A World Where Everything is Provided For

[Ana the Ist]

In the OP's hypothetical, there is no pain or suffering. Therefore, you would not be allowed to satisfy your bloodlust on beings that could actually suffer or feel pain. Maybe philosophical zombies will be provided for your statistician?

But since this world lacks pain and suffering, you likely couldn't comprehend the concept of pain, let alone wish to inflict it. A fish isn't just unable to walk (certain exceptions notwithstanding), it has no concept of it.


Lobotomies are available upon request.

I'm afraid I don't believe in the ole' p-zombies. This particular hypothetical always becomes one of my main problems with the concept of "paradise" or "heaven". If my very nature is changed upon admission, then it isn't exactly my paradise is it? If my nature can be so easily changed, why wouldn't god change it now? If my free will is taken upon admission, what was the point in such a finite amount of free will here on earth compared to an infinity without free will?

If my nature can be changed so easily, what would be the point of passing judgement upon me? Wouldn't that be akin to making something with imperfections, then judging it according to those imperfections?

Of course, my short answer to the OP is "no" for so many of the reasons already stated here.

 

[quatona]

I don't think (or I don't intend to think) that God is completely beyond our understanding, or else you wouldn't even be able to have an intelligible discussion. You could say that God's activities are beyond our comprehension, or that part of God's nature is beyond our comprehension, and that there's a difference between saying God is completely beyond our understanding and that God is *mostly* beyond our understanding, but that doesn't mean we can't accept him as a sort of ontological hypothesis.

Well, a word isn´t a hypothesis yet.
Apparently (and to tell from the most recent threads you have created) pretty much everything about god concepts (and typically implies some sort of hypothesis) can be and is subjected to debate and change.
That´s what indeed renders large parts of these discussions unintelligible to me.
When you say "God", what´s the essentials of your concept - the part that you won´t abandon when hard pressed by logic (and still call what´s left "God")?
Maybe God isn´t omnipotent. Maybe God isn´t omniscient. Maybe God isn´t the creator of everything. Maybe God isn´t a conscious entity. Maybe God isn´t intelligent. Maybe God is natural. Maybe God isn´t uncreated. Maybe God isn´t eternal. Maybe God is just like the guy next door.
Ok, but at some point I´ll get the impression that you just want to save the word "God" at all costs - without there being any intelligible concept behind it.

Yes, if the word "God" can basically mean anything if only the word can be helped to survive I will agree: there surely exists a God - whatever that may be.

But I've got to push the QM analogy: we know that QM, basically, fits, given all sorts of complicated mathematical equations that tell us over and over that it does. But we don't know how it works, the "reason" for it being the way it is. Like God. We don't know how He works, but we can make a statement about his fittedness theoretically, because *some* parts of his existence make sense whereas others (most?) don't, such as how he justifies evil. Something like that.

I feel a little handicapped. An analogy taken from a realm that I absolutely know nothing about is not helpful to me.
Anyway:
1. What are those equations that tell us over and over that God "fits"? What are the questions that "God" is an explanatory answer to?
2. Is the word "quantum mechanics" equally undefined as the word "God"? Is the concept also lacking any essence - in that the word´s meaning can be shifted at will without any limitations? Are scientists really so eager to keep quantum mechanics as unfalsifiable as theists are eager to keep their god concepts unfalsifiable?

I guess what I would like to know first (before considering "God" a workable hypothesis): What does this hypothesis actually say - when put in a complete sentence? IOW: I demand a definition, and I demand falsifiability.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm afraid I don't believe in the ole' p-zombies. This particular hypothetical always becomes one of my main problems with the concept of "paradise" or "heaven". If my very nature is changed upon admission, then it isn't exactly my paradise is it? If my nature can be so easily changed, why wouldn't god change it now?

The philosophical zombie would be created for your bloodlust. You would go about inflicting pain and suffering to your heart's content - or so you think. The people you'd 'hurt' wouldn't be concious entities at all. Thus, your bloodlust is satisfied.

If my free will is taken upon admission, what was the point in such a finite amount of free will here on earth compared to an infinity without free will?

