Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Is this the best of possible worlds?

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:47:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. I think the idea of the best possible world is like the idea of a highest natural number....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.


I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless. Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed. Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds. I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being. As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.


I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless. Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed. Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds. I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being. As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

To be fair, even given this explanation, evil can't be eliminated. If god values Free Will, then its elimination is an evil itself. So basically the argument is the existence of Free Will allows for evil, but the elmination of that evil requires the elimination of Free Will, which is a greater evil. Since evil exists in either case (Free Will or no Free Will) then evil cannot be eliminated.


I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:47:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No. I think the idea of the best possible world is like the idea of a highest natural number....

You raised this objection in the previous thread and I had not gotten around to answering it, so it seems fitting to address it here. You agree with Alvin Platinga's criticism of the possibility of a "best possible world."

I would say that the concept he defends, that there can always be a better possible world than the best possible world in the same way that there is always a higher natural number than the highest natural number does not follow in reality. Mathematics is an abstract concept, however actual infinites cannot exist in reality. But that is another debate altogether.

The criticism I would like to propose of Platinga's argument is that in reality, tradeoffs exist while in mathematics they do not. There is no loss in real value when increasing the highest natural number by one. Platinga argues a world may exist with one more holy angel praising God or one more person enjoying life. I would say that an increase in the number of entities that exists would have a tradeoff. If we had 20 billion existing humans then there would be horrific amounts of starvation, far exceeding the amount we see now. Now your answer would be that God could also increase the Earth's carrying capacity but then I would say that the increased number of humans would increase the stimulation of evil insofar as we have free will, creating tradeoffs. That is to say, is having this extra human more better than the the evil he will bring about? As such, there can be a best possible world which addresses tradeoffs in the most efficient possible manner.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.


I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless. Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed. Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds. I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being. As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

To be fair, even given this explanation, evil can't be eliminated. If god values Free Will, then its elimination is an evil itself. So basically the argument is the existence of Free Will allows for evil, but the elmination of that evil requires the elimination of Free Will, which is a greater evil. Since evil exists in either case (Free Will or no Free Will) then evil cannot be eliminated.


I would not say that the elimination of free will is evil, but that God values free will more than he values the nonexistence of evil. This causes him to create a world in which evil exists in order to maintain free will. But it does not follow that he had to allow for free will. If he did not value free will then he could eliminate evil by eliminating free will and it would seem absurd to claim that act to be evil. But alas, this is a debate for another time. Let's discuss compatibility.


I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.


I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless. Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed. Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds. I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being. As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

To be fair, even given this explanation, evil can't be eliminated. If god values Free Will, then its elimination is an evil itself. So basically the argument is the existence of Free Will allows for evil, but the elmination of that evil requires the elimination of Free Will, which is a greater evil. Since evil exists in either case (Free Will or no Free Will) then evil cannot be eliminated.


I would not say that the elimination of free will is evil, but that God values free will more than he values the nonexistence of evil. This causes him to create a world in which evil exists in order to maintain free will. But it does not follow that he had to allow for free will. If he did not value free will then he could eliminate evil by eliminating free will and it would seem absurd to claim that act to be evil. But alas, this is a debate for another time. Let's discuss compatibility.


I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.


I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless. Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed. Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds. I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being. As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

To be fair, even given this explanation, evil can't be eliminated. If god values Free Will, then its elimination is an evil itself. So basically the argument is the existence of Free Will allows for evil, but the elmination of that evil requires the elimination of Free Will, which is a greater evil. Since evil exists in either case (Free Will or no Free Will) then evil cannot be eliminated.


I would not say that the elimination of free will is evil, but that God values free will more than he values the nonexistence of evil. This causes him to create a world in which evil exists in order to maintain free will. But it does not follow that he had to allow for free will. If he did not value free will then he could eliminate evil by eliminating free will and it would seem absurd to claim that act to be evil. But alas, this is a debate for another time. Let's discuss compatibility.


I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?

I think the answer to this question relies heavily on the definition of suffering. Is suffering inclusive of jealousy? If so, then yes as a result of the existence of free will. Is suffering induced by the environment of Heaven itself? If so, then no. Is suffering caused by God? I would say this is a possible claim to support, but only justified suffering such as that placed upon Lucifer in retaliation for his rebellion. But if we follow this line of thought, let's avoid the semantics debate about whether suffering exists "in" Heaven as Lucifer was condemned to an eternity in Hell.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 2:11:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 2:08:22 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.


