If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[spetey]

Hi folks! My, a great deal of activity since my last post just a few days ago.

First, some "loose threads", then (what I think is currently) "the point".

Loose threads, mostly for Harvey:

• On whether physical possibility supervenes on logical possibility: Harvey, in your last post it sounded like you agreed that something more than logical possibility is needed in order to fix what is physically possible. So it seems you agree that physical possibility does not supervene on logical possibility. If so, good. If not, please give reasons for thinking that what's physically possible depends on what's logically possible alone. You spoke some about "determinism" on this topic, but you don't use it in a way that I recognize as making sense, so if you need this term, please define it in your words.
• On whether the physical supervenes on the logical: Harvey, you suggested that we drop this unless it's important. I don't think it's important to the points of this thread--as I've been saying for weeks now--but I do think it's important for dialectical purposes. That is, I think it's important to see something about your debating style. Whenever you make a claim (especially particularly unusual ones such as this one), I want to know whether you are always willing to either a) give reasons for it or b) drop the claim as mistaken or at least uncertain when you have no such reasons. Again, if you have reasons for this claim, I would very much like to hear them, since if good they would revolutionize thousands of years of philosophy. If you have no such reasons for the position, please say so. (There's no shame in having no reasons for this position, in my view--though there is shame in maintaining it without reasons.)
• Harvey, this thread does not "prove" that atheism is wrong, or "wrap it up" for atheism, or anything like that. It merely asks, "is there good reason for atheism?" But that of course is what's being debated in most of these other threads. It is simply rhetoric on your part to claim that there are no such. This thread here is just one of many threads where good reasons for atheism are being provided and discussed. Long ago you promised to stop such threads of pure rhetoric.
• Harvey, you have complained a few times recently that I seem to disagree with much of what you write. But first, I have agreed to some things. (Like, recently, that physical laws supervene on physical possibility--eminently plausible!) Second, and more importantly, you are aware that this is a debate site, right? You're aware that some people might disagree with your religious views--and might even do so with good reason?

Now, as for the point as I see it. There seems to be much discussion lately about omnipotence. But the notion on the table (the one needed to cast serious doubt on God's existence) is pretty tame. For example, do you agree that someday we humans might be able to prevent tsunamis? We humans might be able to detect the earthquakes early, defuse the energy buildup somehow, etc. Right? It seems possible for us poor meek humans to stop tsunamis. If it's possible for us to do it, it's possible for any omnipotent being to do it surely, right? Indeed, it seems to be easy for an omnipotent being to do.

(If you claim it would be impossible for humans to prevent a tsunami, on what grounds? Would you cut off all funding for such research? Why?)

Again, it's very simple. The first question to ask yourself is: could God have stopped the tsunami? If no, in what sense is God "omnipotent"? If yes, then there is another important question for you: why did God permit the tsunami? Because it was good to have? But why think that, given the vast suffering it caused? Do you pray for more such natural disasters in the future, since they're so good? (Perhaps one for your hometown?)


spetey

[bleedingisaac]

If it were possible for God to create such a world [i.e. one without evil, pain, and suffering], then obviously we would live in such a world. However, we don't. So, either it is not logically possible or it is not physically possible.

You left out a lot of other possibilities. It might be logically impossible or physically impossible OR maybe the creator is not powerful enough to create this kind of world or is not wise enough to create this kind or world or not good enough to desire to create this kind of world OR maybe there is no god and the universe did not come into existence from a god.

I believe that it is not logically possible for such a world to exist and have God's goals achieved.

It would depend on what this god's goals were, wouldn't it? If a god's goal was just to create something cool, then it would not be logically impossible to create a world without evil, pain, and suffering, but still accomplished the goal of being "cool," right?

You suggest, however, that a god created this world to prove some kind of theorem (no offense, but I can't help but think of Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which the earth is created as a biological computer that will supply the question to the answer for the meaning of life--which is 36). So, you contend that the world has to be in just the state it is in if it is to provide a solution to the theorem.

If your suggestion is correct, however, I think that we, humans, have a legitimate complaint with the creator. Our pain and suffering are being used to answer a question just as the pain and suffering of Nazi prisoners were used to advance medical research. This does not appear to be a "good" act, and I think we have the right to question the goodness of any being using us in that manner.

So, as you said, if a world is better than the worse one should not have been created. If a school is better, then the worse one should not be operating.