To see how you'd cope with free will.

When I walk my dog, I sometimes let him off his leash just to see what he'd do. The intention isn't to leave him off indefinitely; rather, I'm testing his current level of obedience.

If my nature can be changed so easily, what would be the point of passing judgement upon me? Wouldn't that be akin to making something with imperfections, then judging it according to those imperfections?

Who's talking about judgement

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think (or I don't intend to think) that God is completely beyond our understanding, or else you wouldn't even be able to have an intelligible discussion. You could say that God's activities are beyond our comprehension, or that part of God's nature is beyond our comprehension, and that there's a difference between saying God is completely beyond our understanding and that God is *mostly* beyond our understanding, but that doesn't mean we can't accept him as a sort of ontological hypothesis.

But I've got to push the QM analogy: we know that QM, basically, fits, given all sorts of complicated mathematical equations that tell us over and over that it does. But we don't know how it works, the "reason" for it being the way it is. Like God. We don't know how He works, but we can make a statement about his fittedness theoretically, because *some* parts of his existence make sense whereas others (most?) don't, such as how he justifies evil. Something like that.

But there is still a bottom line that doesn't change: if God exists, he does not prevent the rape of children. Even if such a being exists, that he can, but won't, prevent such unfathomable evil precludes my worship of him.

 

[Elioenai26]

But there is still a bottom line that doesn't change: if God exists, he does not prevent the rape of children. Even if such a being exists, that he can, but won't, prevent such unfathomable evil precludes my worship of him.

How would God prevent the rape of children without overriding the will of the rapist?

I mean after all, its a man or a woman who commits the act, and the act is one that is perpetrated as a result of the determination of the perpetrator.

Also, why stop with rape? Why not come up with a way that God can prevent any act that would directly or directly lead to human suffering?

How would God go about this? Any suggestions?

Maybe God should prevent you from typing these posts of yours because they may indirectly lead to the suffering of an individual in a way that you cannot forsee that only He can?

Or maybe He should cause you to lose your job as a physicist because the research from your work will indirectly lead to the suffering of humans in a way you cannot forsee.

Why not just admit that it may not be feasible for God to do what you want Him to do?

 

[Received]

Well, a word isn´t a hypothesis yet.
Apparently (and to tell from the most recent threads you have created) pretty much everything about god concepts (and typically implies some sort of hypothesis) can be and is subjected to debate and change.
That´s what indeed renders large parts of these discussions unintelligible to me.

Everything is subjected, or has the potential to be subjected to, debate. Science, religion, God, the self, you, me, kittens. It's just that our sense of comfort (working from the belief that we have adequately defined and understood something through conceptualization -- a pretty arbitrary process that works with our emotions) doesn't lead us to question these things that are, at the end of the day, opaque to language. Everything is in a sense opaque and undefinable because of language, because of our limitations; hence our definitions are partial, and it's our preferences (based on emotion, pretty arbitrary) that really make us stand up and say, "that's not complete enough!" Which is really an arbitrarily defined line, objectively speaking: nothing is complete enough.

When you say "God", what´s the essentials of your concept - the part that you won´t abandon when hard pressed by logic (and still call what´s left "God")?
Maybe God isn´t omnipotent. Maybe God isn´t omniscient. Maybe God isn´t the creator of everything. Maybe God isn´t a conscious entity. Maybe God isn´t intelligent. Maybe God is natural. Maybe God isn´t uncreated. Maybe God isn´t eternal. Maybe God is just like the guy next door.
Ok, but at some point I´ll get the impression that you just want to save the word "God" at all costs - without there being any intelligible concept behind it.

See above. I'm not trying to be slippery, quatona, but what do you mean by "me"? (I'd be interested in a thread on defining God, but this isn't one of them.)

I feel a little handicapped. An analogy taken from a realm that I absolutely know nothing about is not helpful to me.
Anyway:
1. What are those equations that tell us over and over that God "fits"? What are the questions that "God" is an explanatory answer to?
2. Is the word "quantum mechanics" equally undefined as the word "God"? Is the concept also lacking any essence - in that the word´s meaning can be shifted at will without any limitations? Are scientists really so eager to keep quantum mechanics as unfalsifiable as theists are eager to keep their god concepts unfalsifiable?