I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless. Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed. Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds. I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being. As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

To be fair, even given this explanation, evil can't be eliminated. If god values Free Will, then its elimination is an evil itself. So basically the argument is the existence of Free Will allows for evil, but the elmination of that evil requires the elimination of Free Will, which is a greater evil. Since evil exists in either case (Free Will or no Free Will) then evil cannot be eliminated.


I would not say that the elimination of free will is evil, but that God values free will more than he values the nonexistence of evil. This causes him to create a world in which evil exists in order to maintain free will. But it does not follow that he had to allow for free will. If he did not value free will then he could eliminate evil by eliminating free will and it would seem absurd to claim that act to be evil. But alas, this is a debate for another time. Let's discuss compatibility.


I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?

I think the answer to this question relies heavily on the definition of suffering. Is suffering inclusive of jealousy? If so, then yes as a result of the existence of free will. Is suffering induced by the environment of Heaven itself? If so, then no. Is suffering caused by God? I would say this is a possible claim to support, but only justified suffering such as that placed upon Lucifer in retaliation for his rebellion. But if we follow this line of thought, let's avoid the semantics debate about whether suffering exists "in" Heaven as Lucifer was condemned to an eternity in Hell.

I'll admit that these are unexpected answers. The popular depiction of Heaven is a paradise without evil or sufferring. In fact, the entire point of having to accept Jesus is that is the only way to expunge sin from our soul such that we can even enter Heaven.

Perhaps you can elaborate. What are the requirements for getting into Heaven? Why can't someone get into Heaven if they don't follow those requirements?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 2:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 2:11:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:08:22 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?

I think the answer to this question relies heavily on the definition of suffering. Is suffering inclusive of jealousy? If so, then yes as a result of the existence of free will. Is suffering induced by the environment of Heaven itself? If so, then no. Is suffering caused by God? I would say this is a possible claim to support, but only justified suffering such as that placed upon Lucifer in retaliation for his rebellion. But if we follow this line of thought, let's avoid the semantics debate about whether suffering exists "in" Heaven as Lucifer was condemned to an eternity in Hell.

I'll admit that these are unexpected answers. The popular depiction of Heaven is a paradise without evil or sufferring. In fact, the entire point of having to accept Jesus is that is the only way to expunge sin from our soul such that we can even enter Heaven.


I think that when addressing the issue of suffering in Heaven, it is important to evaluate it in relation to time. The existences of suffering I've cited all occurred before and during Lucifer's rebellion. I would argue that after the angels that opposed God were expelled from Heaven, the only ones that remains freely chose complete love and passion. Ergo, suffering no longer existed in Heaven, although the possibility for suffering did. Now, as humans were created we are condemned by worldly desires and our very own flesh to commit sin. You are right that we must cleanse our soul of the desire to sin in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I would say that this was not a requirement before the creation of Hell as every existing being existed in Heaven. Thus to enter the kingdom of Heaven we would have to already accept love and passion in the same way that the angels whom supported God did. If we do not do this, then we retain our desire to sin and are condemned to Hell. Therefore we continue to see a possibility of suffering in Heaven, but also realize that all those who are in Heaven lack the desire to sin and thereby will not evoke suffering onto themselves.

Perhaps you can elaborate. What are the requirements for getting into Heaven? Why can't someone get into Heaven if they don't follow those requirements?

I would say at the requirement of getting into Heaven is simply to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. This, however, requires more than mere recognition. To accept Jesus Christ as your savior is to accept love and passion in your heart and soul, to desire not to sin at your core. It is a common premise within Christian Theology that in accepting the love of God is to feel passionate about loving others as brothers and sisters in Christ. So I would say that the requirement of getting into Heaven is the advocacy that love and passion can bring about true happiness, and that you can find pure love and pure passion through Christ and the Lord.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.


Disease is intricately different than evil and as such is a different debate. As for Albert Fish, in order to prevent those atrocities God would have had to of limited free will. This only brings us back to the tradeoffs argument.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.

