Debate

[Tom]

Originally posted by frogus

thanks for not patronising me by telling me what ontology is

Why yes what my dear boy - and that being my second favourit passtime and all

Basically ontology is the study of the nature of existence and stuff (Notice the academic rigor). The ontological argument (the name doesn’t really fit it) is a clever argument that is entirely based on the nature of god and if it is a good argument shows that god necessarily exists.
The consensus,unsurprisingly, among professional philosophers is that it does not work.

[Der-draigen]

The confusion comes because we have to think of god as being 'perfectly' good

But, why do we have to think of God in this way?

And, what is your idea of being perfectly good? Does perfectly good mean that God gives us everyting we want? Or, could it mean that God's perfect goodness is more like that of a parent who denies his/her child something the child wants, but might be bad for it?

Not trying to argue, just trying to clarify

[frogus]

Basically ontology is the study of the nature of existence and stuff (Notice the academic rigor). The ontological argument (the name doesn’t really fit it) is a clever argument that is entirely based on the nature of god and if it is a good argument shows that god necessarily exists.

ahhh....*understands absolutely nothing more*

[C Elegans]

Nice to see that the discussion can continue on friendly terms

@Frogus: I'm still confused how you mean that suffering is necessary given man's free will. Please, if you have time, go back to the message I posted in golden text above.

[AbysmalNature]

Naturalistic or Cosmological arguments for the existence of God are quite valid, there does not have to be a God for the universe to exist. The argument of the strong anthropic principle is that the universe needed to be finely tuned for life to come into being, that this was a very improbable event. This is simply not true, because modern quantum mechanics dictate that there is a infinite amount of universes(or at least Everett's model of it), therefore given a infinite amount of time and space, the chances of our universe happening with the specific constraints it had is a hundred percent, because that is what happens when you deal with infinity. Assume the universe is not infinite, then it is still by definition infinite, because it is eternal, therefore infinite along a timelike path. This means that given a certain amount of time and space, anything can and will happen, even the statistical improbability of a Universe with our specific values happening.

There does not need to be sentience for the universe to exist, there just needs to be simple random chance, or if you prefer Chaos.

Keep in mind that even though a universe does not need a God to exist does not mean there is not a God, just that the universe could exist without a God.

[frogus]

But, why do we have to think of God in this way?

well...That's the way he's portrayed in the bible.
'He is the Rock, his works are perfect, And all his works are just. A faithful god who does no wrong, upright and just is he.'
Deuteronomy 32:4
'As for god, his way is perfect; the Word of the Lord is flawless'
Psalm 18:30
'Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.'
Romans 12:2

I cannot speak for how god actually is because I have never met or experienced him. The bible is the only link to him that I have.

And, what is your idea of being perfectly good? Does perfectly good mean that God gives us everyting we want? Or, could it mean that God's perfect goodness is more like that of a parent who denies his/her child something the child wants, but might be bad for it?

I define a good action with the old utilitarian slogan 'The greatest happiness for the greatest number' (again, see 'Is it Fair?-probably very buried by now-for my views on this.)
In short, a good action is one which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number. In the example you used (obviously I cannot say because the child is not real, but I will *assume* -sorry- that you mean to say that child of the parents who deny their child will turn out 'better') the parents who deny their child are better because they (in the long run) are bringing happiness to the child :he will have the satisfaction of not being selfish etc... and they are also bringing happiness to everyone who will ever meet the child. He will be pleasant and selfless.
All this far outways the small unhappiness of they child's insignificant deprivation.

So that's a good action: A perfectly good being is one who's every action is good as I define it, I believe.

I will tell you later on why this is not evidence for us accepting god's greater morality in the [grand scheme of things].
[]excuse cliches.

[fable]

It now seems that you do believe that god is perfectly good, so you may be a Christian. If you do not (as it seemed earlier on in the discussion) then you may not. Sorry, but it's not my decision.

@Frogus, I'd like to repeat my question referring to this, since I think it is pertinent to the ongoing conversation about "God's goodness:"

Just to help the conversation along and perhaps quiet things down a bit, maybe you could explain what branch of Christianity demands in its credo that its worshippers accept the essential "goodness" of their deity. I've checked the Athanasian, and there's no mention of this.

