From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 20:32:50 BST
Hi Mel, and all,
Yes, I actually posted this BEFORE the MOQ formulation, so it comes
out of sequence. I agree that it is less interesting than the MOQ
form, but not because it's not a good argument: It is an
UNANSWERABLE argument, though you gave it a good try.
Your idea that God uses misery to build character (life is sort of a
really brutal Boy Scount camp?) implies that he is impotent, or not
smart enough, to come up with a benevolent way to do it. Besides,
that's not character developing in the face of the little girl with
the broken back, fully alert and watching as the wolf eats her alive,
one bone-crunching, sinew-tearing bite at a time.
Anyway, as I said, I'm much more interested in the MOQ form of the
POE, because I can't bear the thought of my beloved Quality falling
by the logical wayside.
David Morey made some helpful comments re the first version of the
MOQ formulation. I'll be interested to hear what he and you, and
anyone else thinks about the second.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' On 17 Aug 2004 at 8:42, ml wrote: Hello Mark, In some ways, this formulation was deprecated by your QUALITY one and is therefore less interesting. but for thoroughness sake I'll try" (msh) > > P1) God exists > > P2) God is omniscient > > P3) God is omnipotent > > P4) God is benevolent > > P5) The world is full of suffering not caused by man. > > > > P5 is evident. Therefore God, as defined (P2-P4), does not exist. > >mel: Thanks for the formulation, but once again another > example that makes no REAL world sense. > An implied duty slides unmentioned that the ability > to do something equates to a duty, but the whole > free will thing cancels that linkage...no need for > an emergence emergency ;-) > > msh says: > I don't understand your response. We're not talking about HUMAN > free will and duty. In fact, this formulation explicitly excludes > suffering caused by human beings. So I don't see how this > formulation can be rejected as making no sense. > > Tell me WHY it makes no sense to you. mel: ONE: For (P2-4), an implication of a duty slides unmentioned but strongly associated with the propositions that the ability of such a god to do something equates to a duty to do so. The ability to prevent suffering does NOT imply a duty requiring the god to prevent suffering. TWO: We ARE talking about free will. Think of it as a degrees of freedom problem. For free will to be significant, the range of possible formulations of 'problems' to solve (situations to react to) must be maximized. Otherwise free will in a sanitized Disneyesque reality is trivial. (e.g. I have the ability to prevent my daughter from falling down and experiencing pain. 1, Do I have the duty to do so? 2, Is it desireable for her that I do so? If the answer is YES to both, then she will never learn how to ride a bicycle.) Also, " The world is full of suffering not caused by man" is a good description of one of the causes or an impetus for adaptation and species radiation. Suffering indicates the presence of a 'problem' which the response by a population solves by adaptation, and a broader distribution of 'problems' by radiation into many niches. ----------------------- Part of MY problem with the traditional formulation is obviously my own background, hence a REAL world objection as opposed to a simply logical or structural objection. A western american "god helps those who help themselves" outlook makes the traditional formulation nonsensical in just such a world. An omniscent, omnipresent, benevolent god presents the challenges in the world to provide the individual opportunity for development (on so many possible levels), through those very "problems" percieved in the world. How much value does a person bring with them, who is from a background where they've been coddled like a ceramic doll? Not someone I want to go backpacking with... So, that is my hidden assumption. thanks--mel MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 17 2004 - 22:47:44 BST