or not. the fact of the matter is that this free will bit is not going to get you around the GAFE unless you demonstrate that all the suffering in the world is logically necessary. i haven't even yet touched on the fact that there are other sources of suffering which can be viewed as logically unncessary which have nothing to do with free will (plagues, floods, earthquakes, etc., etc.). if your claims about free will don't imply that all suffering in the world is logically necessary, then you are simply not going to get around the GAFE (i take it that you are not interested in discussing a callous god).
Like I said, my point is that the greater good is not the absence of suffering as free will is a value, so the greater good implies the RISK of suffering.
and like i said, you have not demonstrated that free will necessitates suffering (let alone as much suffering as is present in the world); further, the risk of suffering and the existence of suffering are different concepts, and the risk of suffering need not imply the existence of suffering. so how is this going to get you around the GAFE?
why is free will a necessary good? Do you claim otherwise?
what if i did claim otherwise? you claimed that god morally prefers free will to the absence of suffering. why would that be? surely you have a reason for making such a claim.
Are you saying that Man has free-will to do Evil, but if he chooses Evil he had no free-will?
no. i am saying that your claim that free will necessarily implies logically necessary suffering is false because it leads to contradictions.
23 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf you holds your views by definition, then no argument is possible.
[b]All your rationale comes from this as i explained before, freedom of the will is independent of the outcome of undertaken actions.
no. this is not the totality of the rationale. even if you can show that free will necessitates suffering, to get around the GAFE you must further show that the existence of free will could not possibly have ...[text shortened]... l necessarily implies logically necessary suffering is false because it leads to contradictions.[/b]
You just keep parroting the same things and avoid my arguments completely. You also keep mis-stating them, which only shows how you are not interested in rationally attacking my points.
Have a nice day.
23 Jul 05
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you holds your views by definition, then no argument is possible.
If you holds your views by definition, then no argument is possible.
You just keep parroting the same things and avoid my arguments completely. You also keep mis-stating them, which only shows how you are not interested in rationally attacking my points.
Have a nice day.
clearly you are reading only what you want to. did i write the sentence that follows the sentence to which you refer in invisible ink or something?
You just keep parroting the same things and avoid my arguments completely.
i am not avoiding your arguments. i am saying that i don't think your appeal to free will is going to solve the GAFE as you claim it will, and i am saying why i think this way. if your argument is sound, then address my criticisms and demonstrate it.
23 Jul 05
Originally posted by MaryRoseFind another church. We went to the Assembly of God in Ill, but
I would just like to say this. In March I went back to the Church for the first time in 17 years because I thought it would be better than before. I was very wrong. All I did was speak up about a certain issue that was bothering me a lot ie this person picking on me every single Sunday that I went to Church and their basic attitude was that I can either lik ...[text shortened]... all labels of being sinners. I find that particular Church very judgemental. Thanks for reading.
didn't like the ones that are where we are now. So we are attending
another, and feel like we have an extended family, it is very nice.
Kelly
23 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm not sure what GAFE is, I have not followed any discussion where
i don't have any idea what you are trying to convey. the GAFE is a valid argument in that its conclusion follows logically from the premises.
if one can show that it is a sound argument in that (additionally) its premises are also true, then the conclusion is true and we can be sure no such god exists.
more realistically, the GAFE can be shown to ...[text shortened]... hing off that should be allowed through into this universe.
not sure what you are saying.[/b]
that was a center piece of it.
As far as that not knowing what should be allowed through goes...
God created the universe, he allowed into it what we see, so he is
doing something in this universe now for His reasons.
What we would allow in or out is due to our logic, but as you pointed
out God would have a different set of variables we may not see.
Let me ask you something, would you simply have rejected evil
outright at the beginning of the universe? Would you have allowed
the choices to be made for evil, but punish those that made them?
How would you have done it?
Kelly
23 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me ask you something, would you simply have rejected evil
I'm not sure what GAFE is, I have not followed any discussion where
that was a center piece of it.
As far as that not knowing what should be allowed through goes...
God created the universe, he allowed into it what we see, so he is
doing something in this universe now for His reasons.
What we would allow in or out is due to our logic, but as you ...[text shortened]... hoices to be made for evil, but punish those that made them?
How would you have done it?
Kelly
outright at the beginning of the universe? Would you have allowed
the choices to be made for evil, but punish those that made them?
How would you have done it?
Kelly
goodness, KJ, you're asking me how i would run the universe if i were god? i think i would whip up a perfect azure sky above endlessly stretching sands of white. then i'd throw in some rolling whitecaps over crystal clear waters and just surf crazy hard until i got bored. then i'd create a curvaceous, dreamy goddess so that we could keep each other from getting bored. i am not sure if i would create any mortal minions or animals at all -- what would be the point?
things i wouldn't do if i were god: create a bunch of mortal minions and demand that they worship me for the express purpose of caressing my enormous ego; punish such minions unfairly under ill-conceived notions of moral responsibility; sentence a portion of the minions to eternal torture for no apparent reason other than to satisfy my megalomaniacal lusting; allow some or all of the minions to suffer needlessly.
actually, this is a good exercise. when you try to think about what you would do if you were god, then it starts becoming clear just how silly the idea of god may well be -- and how arbitrary god's devices may well be.
23 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloevil
[b]Let me ask you something, would you simply have rejected evil
outright at the beginning of the universe? Would you have allowed
the choices to be made for evil, but punish those that made them?
How would you have done it?
Kelly
goodness, KJ, you're asking me how i would run the universe if i were god? i think i would whip up a perfect azur ...[text shortened]... ar just how silly the idea of god may well be -- and how arbitrary god's devices may well be. [/b]
what
would
you
have
done
?
Kelly