The equations rest on our assumption that our mathematical reasoning works, so it's not about equations, but about how equations allow something to fit theoretically, like QM. The question God would be an answer to are (among other things) a "cause" to the universe. You know, an answer to Heidegger's question as to why there is Being. That's a seemingly simple problem, but really everything. Denying God's existence as a reason for the universe is essentially no different than affirming his existence. The pivot point then becomes other variables: personal experience, the possibility of something that transcends the physical (like consciousness as a problem neurologically to reduce to physical processes), God as more aesthetic. When things are totally equal, it's stuff like this that pushes in one direction or another. And, btw, the problem of evil is a question that pushes against God's existence.

Secondly, the meanings of QM can be (and are) shifted a whole lot, all of which are (by definition) attempted philosophical or theoretical solutions to how QM really works. There's even a (not too unpopular) Many Worlds view that posits an incredible number of universes to attempt to overcome the problem of wavefunction collapse. Where's the evidence for this, speaking scientifically? Nowhere. People believe in it because, e.g., they have a bigger difficulty philosophically with the more popular Copenhagen interpretation.

In the sense that QM undermines classical physics and forces us into unutterably complicated and nonsensical realms, and forces us to take up philosophical viewpoints with these realms (Many Worlds, Copenhagen, etc.), it's just like God. We know the universe exists; positing a creator or not is analogous to positing an explanatory model (or philosophy) for how QM "really works."

I guess what I would like to know first (before considering "God" a workable hypothesis): What does this hypothesis actually say - when put in a complete sentence? IOW: I demand a definition, and I demand falsifiability.

Falsifiability? Does this mean that you need something to be falsifiable in order for it to be worthily believed by you? If so, does this include the very concept of falsifiability as you use it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The philosophical zombie would be created for your bloodlust. You would go about inflicting pain and suffering to your heart's content - or so you think. The people you'd 'hurt' wouldn't be concious entities at all. Thus, your bloodlust is satisfied.


To see how you'd cope with free will.

When I walk my dog, I sometimes let him off his leash just to see what he'd do. The intention isn't to leave him off indefinitely; rather, I'm testing his current level of obedience.


Who's talking about judgement

I'd rather not completely derail the thread with a discussion about p-zombies, but I will say its a ridiculous notion. A person that doesn't possess a conscious mind and yet is somehow completely indistinguishable from a person with a conscious mind is IMO breaking the rule of non-contradiction. It's a fanciful notion created by those who wish to believe they are somehow more than what they are. Those who want to believe that their consciousness somehow possesses some aspect which cannot be defined/measured/replicated.

Let's not mince words on the dog analogy either, we're speaking of a godlike being. The idea that free will is granted for such a short time to in order to "see what one does with it" implies that this "god" or owner doesn't actually know what will be done with it. So again, you can see how even a very basic examination of the idea of heaven or paradise begins to erode away other aspects of religious thought.

If you want to avoid the "judgement" aspect of it that's fine by me, but it ruins your idea that my free will is in some way altered once entering paradise. My paradise is explicitly mine...and should it include some great many immoral or sinful acts, changing my nature to fit someone else's idea of paradise is, frankly, contradictory to the whole idea of paradise to begin with.

While hypotheticals like the OP's can be an amusing discussion, it seems to me that it misses the point that no such place could logically (or even hypothetically) exist.

 

[Received]

While hypotheticals like the OP's can be an amusing discussion, it seems to me that it misses the point that no such place could logically (or even hypothetically) exist.

Then that might be the point behind the OP. Our desire for a perfect world is impossible, therefore we've got to aim lower.

 

[Dreamer1999]

No I would not because life would be too boring if you didn't have to do things for yourself. But I would wish that pain didn't exist so my mommy and daddy wouldn't be in so much pain. A course, I wouldn't want other people to suffer either. So, I do wish pain didn't exist.