Then why did you feel it necessary to post such a hostile and offensive response?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:10:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:06:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.


Disease is intricately different than evil and as such is a different debate. As for Albert Fish, in order to prevent those atrocities God would have had to of limited free will. This only brings us back to the tradeoffs argument.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.

Then why did you feel it necessary to post such a hostile and offensive response?

Hostile and offensive response? Your acceptance of this claim goes far beyond the offensiveness of any murderer or rapist I could describe here.

Could God have created beings that freely choose not to commit evil? Of course he could have, he's omnipotent. "Free will" is not a justification for evil. If this is the "best possible world" God ought not have created it in the first place.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:18:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 2:24:00 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:11:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:08:22 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?

I think the answer to this question relies heavily on the definition of suffering. Is suffering inclusive of jealousy? If so, then yes as a result of the existence of free will. Is suffering induced by the environment of Heaven itself? If so, then no. Is suffering caused by God? I would say this is a possible claim to support, but only justified suffering such as that placed upon Lucifer in retaliation for his rebellion. But if we follow this line of thought, let's avoid the semantics debate about whether suffering exists "in" Heaven as Lucifer was condemned to an eternity in Hell.

I'll admit that these are unexpected answers. The popular depiction of Heaven is a paradise without evil or sufferring. In fact, the entire point of having to accept Jesus is that is the only way to expunge sin from our soul such that we can even enter Heaven.


I think that when addressing the issue of suffering in Heaven, it is important to evaluate it in relation to time. The existences of suffering I've cited all occurred before and during Lucifer's rebellion. I would argue that after the angels that opposed God were expelled from Heaven, the only ones that remains freely chose complete love and passion. Ergo, suffering no longer existed in Heaven, although the possibility for suffering did. Now, as humans were created we are condemned by worldly desires and our very own flesh to commit sin. You are right that we must cleanse our soul of the desire to sin in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I would say that this was not a requirement before the creation of Hell as every existing being existed in Heaven. Thus to enter the kingdom of Heaven we would have to already accept love and passion in the same way that the angels whom supported God did. If we do not do this, then we retain our desire to sin and are condemned to Hell. Therefore we continue to see a possibility of suffering in Heaven, but also realize that all those who are in Heaven lack the desire to sin and thereby will not evoke suffering onto themselves.

Perhaps you can elaborate. What are the requirements for getting into Heaven? Why can't someone get into Heaven if they don't follow those requirements?

I would say at the requirement of getting into Heaven is simply to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. This, however, requires more than mere recognition. To accept Jesus Christ as your savior is to accept love and passion in your heart and soul, to desire not to sin at your core. It is a common premise within Christian Theology that in accepting the love of God is to feel passionate about loving others as brothers and sisters in Christ. So I would say that the requirement of getting into Heaven is the advocacy that love and passion can bring about true happiness, and that you can find pure love and pure passion through Christ and the Lord.

Do you meet these requirements? Does anyone?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:20:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:10:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:06:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.


Disease is intricately different than evil and as such is a different debate. As for Albert Fish, in order to prevent those atrocities God would have had to of limited free will. This only brings us back to the tradeoffs argument.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.

Then why did you feel it necessary to post such a hostile and offensive response?

Hostile and offensive response? Your acceptance of this claim goes far beyond the offensiveness of any murderer or rapist I could describe here.

Could God have created beings that freely choose not to commit evil? Of course he could have, he's omnipotent. "Free will" is not a justification for evil. If this is the "best possible world" God ought not have created it in the first place.

If God created beings that inherently chose not to commit evil then they by definition would not have been free. You are right, mindless, will-less beings would make for a better world.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:20:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:10:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:06:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.


Disease is intricately different than evil and as such is a different debate. As for Albert Fish, in order to prevent those atrocities God would have had to of limited free will. This only brings us back to the tradeoffs argument.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.

Then why did you feel it necessary to post such a hostile and offensive response?

Hostile and offensive response? Your acceptance of this claim goes far beyond the offensiveness of a description of any murderer or rapist I could describe here.

Could God have created beings that freely choose not to commit evil? Of course he could have, he's omnipotent. "Free will" is not a justification for evil. If this is the "best possible world" God ought not have created it in the first place.

