The Best of All Possible Worlds

Originally posted by twhitehead
Many people would argue that freedom is better than slavery even if the actual living conditions are significantly worse when free, or life is considerably shorter.
Some people use a similar argument to claim that free will with the attendant likelihood of bad choices is better than forced good choices.
In other words some bad decisions are a necessary ...[text shortened]... e if they knew which choice was best? So God must keep us ignorant to preserve our free will.

However, I am yet to hear anyone give a good reason why anyone would, with full knowledge of the consequences actually choose to go to hell. Makes one wonder if free will is also about ignorance of choice.

I didn’t mean to disregard this point, which I think is a valid one. It just triggered what I remembered telerion pointing out about constrained choice-sets, and the fact that we are already constrained by existential conditions—if such existing constraints do not violate our free-will (however one understands that), then an existential choice-set that did not include acts (or even the desire to commit acts) of moral evil would also not violate our free-will.

Originally posted by vistesd

I didn’t mean to disregard this point, which I think is a valid one. It just triggered what I remembered telerion pointing out about constrained choice-sets, and the fact that we are already constrained by existential conditions—if such existing constraints do not violate our free-will (however one understands that), then an existential choice-set that di ...[text shortened]... ude acts (or even the desire to commit acts) of moral evil would also not violate our free-will.

This is very Kantian in terms of practical reason. (He reconciles empirical determinism with free will via mental architecture).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
COUNTER EDIT: Not necessarily, but suffering needs to be redressed where it starts. Child slavery is symptomatic of a more deep-rooted malaise. A surgical intervention is unlikely to cure it.

If what you are saying is that simply banning child slavery will result in the children in question starving to death then I fully agree. But I think the argument of the thread is that God in his omniscient omnipotence can find a better solution (and so can we.)
I have seen documentaries about child slavery which do seem to miss the point that the real problem is the lack of better options for the child (or the childs parents) and try to put all the blame on the employers. Also, boycotting companies that employ child labour does not always benefit the children in question.
My own personal solution:
1. Stop farm subsidies in the rich countries.
2. Put a lot more into education world-wide with a lot more focus on skills education rather than the current focus on academic education only.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If what you are saying is that simply banning child slavery will result in the children in question starving to death then I fully agree. But I think the argument of the thread is that God in his omniscient omnipotence can find a better solution (and so can we.)

Yes, the O-O-O God is actually a massive cop-out: if God has decreed it, we've got carte blanche to go on exploiting each other to the hilt. (I like the idea of a God who needs help from creation; a somewhat bumbling, at times incompetent God.)

My personal solution is a level playing field. That would involve changing a few parameters here and there (not least the notion that exploiting the bodies of others is some kind of God-given right).

Max Weber's book on Protestantism and the rise of capitalism is a very interesting read.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is very Kantian in terms of practical reason. (He reconciles empirical determinism with free will via mental architecture).

Well, I think telerion comes from the viewpoint of being an economist who understands constrained choice. My graduate degree (M.A.) was in economics, but that was 25 years ago and I didn’t practice in the field proper when I got out of school, so I forget almost all of it (a particular talent of mine: forgetting quickly whatever I do not use on a regular basis).

One of these days I’m going to have to delve more deeply into Kant... Bbarr has used the term "architecture" for what I mean by "grammar."

Originally posted by vistesd

One of these days I’m going to have to delve more deeply into Kant... Bbarr has used the term "architecture" for what I mean by "grammar."

I'm finding his work to have a weird austere beauty of its own. At the same time, I've fallen out of love with Nietszche.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am not joking, but I offer the inference as a challenge to theists who assert that God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-good being who created the world. I am not such a theist. If you are (and I don’t know if you are), then which premise, of 1-5, do you dispute and why?

I agree that this inference could be used to justify slavery or the Inquisit ...[text shortened]... how any theist who insists on the O-O-O God can get out of that. Again, I am not such a theist.

oh yeah sorry.

i am a theist and i don't think that 1-5 are absolutely correct.

1 is tricky. how does god being omniscient affect my free will? well if there is only one possible timeline then god cannot possibly be omniscient and we retain free will. so there is either one possible timeline and god is not omniscient and we make our future one second at a time or god is omniscient, there are an infinite number of timelines branching from the big bang and in each moment we split ourselves among the possible timelines(this debate was made in another thread)


well the omnipotence issue is obviously not true. can god make a stone so heavy only god can lift?