[Tom]

Regarding Utilitarianism. The principle is simply: Maximise pleasure/utility/happiness.

Thats it.

Introduce an egalitarian principle into the mix and you have a conflict.

Example. Situation 1. 10% of the population have 1000 happiness points each while the rest, 90%, have 5 happiness points each, overall there is 10450 happiness points.
Situation 2. Each individual in the population have 90 happiness points, overall there is 8000 happiness points.

The problem is that there is no principle that tells us which situation is the best. We would need a third principle to decide between the two - making the whole thing rather messy.

[Der-draigen]

well...That's the way he's portrayed in the bible.
'He is the Rock, his works are perfect, And all his works are just. A faithful god who does no wrong, upright and just is he.'
Deuteronomy 32:4
'As for god, his way is perfect; the Word of the Lord is flawless'
Psalm 18:30
'Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.'
Romans 12:2

Okay, now we're getting somewhere So your basis for God's goodness depends on the Bible.

Here are some more verses to consider:

"We accept good things from God, and should we not accept evil?" (Job 2:10)

"On a good day enjoy good things, and on an evil day consider: Both the one and the other God has made, so that man cannot find fault with him in anything" (Ecclesiastes 7:14).

Psalm 88.

The "Suffering Servant" portions in Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life. I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand" (Deut. 32:39).

"For he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal" (Job 5:18).

"For it is he who has rent, but he will heal us; he has struck us, but he willbind our wounds" (Hosea 6:1. This is taken out of context; but it seems to complement the quote from Job above.)

Throughout the books of the Prophets (and the Book of Deuteronomy to an extent), God is portrayed as deliberately inflicting suffering and exile upon his people. Now, this was seen by the prophets as part of a greater good (namely, to discpline and "cleanse" the people and make them turn back to God). However, it certainly didn't make the Israelites happy. So, your utilitarian theory, of the greatest good providing happiness, may not necessarily apply to God. My example of the child was for a situation such as, the child wants something like a big shiny knife. Now, the child loves the shiny knife and really, really wants it because he is convinced it will bring him happiness. Dad knows better and takes the knife away. Junior is devastated because his happiness has been taken away. Or, Junior really, really wants to eat the entire cake. He is certain that his happiness depends on this cake. And Dad takes it away citing tooth decay. Junior is devastated. He is certain his life is ruined.

It is only later on, when Junior matures and grows, that he realizes what a loving father he really had, and begins to understand why his dad did what he did.

The point I'm trying to make is............We don't really know what our own happiness depends on. We may think it's this job, or that person, or even our own health, home, finances, etc. etc. So, when those things are taken away, causing us to suffer, we rail against God -- not unlike Job himself. But the fact is that only God really knows what will bring our souls happiness in the long term; and God knows what he's doing. It certainly confuses us; it might not bring us happiness at this moment, or even in this life; but ultimately it is for our greater, long-term good. The progress of the soul is not the same as the progress of our bodies or even of our minds. The soul goes through an eternal growth process. I believe that suffering has to be considered from this perspective.

Now, this is (a small part of) my own take on suffering that I have developed through my own life experience, and, yes, reading and studying the Bible. There are other excellent takes on suffering. Perhaps you would find the Buddhist ideas on the subject more approachable, or some other tradition

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Nice to see that the discussion can continue on friendly terms

It is a testament to the maturity of the members involved that they can continue after the previous disagreements. keep it up

[fable]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


It is a testament to the maturity of the members involved that they can continue after the previous disagreements. keep it up

But then why, @Sleep, does your avatar seem to be grimacing in pain?

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by fable
But then why, @Sleep, does your avatar seem to be grimacing in pain?

There are two answers to this question:

1) Something terrible is happening off screen involving DW, T' and Ysh

2) I haven't closed a thread in a while and i am getting grumpy

Originally posted by Tom
Regarding Utilitarianism. The principle is simply: Maximise pleasure/utility/happiness.

Sounds like the culture from Iain M Banks' Sci Fi novels

[frogus]

Example. Situation 1. 10% of the population have 1000 happiness points each while the rest, 90%, have 5 happiness points each, overall there is 10450 happiness points.
Situation 2. Each individual in the population have 90 happiness points, overall there is 8000 happiness points.
The problem is that there is no principle that tells us which situation is the best. We would need a third principle to decide between the two - making the whole thing rather messy.