My argument has never been that there should be no world (as you are suggesting there should be no school). My argument has always been that if a god could have created a better world, that god should have done so. It's not a choice between a bad world and no world (or a bad school or no school), it's between a bad world and a good world. If a god is capable of creating a world without evil, pain, and suffering, then a god should have done so because this is the right thing to do.

If god created other worlds without evil, pain, and suffering, but ours has it, then this god has done right by the other worlds and wrong by us. He is good to his/her other creatures and bad to us.

But, there are obstacles to creation. There is no choice available in not having them there in the first place.

How do you know this? How do you know there are obstacles within a god's nature that prevent this god from creating a world that accomplishes his/her goals without evil, pain, and suffering?

God merely sets the bounds for creation and, as it says in Genesis 1, God commands the earth to bring forth life. Therefore, the responsibility for the development of life has been delegated to the earth.

Is this "necessarily" so? Could a god have decided not to delegate the development of life to the earth? Could this god have done a better job in developing life than the earth? Could this god have created humans with a perfect immune system, equal strength, intense feelings of empathy, a microchip that 'shut them down' every time they attempted to harm another? Was a god free to delegate or not to delegate? If this god was free not to delegate, shouldn't s/he have done the work without delegating? Isn't this what it means to be good?

This [i.e. God's delegation of the development of life to the earth] is God's use of the minimum principle, which is just another aspect of God's immense wisdom.

Could it not be another aspect of God's immense sadism?

As the world gets closer to the Omega state, it becomes more complex (e.g., human beings, etc.), and this activates dormant thoughts of God that would only apply to complex entities with minds. As a result, God appears to be learning. However, it is not really God learning, it is God's mind becoming more aware of the world that is making contact with it.

Aren't you making your god temporal, then? There is a thought that is dormant in god's thinking until a historical occurence happens and then a god is reminded/aware of something this god already knew? Is that what you are suggesting?

God is all-wise since God's entire mind sees the entire timeline as a whole.

But you are suggesting that your god goes through the temporal changes that I described above, right?

The next question is, what is causation. It is a concept deeply related to truth and logic.

As a naturalist, I have a hard time speaking in terms of "truth" and "logic" before there is a created universe and a grammar by which logic is defined. Like I stated in an earlier post, I believe that "logic" is grammar, not a metaphysical reality that exists outside of human consciousness. I would say that mathematics is also a self-referential language.

If we go back before the universe, all the way back to the first cause, the question naturally arises, what caused causation. The answer, nothing caused causation, the question itself assumes causation just to ask the question.

I agree that "nothing" caused causation. I have a creation myth of my own.

Time and space are interwoven. There is no time without space. Using the word before the universe is inappropriate because there is no before. Time begins with the universe.

I believe in an uncaused cause of the universe. This uncaused cause was a singularity (or perhaps the vibration of a super-string). A singularity is atemporal because it exists outside of a universe. [Perhaps the singularity also had some kind of weird version of atemporal causation resulting from a vacuum fluctuation.]

Time began as a big bang that expanded space and energy. Because Energy equals matter times the speed of light squared, this energy is matter and separated into extremely hot spinning balls of energy and matter. As the matter cooled, elements formed. The elements came together, life evolved, the human brain communicates in terms of embedded language (and math) centers. When a bolt of lightening struck and shocked a human, the human did not have the vocabulary to explain the occurence. The human labeled this absence of vocabulary "god" and worshipped it until it discovered this term, "static electricity." Humans still are working on their vocabulary and everywhere that there is a gap, they call that gap "god" until a better answer comes along. At some point in the future, human vocabulary will be complete enough not to need this term "god" anymore and it will cease to exist as a concept. If we haven't figured out a good method of space travel by the time our little ball of energy gives out, humans will cease to exist. If we do figure it out, we will hop from ball of energy to ball of energy until no more can be found or until we find a way to create our own.

What do you think of mine?

[Curious]

Hello again Spetey.

Again, it's very simple. The first question to ask yourself is: could God have stopped the tsunami? If no, in what sense is God "omnipotent"? If yes, then there is another important question for you: why did God permit the tsunami? Because it was good to have? But why think that, given the vast suffering it caused? Do you pray for more such natural disasters in the future, since they're so good? (Perhaps one for your hometown?)

Below is part of a reply I gave to The Happy Humanist and rather than direct you to it I will put it below. I will mention though that it was only meant to provide one logical possibility.