Fixed.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:21:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

The objection to this is, basically, that, with regards to evil, it cannot eliminated, only reduced and evil is as low as it could possibly be. That is, this is the best of possible worlds.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

You are getting caught up in symbols used to explain an experience. You will never be able to answer your question.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:24:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:20:21 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:10:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:06:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.


Disease is intricately different than evil and as such is a different debate. As for Albert Fish, in order to prevent those atrocities God would have had to of limited free will. This only brings us back to the tradeoffs argument.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.

Then why did you feel it necessary to post such a hostile and offensive response?

Hostile and offensive response? Your acceptance of this claim goes far beyond the offensiveness of any murderer or rapist I could describe here.

Could God have created beings that freely choose not to commit evil? Of course he could have, he's omnipotent. "Free will" is not a justification for evil. If this is the "best possible world" God ought not have created it in the first place.

If God created beings that inherently chose not to commit evil then they by definition would not have been free. You are right, mindless, will-less beings would make for a better world.

Well that's easy for you to say when you're not one of Fish's victims or a child suffering from a severe congenital disease. Yes, they might not be free in *your* sense of the word. Can you do evil in heaven?
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:18:14 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:24:00 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:11:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:08:22 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?

I think the answer to this question relies heavily on the definition of suffering. Is suffering inclusive of jealousy? If so, then yes as a result of the existence of free will. Is suffering induced by the environment of Heaven itself? If so, then no. Is suffering caused by God? I would say this is a possible claim to support, but only justified suffering such as that placed upon Lucifer in retaliation for his rebellion. But if we follow this line of thought, let's avoid the semantics debate about whether suffering exists "in" Heaven as Lucifer was condemned to an eternity in Hell.

I'll admit that these are unexpected answers. The popular depiction of Heaven is a paradise without evil or sufferring. In fact, the entire point of having to accept Jesus is that is the only way to expunge sin from our soul such that we can even enter Heaven.


I think that when addressing the issue of suffering in Heaven, it is important to evaluate it in relation to time. The existences of suffering I've cited all occurred before and during Lucifer's rebellion. I would argue that after the angels that opposed God were expelled from Heaven, the only ones that remains freely chose complete love and passion. Ergo, suffering no longer existed in Heaven, although the possibility for suffering did. Now, as humans were created we are condemned by worldly desires and our very own flesh to commit sin. You are right that we must cleanse our soul of the desire to sin in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I would say that this was not a requirement before the creation of Hell as every existing being existed in Heaven. Thus to enter the kingdom of Heaven we would have to already accept love and passion in the same way that the angels whom supported God did. If we do not do this, then we retain our desire to sin and are condemned to Hell. Therefore we continue to see a possibility of suffering in Heaven, but also realize that all those who are in Heaven lack the desire to sin and thereby will not evoke suffering onto themselves.

Perhaps you can elaborate. What are the requirements for getting into Heaven? Why can't someone get into Heaven if they don't follow those requirements?

I would say at the requirement of getting into Heaven is simply to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. This, however, requires more than mere recognition. To accept Jesus Christ as your savior is to accept love and passion in your heart and soul, to desire not to sin at your core. It is a common premise within Christian Theology that in accepting the love of God is to feel passionate about loving others as brothers and sisters in Christ. So I would say that the requirement of getting into Heaven is the advocacy that love and passion can bring about true happiness, and that you can find pure love and pure passion through Christ and the Lord.

Do you meet these requirements? Does anyone?

I think in the flesh we are all destined to sin, if that is what you are asking. Now, when I say destined I don't mean that it is predetermined or that it is impossible not to sin. Rather, I argue that free will allows for sin and as we are imperfect beings we will eventually freely give in to sin. That does not mean we do not accept love and passion, however. We may still feel guilty about the sins that we have committed and desire to be better in the future and ask for forgiveness from the Lord. As for whether or not I or anyone else meet these requirements, that is not for me to say. I would argue that it is possible to meet these requirements but God is the only one who has the right to judge if we actually have. For me to say that I or anyone else meets these requirements is to say that I have the wisdom of God. Now, I can believe that I meet these requirements, but I also don't think our purpose is to worry about being accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven. If we are worried about being condemned to Hell then we are living out of fear, which I believe to be contrary to love and passion. If we accept the Lord and display the love he has graciously shown us, then there is nothing to worry about.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:27:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Eliminating free will is not evil. If you see someone raping a girl do you say "God gave him free will, so it would be evil to stop this?" Of course not, you would punch him in the face, hold him down, and have a cop haul him off to jail where he is not "free". If he is mentally insane, you would tie him to a straight jacket and completely take away his will to move. To let this man have his will would be immoral.