3 is true(we don't know of other worlds but let's just admit this to be true). god did create the best world(for us anyway). the fundamental forces are just right for atoms to exist, gravity to be as it is etc. the planet earth was excelent at it's beginning. we messed it up


i also am saying that any wrong in this world is humanity's fault. and those that claim it's god's fault because the world is so evil are unwilling to take responsibility(weak character). it is much easier to say things are as they are because it's god's will. i say that god made the stage for us but we actors improvise the play in every moment. our responsibility. our merit if it goes well, our fault if it goes bad

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you agree with me that we would only choose to go to hell if either:
1. We are stupid.
2. We are ignorant of the consequences.

well pretty obvious isn't it? why would a person choose eternal suffering?
we choose to have fun, we choose what is best for us in the short run, we choose what is best for us no matter how the rest are affected etc.
hell is not so much as a choice but as a consequence.
like cancer is for smokers.

unless they're satan worshipers

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well pretty obvious isn't it? why would a person choose eternal suffering?
we choose to have fun, we choose what is best for us in the short run, we choose what is best for us no matter how the rest are affected etc.
hell is not so much as a choice but as a consequence.
like cancer is for smokers.

unless they're satan worshipers

So can we say that God must have had a good reason for making us either ignorant or stupid? Do you know what that reason is?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So can we say that God must have had a good reason for making us either ignorant or stupid? Do you know what that reason is?

simple. god decided that free will is more important than to make us mindless drones capable of only a finite amount of actions. being ignorant, stupid, evil are side-effects of chance(being dealt good genes, good environment, etc) and having free will(ability to choose what to do with the hand dealt to you)

i would rather have free will than to only do what is right. i proud myself i knowing that even though i could have killed the old lady i saw this morning and take her pension, i decided not to.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i would rather have free will than to only do what is right. i proud myself i knowing that even though i could have killed the old lady i saw this morning and take her pension, i decided not to.

But you did not exercise free will. You showed yourself to be neither ignorant nor stupid when you decided not to kill the old lady. You are a mindless drone.

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) An omniscient god would know what is the best of all possible worlds.

(2) An omnipotent God can create the best of all possible worlds.

(3) An omni-good God will create the best of all possible worlds.

(4) God is O-O-O.

(5) God is the creator of the world.

(6) Therefore, this is the best of all possible worlds.

____________________ ...[text shortened]... ader “omni-good”. If somebody wants to argue that God’s omni-goodness entails malevolence, fine.

How can one debate with a 3-o God?

Human reasoning is fundamentally flawed, since we are without omniscience.

Originally posted by josephw
How can one debate with a 3-o God?

Is anybody trying to?

Human reasoning is fundamentally flawed, since we are without omniscience.
Are you implying that we should just give up and not attempt to reason at all? Or are you simply out of things to contribute to the discussion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you did not exercise free will. You showed yourself to be neither ignorant nor stupid when you decided not to kill the old lady. You are a mindless drone.

please rephrase. i don't get what you mean. why isn't me not killing the old lady an act of free will? why am i a mindless drone?

edit. oh perhaps you said that i am a mindless drone because i chose the moral high ground? because i don't agree. i simply decided the benefits of killing the old lady are not worth the risks and the pain i would cause another human being. but i did considered the possibilities and chose between them. in my view a mindless drone would not have options to consider let alone choose from, they would only be able to choose one or maybe be limited to a smaller amount of options.

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) An omniscient god would know what is the best of all possible worlds.

(2) An omnipotent God can create the best of all possible worlds.

(3) An omni-good God will create the best of all possible worlds.

(4) God is O-O-O.

(5) God is the creator of the world.

(6) Therefore, this is the best of all possible worlds.

____________________ ...[text shortened]... ader “omni-good”. If somebody wants to argue that God’s omni-goodness entails malevolence, fine.

I dispute 3 and 5, and consequently 6 is wrong.

3) Being an omni-good god is not a sufficient condition for world creation.

as such

5) God may not have created the world. It could have been me, despite being told by god I was doing it wrong.