 

[Received]

But there is still a bottom line that doesn't change: if God exists, he does not prevent the rape of children. Even if such a being exists, that he can, but won't, prevent such unfathomable evil precludes my worship of him.

I can't argue with that without arguing in a circle. But try this:

You get to heaven, whatever, and you're standing before God. You have a choice to accept paradise and open yourself to the possibility that either your reason is incapable of grasping the reason for evil or that God isn't omnipotent like we understand him (or not omnipotent period); or you can reject paradise for a nice climate sort of damnation (a C.S. Lewis sort of place, pretty good from the inside, which is why the doors are locked from the inside, but still inferior all things considered to paradise).

Do you, Ivan, give your ticket to paradise back to God, or keep it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then that might be the point behind the OP. Our desire for a perfect world is impossible, therefore we've got to aim lower.

Then I'd say we've achieved it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How would God prevent the rape of children without overriding the will of the rapist?

Off the top of my head: by creating a magical, impenetrable shield that prevents harm from befalling the child. The shield exists only momentarily, enough to nullify the rapist's actions. The rapist has the free will to choose to try to rape the child, but will never be able to carry the deed out.

Also, why stop with rape? Why not come up with a way that God can prevent any act that would directly or directly lead to human suffering?

I did, in the other thread. Bullets would vanish before they impact flesh, falling rubble would be whisked away before it crushes anyone, the first viral instance of HIV would be poofed out of existence before it causes any harm, etc.

God is omnipotent and omniscient, or so theists assert, so must necessarily know how to do all this.

How would God go about this? Any suggestions?

Maybe God should prevent you from typing these posts of yours because they may indirectly lead to the suffering of an individual in a way that you cannot forsee that only He can?

Or maybe He should cause you to lose your job as a physicist because the research from your work will indirectly lead to the suffering of humans in a way you cannot forsee.

Hey, if it prevents suffering, then go right ahead. But if is the extent to which God can prevent suffering, he's not much of a deity, is he?

Why not just admit that it may not be feasible for God to do what you want Him to do?

Because he de dicto necessarily can - if he exists, and if he has the qualities Christians ascribe to him (omnipotent, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and so forth), then he knows how to end suffering, and he has the ability to end suffering. Yet, suffering exists.

 

[quatona]

Everything is subjected, or has the potential to be subjected to, debate. Science, religion, God, the self, you, me, kittens. It's just that our sense of comfort (working from the belief that we have adequately defined and understood something through conceptualization -- a pretty arbitrary process that works with our emotions) doesn't lead us to question these things that are, at the end of the day, opaque to language. Everything is in a sense opaque and undefinable because of language, because of our limitations; hence our definitions are partial, and it's our preferences (based on emotion, pretty arbitrary) that really make us stand up and say, "that's not complete enough!" Which is really an arbitrarily defined line, objectively speaking: nothing is complete enough.

Well, I don´t seem to disagree with most of this.
However, this doesn´t change the fact that when you tell me there´s a hypothesis and want to discuss with me on basis of this hypothesis you would have to make it known to me.
I didn´t say nor mean to say anything about "objectivity". Rather, the problem is an intersubjective one. Your god definition/hypothesis may be complete enough for yourself, but unless you make it known to me I can´t even tell whether it´s good enough for me or not.

See above. I'm not trying to be slippery, quatona, but what do you mean by "me"?

Sorry, I have reread the paragraph you´ve quoted several times, but I couldn´t find a single "me" in it.

(I'd be interested in a thread on defining God, but this isn't one of them.)

Ok.

The equations rest on our assumption that our mathematical reasoning works, so it's not about equations, but about how equations allow something to fit theoretically, like QM.

Ok.

The question God would be an answer to are (among other things) a "cause" to the universe.

That happens to be a question I don´t have.

You know, an answer to Heidegger's question as to why there is Being.

Dito.

That's a seemingly simple problem, but really everything.

As far as I am concerned that´s not a problem at all.

Denying God's existence as a reason for the universe is essentially no different than affirming his existence.

Please explain.
Personally, I am not even convinced that the universe needs a reason.
Secondly, if the answer to the question is "God is the reason" "God" remains just a spaceholder for "I don´t know.". It´s just a word, it doesn´t explain anything.