This is why there are police, because there is no justice with God if he exists. Justice is strictly in the business of going against peoples will to be free because these people can't be contaminating society.

Basically, free will doesn't solve the problem of evil because sometimes the only just thing is taking away the will of one doing evil.

Of course, the theist will claim "justice comes in the afterlife" , but how convenient, justice only comes when I can't live to tell the story...**Sigh**

Unless someone can show why people being 100% free to do what they want is a good thing, (which it isn't, this is why we have jails). Then free will doesn't solve the PoE.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:27:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:24:48 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:20:21 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:10:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:06:04 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:01:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Oh of course this argument appeals to me. Every child that dies in infancy would have clearly made the world a worse place if he or she had been allowed to grow up. Early 20th century murder Albert Fish abducted a number of children and then proceeded to torture, rape, and eat several of them. Perhaps he could have just granted them quick deaths? Of course not, because this universe is the best one possible. Maybe if he had skipped raping or torturing one of them something worse would happened along that time line.


Disease is intricately different than evil and as such is a different debate. As for Albert Fish, in order to prevent those atrocities God would have had to of limited free will. This only brings us back to the tradeoffs argument.

I don't involve myself with these arguments.

Then why did you feel it necessary to post such a hostile and offensive response?

Hostile and offensive response? Your acceptance of this claim goes far beyond the offensiveness of any murderer or rapist I could describe here.

Could God have created beings that freely choose not to commit evil? Of course he could have, he's omnipotent. "Free will" is not a justification for evil. If this is the "best possible world" God ought not have created it in the first place.

If God created beings that inherently chose not to commit evil then they by definition would not have been free. You are right, mindless, will-less beings would make for a better world.

Well that's easy for you to say when you're not one of Fish's victims or a child suffering from a severe congenital disease.

We can only see a piece of the grander picture. Just because the part we are aware of us ugly and horrid at first glance does not mean that the world as a whole is. To claim such is to commit the fallacy of composition.

Yes, they might not be free in *your* sense of the word.

Can you do evil in heaven?

I've already addressed this.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:30:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:27:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Eliminating free will is not evil. If you see someone raping a girl do you say "God gave him free will, so it would be evil to stop this?" Of course not, you would punch him in the face, hold him down, and have a cop haul him off to jail where he is not "free". If he is mentally insane, you would tie him to a straight jacket and completely take away his will to move. To let this man have his will would be immoral.

This is why there are police, because there is no justice with God if he exists. Justice is strictly in the business of going against peoples will to be free because these people can't be contaminating society.

Basically, free will doesn't solve the problem of evil because sometimes the only just thing is taking away the will of one doing evil.

Of course, the theist will claim "justice comes in the afterlife" , but how convenient, justice only comes when I can't live to tell the story...**Sigh**

Unless someone can show why people being 100% free to do what they want is a good thing, (which it isn't, this is why we have jails). Then free will doesn't solve the PoE.

Let the debate about whether or not free will solves for the PoE be had in your thread. This thread is specifically dedicated to whether or not God is compatible with the existence of evil, thereby answering if this world could be the best possible world.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:43:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:25:36 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:18:14 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:24:00 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:11:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:08:22 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:02:35 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:53:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:39:01 PM, drafterman wrote:
While this stems from a conversation between me and Mestari, anyone else is free to comment on the issue obviously. At some point I may take it to a debate, but I am already engaged in a theistic debate and will have other DDO obligations coming up.

In short, the soundness of PoE rests upon the incompatibility between God and Evil. That is, if God has the desire, knowledge, and power to eliminate evil, then there would be evil. There is evil, ergo God either doesn't have the desire, knowledge, or power.

I disagree that this is the best of possible worlds, while Mestari believes that it is.

To delve into this topic a bit more, I'd like to ask Mestari a series of questions.