The 10450 happiness points is better....As long as nobody has negative point totals (unhappiness), then the more happiness the better, whatever circumstances. That's what I think.

[frogus]

It is only later on, when Junior matures and grows, that he realizes what a loving father he really had, and begins to understand why his dad did what he did.

The point I'm trying to make is............We don't really know what our own happiness depends on. We may think it's this job, or that person, or even our own health, home, finances, etc. etc. So, when those things are taken away, causing us to suffer, we rail against God

Bringing the parallel back...no human has ever got to 'grow up'. We can appreciate that not giving Junior the cake or the knife will be better in the long run, because we have seen countless childrn grow up with and without knives and cake and we have seen that the ones without always turn into the better men (if this is true or not doesn't really matter). We have never seen a single person grow from the childhood of mortal life into the manhood of divine comprehension. We have no way of knowing if daddy's rules are good or bad.

Perhaps you would find the Buddhist ideas on the subject more approachable, or some other tradition

Just don't think I've got the religious instinct I'm afraid...ahhh..now there's an issue for debate...

[Der-draigen]

no human has ever got to 'grow up'

It's a natural and inevitable process, frogus. But if you insist *sigh*

We have never seen a single person grow from the childhood of mortal life into the manhood of divine comprehension.

That's because, like I said, we don't see the growth of the soul. The majority of it might not even occur in this life. And we don't see what happens to the soul after it leaves the mortal body and continues its journey. We don't know what that journey is like. Like I also said, the fact that we can't see something, or some process, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, think what you want about that; it's my own belief.

We have no way of knowing if daddy's rules are good or bad.

I suppose that's where trust comes in.

I'm sure you might answer "there's no reason to trust God"; but like I said before -- if you've already decided there's no reason, you won't search for it, so you'll never find it, even if it's right in front of you.

Just don't think I've got the religious instinct I'm afraid...

Buddhism is mainly more a philosophy than anything else.....

A good book on suffering BTW is Night by Elie Wiesel, concentration camp survivor.

[Tom]

Originally posted by frogus
The 10450 happiness points is better....As long as nobody has negative point totals (unhappiness), then the more happiness the better, whatever circumstances. That's what I think.

That doesnt matter. just imagine that there is people that have minus happiness points and that the rest 10% is so much happier.
This could be perhaps a society built on slaves were the ruling classes have everything and the majority is slaves that provide the happines to the few.
This is in my opinion a proplem for utilitarianism.

The point is that there is a conflict if you want an egalitarian principle as well as the maximisation principle.

I think that utilitarianism is too simple - we need something more complex to capture the notion of goodness.

[frogus]

That doesnt matter.

Well hmph.

just imagine that there is people that have minus happiness points and that the rest 10% is so much happier.
This could be perhaps a society built on slaves were the ruling classes have everything and the majority is slaves that provide the happines to the few.

My point still stands. Although my response to your example was probably a bit simple, this is still all good. I think that having slaves in the first place will bring the ruling class unhappiness in the end. By happiness I do not mean security, wealth, health or any of those other things of which happiness is often an apparent symptom. I mean real happiness. Secondly the act will not bring greater happiness in the long run. By 'the long run' I mean the entire scape of human existance. By the end of time, I think it is inconceivable that happiness of the few 'ruling classes' will not be outweighed by the unhappiness it has caused. Wait a second. I'll dig up some of my arguments from when I was talking about this before...

[frogus]

here's what I said before:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An action can be good and please one person, yet harm no others; or an action can be good and displease many, because it incurs shortterm suffering (and that can be a week, or a hundred years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok...but remember I didn't say 'please', I said 'bring happiness to'. Isn't it true that the type of acton you are talking about, which are good despite pleasing noone, are good because they bring happiness to a great many people in the long term. They may bring happiness to people who are not even alive yet, or they may bring happiness to people of whom those displeased have no knowledge. I think that in this way your point agrees with mine, but if you believe that an action can be good even though it 'displeases' some people and doesn't bring any hapiness to anyone(alive or not/present or future), please tell me so.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An action can serve the immediate good for a large group of people, yet have a disastrous effect overall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes quite so. This is exactly my point as well. The action you describe is bad because it brings greater unhapiness in the long run than it does happiness.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, the question of perception, and attaching a greater weight to numbers of people pleased, without establishing any significance for that weighting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

right, perhaps this is a problem in my wording. I will assume that you agree that one person can be happier than another, and so too could be said to possess more happiness.
Now when I say the greatest happiness for the greatest number, I mean that granting two people x happiness each would be just as good as granting one person 2x happiness, so granting 50 people x happiness and 49 people x unhappiness each would also be a 'good' action.