The pivot point then becomes other variables: personal experience, the possibility of something that transcends the physical (like consciousness as a problem neurologically to reduce to physical processes), God as more aesthetic.

That´s why I don´t grudge anyone their beliefs in the gods of their preference - but it takes more for an idea to be a "hypothesis".

When things are totally equal, it's stuff like this that pushes in one direction or another.

I´m not sure what you mean by "if things are totally equal".
Sure, any idea about obscure realms that help someone through the night are fine with me. They aren´t hypotheses, though.

And, btw, the problem of evil is a question that pushes against God's existence.

I don´t think it generally does. It all depends on the defining characteristics of your god concept. (But I respect your wish not to talk about god definitions here).

Secondly, the meanings of QM can be (and are) shifted a whole lot, all of which are (by definition) attempted philosophical or theoretical solutions to how QM really works. There's even a (not too unpopular) Many Worlds view that posits an incredible number of universes to attempt to overcome the problem of wavefunction collapse. Where's the evidence for this, speaking scientifically? Nowhere. People believe in it because, e.g., they have a bigger difficulty philosophically with the more popular Copenhagen interpretation.

For reasons previously mentioned I feel unable to address this.

In the sense that QM undermines classical physics and forces us into unutterably complicated and nonsensical realms, and forces us to take up philosophical viewpoints with these realms (Many Worlds, Copenhagen, etc.), it's just like God. We know the universe exists; positing a creator or not is analogous to positing an explanatory model (or philosophy) for how QM "really works."

Ok, but before I´d write off QM as a cult you´ll understand that I´d like to have a second opinion.

Falsifiability? Does this mean that you need something to be falsifiable in order for it to be worthily believed by you?

No, I need something to be falsifiable in order to accept it as a "hypothesis".

If so, does this include the very concept of falsifiability as you use it?

Not sure what you are asking here. Falsifiability is not a hypothesis, as far as I can tell. I can´t make sense of the idea "falsifiablity of falsifiability". It´s word salad to me. Please explain.

 

[Elioenai26]

Because he de dicto necessarily can - if he exists, and if he has the qualities Christians ascribe to him (omnipotent, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and so forth), then he knows how to end suffering, and he has the ability to end suffering. Yet, suffering exists.

You assume that because humans suffer now, that He never will eliminate suffering.

Surely you do not have perfect and total knowledge of all future possible states of affairs do you?

Who says humans will always suffer as constituents of a fallen world? God has made it very clear that one day, He will put an end to it all.

 

[quatona]

Then that might be the point behind the OP. Our desire for a perfect world is impossible, therefore we've got to aim lower.

I didn´t even know that I had a desire for a perfect world.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You assume that because humans suffer now, that He never will eliminate suffering.

Not at all. However, what good is the promise of no suffering in the future? People are suffering now.

Surely you do not have perfect and total knowledge of all future possible states of affairs do you?

Who says humans will always suffer as constituents of a fallen world? God has made it very clear that one day, He will put an end to it all.

So theists have been insisting for millennia, and yet, humans continue to suffer. Leaving aside the paradox of an omnipotent deity who has to abide by a schedule, the bottom line remains: humans suffer, people are murdered, children are raped, and there's a conspicuous absence of divine intervention.

 

[Received]

Well, I don´t seem to disagree with most of this.
However, this doesn´t change the fact that when you tell me there´s a hypothesis and want to discuss with me on basis of this hypothesis you would have to make it known to me.

If by "known" you mean "just known enough to know what we're both talking about", then let's try looking at figurative language. You know, we rarely think literally, and some people would say that all language has metaphor at its heart.

So maybe God is *like* a father in that he has created the universe and cares for it, and is *like* infinitely extending presence that goes beyond the universe's limits -- as if you're imagining the universe expanding into a force that extends infinitely. Remember, simile.

Sorry, I have reread the paragraph you´ve quoted several times, but I couldn´t find a single "me" in it.

Sorry, what I meant was something like: because we can't understand something like "me" as a self, or can't define it really at all (except metaphorically and very incompletely), we can compare God or any other elusive metaphysical or abstract concept to this.