Firstly, does God define what is good or evil? Or, to state it another way, is what is good and evil depend on God?

I would say yes to the first question and no to the second. While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil. That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

Ok. Secondly, Does evil exist in Heaven?

I would say that free will exists in Heaven, so yes. Lucifer had to possess free will or else he could not have challenged God and thereby commit evil.

Interesting. Is there suffering in Heaven?

I think the answer to this question relies heavily on the definition of suffering. Is suffering inclusive of jealousy? If so, then yes as a result of the existence of free will. Is suffering induced by the environment of Heaven itself? If so, then no. Is suffering caused by God? I would say this is a possible claim to support, but only justified suffering such as that placed upon Lucifer in retaliation for his rebellion. But if we follow this line of thought, let's avoid the semantics debate about whether suffering exists "in" Heaven as Lucifer was condemned to an eternity in Hell.

I'll admit that these are unexpected answers. The popular depiction of Heaven is a paradise without evil or sufferring. In fact, the entire point of having to accept Jesus is that is the only way to expunge sin from our soul such that we can even enter Heaven.


I think that when addressing the issue of suffering in Heaven, it is important to evaluate it in relation to time. The existences of suffering I've cited all occurred before and during Lucifer's rebellion. I would argue that after the angels that opposed God were expelled from Heaven, the only ones that remains freely chose complete love and passion. Ergo, suffering no longer existed in Heaven, although the possibility for suffering did. Now, as humans were created we are condemned by worldly desires and our very own flesh to commit sin. You are right that we must cleanse our soul of the desire to sin in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I would say that this was not a requirement before the creation of Hell as every existing being existed in Heaven. Thus to enter the kingdom of Heaven we would have to already accept love and passion in the same way that the angels whom supported God did. If we do not do this, then we retain our desire to sin and are condemned to Hell. Therefore we continue to see a possibility of suffering in Heaven, but also realize that all those who are in Heaven lack the desire to sin and thereby will not evoke suffering onto themselves.

Perhaps you can elaborate. What are the requirements for getting into Heaven? Why can't someone get into Heaven if they don't follow those requirements?

I would say at the requirement of getting into Heaven is simply to accept Jesus Christ as your savior. This, however, requires more than mere recognition. To accept Jesus Christ as your savior is to accept love and passion in your heart and soul, to desire not to sin at your core. It is a common premise within Christian Theology that in accepting the love of God is to feel passionate about loving others as brothers and sisters in Christ. So I would say that the requirement of getting into Heaven is the advocacy that love and passion can bring about true happiness, and that you can find pure love and pure passion through Christ and the Lord.

Do you meet these requirements? Does anyone?

I think in the flesh we are all destined to sin, if that is what you are asking. Now, when I say destined I don't mean that it is predetermined or that it is impossible not to sin. Rather, I argue that free will allows for sin and as we are imperfect beings we will eventually freely give in to sin. That does not mean we do not accept love and passion, however. We may still feel guilty about the sins that we have committed and desire to be better in the future and ask for forgiveness from the Lord. As for whether or not I or anyone else meet these requirements, that is not for me to say. I would argue that it is possible to meet these requirements but God is the only one who has the right to judge if we actually have. For me to say that I or anyone else meets these requirements is to say that I have the wisdom of God. Now, I can believe that I meet these requirements, but I also don't think our purpose is to worry about being accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven. If we are worried about being condemned to Hell then we are living out of fear, which I believe to be contrary to love and passion. If we accept the Lord and display the love he has graciously shown us, then there is nothing to worry about.

Ok. Let me put it another way: If everyone on this planet died at this very moment. Would at least some of us get into heaven?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 3:50:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 3:30:28 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 3:27:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Eliminating free will is not evil. If you see someone raping a girl do you say "God gave him free will, so it would be evil to stop this?" Of course not, you would punch him in the face, hold him down, and have a cop haul him off to jail where he is not "free". If he is mentally insane, you would tie him to a straight jacket and completely take away his will to move. To let this man have his will would be immoral.

This is why there are police, because there is no justice with God if he exists. Justice is strictly in the business of going against peoples will to be free because these people can't be contaminating society.

Basically, free will doesn't solve the problem of evil because sometimes the only just thing is taking away the will of one doing evil.