Now I know that you will not accept that happiness can be measured in 'x's, and of coursed I do not believe this myself. I do say however that one can tell (with sufficient wisdom) wether doing a simple thing (buying flowers for your wife, say) will bring happiness or unhappiness. That is why the best and wisest people do things which very rarely bring unhappiness to anyone at all, because trying to speculate as to the balance of happiness and unhappiness is absolutely impossible.

an example worth bringing up is Chairman Mao's dictatorship, which is one of the cases in which happiness and unhappiness is very very finely balanced. I say that although chairman mao's acts brought great unhappiness to a great many people, they may yet prove to bring greater happiness than unhappiness in the future (ie the Chinese would all be very unhappy if they were still ruled by a feudal system).
This agrees with what you said earlier, that something can be bad even if it brings immediate pleasure to a great number (so something can be good even if it brings immediate displeasure to a great number).

[fable]

an example worth bringing up is Chairman Mao's dictatorship, which is one of the cases in which happiness and unhappiness is very very finely balanced. I say that although chairman mao's acts brought great unhappiness to a great many people, they may yet prove to bring greater happiness than unhappiness in the future (ie the Chinese would all be very unhappy if they were still ruled by a feudal system).

How do you know this? Have you made an intensive study over the last twenty years of a specific Chinese dynasty? Have you even read the diaries of visiting missionaries and merchants in the T'ang dynasty, or the accounts of contemporary scholars and Ming diplomats, to get their impressions? With respect, you seem to be commiting a judgment upon several thousand years of Chinese history and tens of millions of people based upon preconceptions about generic "feudalism" and "democracy."

But even moving to the present, how can you say that Maoism has brought a "finely balanced" mixture of happiness and unhappiness to all of China? Did you take a survey in Tibet of the millions who have been left homeless, the tens of thousands who have been killed, in order to supplant a culture easily as old as China's? Have you spoken with the underground Roman Catholic Church priests, who have to move locations every week to avoid being taken with their flock by the police, and imprisoned for "resocialization?" What exactly have you studied, to come up with such a conclusion of a change wrought so swiftly on more than a billion people, wiping out the institutions they and their ancestors had lived by for thousands of years?

I'm not speaking in favor of any regime. I just can't understand the need to judge with a breathtaking lack of evidence.

[Curdis]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
This is simply not true, because modern quantum mechanics dictate that there is a infinite amount of universes(or at least Everett's model of it), therefore given a infinite amount of time and space, the chances of our universe happening with the specific constraints it had is a hundred percent, because that is what happens when you deal with infinity.

While I do not disagree with your thesis - That it is not necessary for God to exist if the Universe Exists. I must take exception to your arguement.

"because modern quantum mechanics dictate that there is a infinite amount of universes". I require clarification as to what the qualifier "modern" means in this context. I am of the opinion that Everett's model relies on Classical Quantum Mechanics.

To the point however. To state that something is 'simply not true' on the basis of an aspect of an intepretion of Quantum Theory which is hottly disputed is not sound. I had to go and find out what Everett's model was and I have studied the subject of Quantum Mechanics relatively recently and I must say that it didn't come up. For readers who would like to understand six impossible things before breakfast I recomend: A Quantum Mechanics FAQ
For an appreciation of Everett (And the essentially Metaphysical nature of his interpretation) try: Interpreting a theory

I don't expect that readers of this august forum would take either as holy writ .

In support of AbysmalNature's original arguement the multiple parallel universe theory doesn't require quantum mechanics or infinity (as such) all that needs be reasoned is that if it is impossible for man to exist in any of the other possibilities it was certain that he can exist in this one. To the stronger infinite arguement it simply takes the boundaries out further and states that if there are infinite possibilities than there is a probability of one (certainty) that it will happen somewhere. @AbysmalNature, If I am misrepresenting your position I apologise. - Curdis !