Even the existence of such a God as creator(which is not necessarily a precondition for all-goodess and omnipotence) might allow certain leeway as a means of creating greater order. Even in the Old Testament, after the creation of the heavens and the earth, God is said to have seen that it was good. Now this is a reference to good that pre-dates either life or death, suffering or enjoyment. Good can mean many different things to many different people but in this context probably refers to it being pleasing, ordered or well created. It might be suggested that God need not have been alone and of the "spirits", many saw the creation and were amazed. What if these spirits pleaded with God to be allowed to experience this wonderful creation first hand but God warned them against this as such existence would bring about hardship and suffering, ignorance and eventual physical death. These spirits might have pleaded that such suffering was a price that was worth paying for such an adventure and without such things the adventure would seem incomplete. And so God allowed them access to His "playground", but because of His overwhelming goodness made His presence known to those earnestly seeking him.
Now I am quite aware of the apparent absurdity of such an argument but it does illustrate how the presence of evil or suffering does not exclude the existence of such a proposition where this God is all-good and all-powerful but stays His hand out of respect for the wishes of His spiritual children.

[bleedingisaac]

Curious wrot:

What if these spirits pleaded with God to be allowed to experience this wonderful creation first hand but God warned them against this as such existence would bring about hardship and suffering, ignorance and eventual physical death. These spirits might have pleaded that such suffering was a price that was worth paying for such an adventure and without such things the adventure would seem incomplete. And so God allowed them access to His "playground",

What if I brought a poisonous snake to the high school class that I teach, and my students pleaded with me to be allowed to experience my wonderful "pet" themselves, but I warned them against this because they could be killed. They pleaded with me, however, that the chance of being bitten was worth the experience of handling the snake. And so I allowed them access to my pet.

Would you consider me a "good" teacher?

[Curious]

What if I brought a poisonous snake to the high school class that I teach, and my students pleaded with me to be allowed to experience my wonderful "pet" themselves, but I warned them against this because they could be killed. They pleaded with me, however, that the chance of being bitten was worth the experience of handling the snake. And so I allowed them access to my pet.

Would you consider me a "good" teacher?

Only if it was, like in my previous example, a virtual snake where if the snake bit them the game would end and they came out of it none the worse for wear.

[bleedingisaac]

Curious wrote:

Only if it was, like in my previous example, a virtual snake where if the snake bit them the game would end and they came out of it none the worse for wear.

Why would it have to be a "virtual snake"? What if I had a poison-sucking utensil (if there are such utensils) and was able to resuscitate my students before dying so that they were able to make a total recovery?

Would you seriously nominate me to be teacher of the year? Would you think I was a "good" teacher?[/b]

[harvey1]

BA,

Your response is a little long for me. Can you condense what you want me to reply to in a couple of paragraphs? Sorry to inconvenience you, but I owe NGR a response, Spetey and I have been chatting for some time so I don't want to interrupt what we have going in terms of our debates; I hope you understand and can oblige...

[Curious]

Why would it have to be a "virtual snake"? What if I had a poison-sucking utensil (if there are such utensils) and was able to resuscitate my students before dying so that they were able to make a total recovery?

Would you seriously nominate me to be teacher of the year? Would you think I was a "good" teacher?[/b]

You are drawing a false parallel here. The poison sucking scenario would still cause REAL suffering in the REAL world where outcomes REALLY matter. My scenario is more akin to a virtual reality game where the death of the character would not alter the condition of the player in any real way except for imparting the experience of the event on them. After the character gets blown up, the player can just go get a cup of tea and try again.

[harvey1]

After the character gets blown up, the player can just go get a cup of tea and try again.

We think so differently, it's amazing. Why would God treat people like characters in virtual reality games? I'm rushing as I type this, so I probably missed something in your argument.

[Curious]

After the character gets blown up, the player can just go get a cup of tea and try again.

We think so differently, it's amazing. Why would God treat people like characters in virtual reality games? I'm rushing as I type this, so I probably missed something in your argument.

It's not really a serious consideration but stems from an argument that allows the presence of evil while still maintaining the possibility of an all-good, all-powerful God. I suggested that perhaps God was asked to provide such experience by His spirit children but it is also just as reasonable to suggest that this might be a way for the spirit children to learn about responsible use of power in a "safe" environment rather than allowing them free-rein and vast power in the "real" spiritual realm where they might slaughter each other or set up their own universes which might be similar to a hell realm. After they show they are responsible or get rid of their frustrations perhaps they might be trusted.