Of course, the theist will claim "justice comes in the afterlife" , but how convenient, justice only comes when I can't live to tell the story...**Sigh**

Unless someone can show why people being 100% free to do what they want is a good thing, (which it isn't, this is why we have jails). Then free will doesn't solve the PoE.

Let the debate about whether or not free will solves for the PoE be had in your thread. This thread is specifically dedicated to whether or not God is compatible with the existence of evil, thereby answering if this world could be the best possible world.

Well it all depends on which designed concept of God they made up in their heads now doesn't it? However, if we are debating an all loving God then of course he cannot be compatible with evil.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 5:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We can only see a piece of the grander picture. Just because the part we are aware of us ugly and horrid at first glance does not mean that the world as a whole is. To claim such is to commit the fallacy of composition.

I love how your faith serves as a rationalization for countless acts of indescribable cruelty and suffering faced by millions each day around the world. It must be very comforting. The fact that you can say with a straight face that both the torture and the rape of a serial killer's victims before the usually grisly murder were part of the best possible world is just reflective of this faith. Obviously no one can question our divine creator's inherent goodness - that goes without question. He created us, after all.

What about disease and natural disasters? Divine plan?

I've already addressed this.

It seems that in Heaven people freely choose not to do evil, am I right? Why couldn't a similar thing occur on Earth?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 11:43:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:48:10 PM, Mestari wrote:
Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts.

People with free will can choose to do only good. If they couldn't choose only good, then their wills would not be free.

Plantinga says there are possible worlds in which people choose only good.

An omniscient god would have known about those worlds. An omnipotent god could have chosen to create one of those rather than this one. An omnibenevolent god would have chosen to create one of those rather than this.

If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless.

Nobody's suggesting that. Free will is cool. I wouldn't want to give up mine. But we could easily have free will without evil, if god is omnipotent and omniscient. And we would, if god were also omnibenevolent.

Thus for free will to exist meaningfully, God must allow acts of evil to be committed.

An omnipotent god could as easily allow them to not be committed.

Some may claim that a perfect world would be one without evil and ergo this is not a the best of all possible worlds.

Obviously.

I would claim that the best is subjective and that the only perfect conception of the best would have to be derived from a perfect being.

If "best" is subjective, then so is "perfect."

As such, we can only assume that the possibility of free will is more important than the existence of evil when determining what is best.

There's no conflict between free will and lack-of-evil. An omnipotent god could easily have both. An omnipotent god could do anything that doesn't violate logic. There is no logical contradiction between free will an lack-of-evil.

While we all may have our personal conceptions of what is good or evil, God being a perfect being would have a perfect conception of good and evil.

If he meant something different, then he'd be talking about something different. That's a weird way of changing the subject. Another way of saying the same thing is that god may not be benevolent. He may be malevolent, but he may say he's benevolent.

That is to say that God's perception of good and evil is equivalent to a definition of good and evil. However, what is good and what is evil is not defined as such because God perceives it that way, but rather be perceives it that way because it is as such.

So, he is a signpost god, a perfect indicator of what is good and evil. He created a world with rape, so we should endorse his perfect vision by committing rapes.

Regardless of what evil is, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god wouldn't have any. If he existed, there would be no evil.

Anyone believing in a tri-omni god---and also believing in evil---is clearly wrong.

Just to offer some substance to the word "evil," let's call it the sources of unhappiness. That is, anything that makes someone unhappy is evil. By extension, we often refer to the unhappiness itself as evil. Thus, the problem of evil is often referred to as the problem of suffering.

We oversimplify by equating evil with unhappiness, but it is convenient for the purposes of discussion. Dan Barker refers to people "flourishing" rather than just being happy, but we can agree, I think, that a benevolent god would wish---perhaps among other things---to eliminate unhappiness if he could.

But, you point out that free will is good too. So let's complicate things a bit: "Good" means happiness and free will. "Evil" means unhappiness and lack of free will.

What would a benevolent god want? He would want happiness and free will. What would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god create? Total happiness, and total free will. Do we have total happiness? No. So we know that such a god does not exist.