That happens to be a question I don´t have.

But you have a stance on it, do you not? I understand that if the question is meaningless (which I've argued isn't because God can't be articulated, but that he can't be articulated fully or literally, just like a lot of other abstract concepts), you can't really have a position on it. But you presumably do have an answer to the question of whether the universe was caused or uncaused, which would implicate God as a possible answer, for which you've rejected. So if you have rejected it, why? In your rejection, you're essentially no different than a theist who accepts it -- you have no "proof" (scientifically), you only have arguments that are subtle and difficult.

Please explain.
Personally, I am not even convinced that the universe needs a reason.
Secondly, if the answer to the question is "God is the reason" "God" remains just a spaceholder for "I don´t know.". It´s just a word, it doesn´t explain anything.

Saying the universe doesn't need a reason invites its own explanation. You have a reason for saying there is no reason. And God isn't quite a placeholder for not knowing, in the sense that using God as a theoretical explanation for metaphysical problems is any different than any other type of hypothesis ("God in the gaps" isn't a real fallacy, and might be considered fallacious itself); in other words, all theoretical explanations are explanations for "not knowing." There's nothing about using God as an explanation that makes him less palatable *logistically* than anything else when we're talking about explanations.

No, I need something to be falsifiable in order to accept it as a "hypothesis".

This a contradiction. If you need something falsifiable for it to qualify as a hypothesis, then you would by definition need to apply this to your very concept of falsifiability. Because your concept of falsifiability is technically unfalsifiable, you can't use it, so you've got to find some other way of determining what constitutes a hypothesis or theory.

By saying "falsifiability is technically unfalsfiable," I'm just being honest with your demands. If you say:

1) All hypotheses must be falsifiable to be worthy of hypotheses, and
2) Statement (1) is unfalsifiable, then
3) Statement (1) is false, because it is an unfalsifiable statement, which means
4) Not all hypotheses must be falsifiable in order to qualify as hypotheses.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Please excuse me so rudely jumping into your conversation

This a contradiction. If you need something falsifiable for it to qualify as a hypothesis, then you would by definition need to apply this to your very concept of falsifiability. Because your concept of falsifiability is technically unfalsifiable, you can't use it, so you've got to find some other way of determining what constitutes a hypothesis or theory.

Emphasis mine. By his definition it's not a hypothesis, but that doesn't mean he can't use it. Unfalsifiability means it's not science, not that it's not usable. Beyond logic and mathematics, though, there's not a lot else that's useful in acquiring knowledge..

By saying "falsifiability is technically unfalsfiable," I'm just being honest with your demands. If you say:

1) All hypotheses must be falsifiable to be worthy of hypotheses, and
2) Statement (1) is unfalsifiable, then
3) Statement (1) is false, because it is an unfalsifiable statement, which means
4) Not all hypotheses must be falsifiable in order to qualify as hypotheses.

But he never said that an unfalsifiable statement is an untrue one . He said that for the concept of God to be a valid hypothesis, it needs to be well-defined and it needs to be falsifiable. Lacking these traits doesn't necessarily make it false, just untestable by empirical means.

 

[Received]

So then the question becomes: why use a hypothesis understood in a scientific sense (falsifiability) with something that's beyond science (metaphysics)?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So then the question becomes: why use a hypothesis understood in a scientific sense (falsifiability) with something that's beyond science (metaphysics)?

I don't think it is beyond science. 'Metaphysics' is something of a broad term, but when it comes to the existence of God, there's no reason why it's fundamentally beyond science.

Science is the empirical acquisition of probable truth. Something is only beyond science if it's beyond empiricism, that is, there is no potential way for it to leave empirical evidence. Particle 1 can be completely undetectable, but if it decays into particle 2 (also undetectable), which decays into particle 3 (also undetectable), etc, which decays into particle 157, which is detectable, then particle 1 falls within scientific purview.

So the question of God's existence is, in my opinion, a scientific one. Ultimately, there's no reason we can't say "There is/isn't evidence for God", and make our conclusions appropriately.