It hardly matters how you define evil, people who believe in both evil and a tri-omni god are in error. Let's define evil as blue, and good as any and all other colors. In that case, if there were a tri-omni god, there wouldn't be any blue. But there is blue, so we know that no tri-omni god exists. Anyone who believes in that blueness exists, and who also believes that an omnipotent, omniscient, totally-against-blueness god exists, is wrong.

It doesn't matter how evil is defined. Anyone believing both in evil and a tri-omni god is wrong.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 2:41:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wiploc, since IIDB and all it was has ceased to exist, could you repost somewhere your fantasy debate with William Lane Craig post?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 6:50:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/15/2012 2:41:30 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Wiploc, since IIDB and all it was has ceased to exist, could you repost somewhere your fantasy debate with William Lane Craig post?

Hey, thanks for asking. That post is here: http://www.freeratio.org... in the archives of freeratio.org, which---great news!---is alive despite rumors of IIDB's demise. When Internet Infidels quit wanting the hassles of running a discussion board, freeratio.org took over, so most of those old posts survive, and many of the same people are still, uh, discussing.

(Note: the format of my "debate" got a little messed up when the post was moved to the archives, but it's still plenty readable.)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 9:38:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:56:32 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:47:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No. I think the idea of the best possible world is like the idea of a highest natural number....

You raised this objection in the previous thread and I had not gotten around to answering it, so it seems fitting to address it here. You agree with Alvin Platinga's criticism of the possibility of a "best possible world."


Yeah.

I would say that the concept he defends, that there can always be a better possible world than the best possible world in the same way that there is always a higher natural number than the highest natural number does not follow in reality.

What do you mean by "in reality"? Abstract objects (like numbers, propositions, possible worlds, etc) certainly exist "in reality" - or, at least, there seems to me to be good reason to think that they exist in reality. It seems to me you simply mean that they don't exist as concreta (concrete objects) - but no one would say that an abstract objects is a concrete object in the first place.

Mathematics is an abstract concept, however actual infinites cannot exist in reality. But that is another debate altogether.


Mathematical objects certainly are abstracta and I do contend they exist "in reality". Seeing that you seem to be a fairly informed theist so I'm guessing you are alluding to some type of Craigian argument against actual infinities here. At best, all his arguments prove (and I don't even think they go that far) is that an actual infinity of concrete objects - or actual infintities of a certain type - cannot exist "in reality". They don't show that actual infinities simplicter can't exist in reality .Craig is actually a nominalist wrt to abstract objects and I think that is a fairy problematic position. I don't think those arguments work and I'd be glad to debate you on that.

The criticism I would like to propose of Platinga's argument is that in reality, tradeoffs exist while in mathematics they do not. There is no loss in real value when increasing the highest natural number by one. Platinga argues a world may exist with one more holy angel praising God or one more person enjoying life. I would say that an increase in the number of entities that exists would have a tradeoff. If we had 20 billion existing humans then there would be horrific amounts of starvation, far exceeding the amount we see now. Now your answer would be that God could also increase the Earth's carrying capacity but then I would say that the increased number of humans would increase the stimulation of evil insofar as we have free will, creating tradeoffs. That is to say, is having this extra human more better than the the evil he will bring about? As such, there can be a best possible world which addresses tradeoffs in the most efficient possible manner.

I'll set aside the the criticisms I have and work with your scenario.

Also on even going with your supposition why couldn't there be multiple possible worlds in which they are all tied in their value and they all handle the tradeoffs in an equally efficient, yet different way?

If I were to follow your line of reasoning (with the trade offs) wouldn't that show that this possible world isn't the best possible world? You say that increasing the amount of humans would increase the "stimulation of evil" and therefore increase the tradeoff amount - if that were the case, then wouldn't a possible world in which there are LESS humans there are in this world be the best one?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2012 9:50:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would like to clarify upon the objection that I propose. Evil can be eliminated. However, God places value upon free will, and free will naturally lends itself to evil acts. If God were to place limits upon our capabilities, i.e. make it impossible for us to commit evil deeds even if we willed them, then the free will would be meaningless.:

Ergo God placing physical limitations on our freewill, such as, but not limited to: breathing underwater, walking through walls, flying without mechanical assistance, etc means that freewill is ultimately meaningless.

Secondly, there are conflicting biblical passages concerning freewill vs predestination. Is there actual freewill or only the illusion of freewill?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)