Could you have created a better world than god?

[dontsnitch]

Or I'd go with what he said, but NO starving children.

Okay, but if you take away starving children, I raise you a world without the need for food, so there's not even the chance of starvation. We can do this until we reach some version of heaven. Now what? If God exists he must be a boob? This goes nowhere.

 

[meauneau]

The problem of evil is intrinsically tied to Euthyphro. There is so much to unpack here, it's hard to even start. The fact is that if you set up a metric, it's impossible for me to refute your conclusion since it does indeed follow your premise. The obvious debate is whether or not your premise is necessary, which it isn't. God may or may not exist, but this exercise is fruitless at best.

It cannot be about whether or not the premise is necessary because it is not an analytic (necessary), it is synthetic.

The debate is about whether or not the conclusion is supported by the evidence.

 

[meauneau]

Okay, but if you take away starving children, I raise you a world without the need for food, so there's not even the chance of starvation. We can do this until we reach some version of heaven. Now what? If God exists he must be a boob? This goes nowhere.

Why can't it be a version of heaven if heaven is better that the actual world?

 

[dontsnitch]

It cannot be about whether or not the premise is necessary because it is not an analytic (necessary), it is synthetic.

The debate is about whether or not the conclusion is supported by the evidence.

Philosophically, the conclusion is not necessary since there are other alternatives. For one, you assume, based on nothing, that "better" means less pain, and that any pain in the world is a symptom of God's failure. There are plenty of other explanations that refute your conclusion as being necessary, i.e. free will, suffering is not always bad, deism, etc.

Why can't it be a version of heaven if heaven is better that the actual world?

It could be a version of heaven. You've proved nothing.

 

[klnOmega]

This is why I asked, assuming you are omnimax,

That's the most ridiculous assumption.

You can't know what decision you'd make if you were omniscient...without being omniscient.

You might as well put up a some advanced math theorem, and say "assuming you were the smartest mathematician ever, how would you proof this theorem".

 

[Bald1]

I was thinking of even the single example of the diversity in the world of, not even insects, but specifically mantidae. What millions of years of evolution have done is nothing short of mind boggling and far more intriguing than the empty notion of "God waved His mighty hand"

Well, I just went further down the mantis hole than I thought I ever would. Didn't think there was such a variety of them.

Cue conversation about "kinds". How long before a mantis turns into an elephant?

Kidding, please, let's not start that again.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Well, I just went further down the mantis hole than I thought I ever would. Didn't think there was such a variety of them.

Cue conversation about "kinds". How long before a mantis turns into an elephant?

Kidding, please, let's not start that again.

LOL
I used to contribute to Talkorigins.
Heh

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Yup. Nothing below a C cup.

 

[meauneau]

Philosophically, the conclusion is not necessary since there are other alternatives. For one, you assume, based on nothing, that "better" means less pain, and that any pain in the world is a symptom of God's failure. There are plenty of other explanations that refute your conclusion as being necessary, i.e. free will, suffering is not always bad, deism, etc.

That it is not necessary depends on the premises and the validity of the argument. Nevertheless, if the premises support it more than its contrary then the argument is a successful one.

I didn't assume that better means less pain and suffering, I defined it like that because it is a general truth that people avoid pain and suffering when they can and the term better expresses a preference or requirement, hence my definition.

It could be a version of heaven. You've proved nothing.

An all loving, maximally good and perfectly moral god capable of creating a version of heaven but doesn't. This is reason enough to deny that this god is loving, good and moral. Saying we don't know the reasons, etc., doesn't help your case or undermine ours.

 

[Harmonica]

An all loving, maximally good and perfectly moral god capable of creating a version of heaven but doesn't. This is reason enough to deny that this god is loving, good and moral. Saying we don't know the reasons, etc., doesn't help your case or undermine ours.

Or maybe that he, in his infinite wisdom, knows us better than we know ourselves and actually gave us what we wanted.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Yup. Nothing below a C cup.

Like, but I say, whatever set that's best for the body style.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Like, but I say, whatever set that's best for the body style.

C or above is best for every body style. C for the slighter built ladies, D or above for average build, and so on.

 

[meauneau]

That's the most ridiculous assumption.

You can't know what decision you'd make if you were omniscient...without being omniscient.

You might as well put up a some advanced math theorem, and say "assuming you were the smartest mathematician ever, how would you proof this theorem".

This is about the amount of pain and suffering in the world and the possible ways to minimise it. If you ask me about all the scientific facts about cake making and how I could improve cakes in a chemical level I wouldn't be able to suggest anything. But if you asked me how I could improve it in a macro level I could suggest presentation ideas, tastes, textures, colours, etc.

I am not asking for the blueprint of the world, just some changes we could make which would result in less suffering. Even one less child suffering cancer is a world with less pain and sufferi g than this one.

 

[meauneau]

Or maybe that he, in his infinite wisdom, knows us better than we know ourselves and actually gave us what we wanted.

He knew what we wanted before we existed even though it is not what we want now that we exist? How absurd. Lol.

 

[klnOmega]

This is about the amount of pain and suffering in the world and the possible ways to minimise it. If you ask me about all the scientific facts about cake making and how I could improve cakes in a chemical level I wouldn't be able to suggest anything. But if you asked me how I could improve it in a macro level I could suggest presentation ideas, tastes, textures, colours, etc.

I am not asking for the blueprint of the world, just some changes we could make which would result in less suffering. Even one less child suffering cancer is a world with less pain and sufferi g than this one.

You don't understand that you can't know that without being omniscient. That child that dies of childhood cancer could have become a school shooter.

 

[Harmonica]

He knew what we wanted before we existed even though it is not what we want now that we exist? How absurd. Lol.

What makes you say it's what we want now that we exist? Have you considered the possibility that we actually, without being aware of it, want the world to be full of suffering and pain?

 

[meauneau]

You don't understand that you can't know that without being omniscient. That child that dies of childhood cancer could have become a school shooter.

Lets assume that he doesn't become a school shooter and becomes a successful doctor. This is a possibility as much as it is a possibility that he becomes a school shooter. Wouldn't a world where the kid becomes a doctor be a better world than the one where he dies of cancer or doesn't get cancer but becomes a school shooter?

Very simple.

 

[dontsnitch]

That it is not necessary depends on the premises and the validity of the argument. Nevertheless, if the premises support it more than its contrary then the argument is a successful one.

I didn't assume that better means less pain and suffering, I defined it like that because it is a general truth that people avoid pain and suffering when they can and the term better expresses a preference or requirement, hence my definition.





An all loving, maximally good and perfectly moral god capable of creating a version of heaven but doesn't. This is reason enough to deny that this god is loving, good and moral. Saying we don't know the reasons, etc., doesn't help your case or undermine ours.

I listed several alternatives that are just as viable and wholly contradict your conclusion being necessary. God may not exist, but you're never going to prove it with this argument. If you think you've stumbled on an argument that proves the non-existence of God, you'd be the first, especially through a deductive argument. I have no problem you promoting this as inductive reasoning for the non-existence of a God, but your conclusion is simply not necessary, and I can't state that enough.

 

[meauneau]

What makes you say it's what we want now that we exist? Have you considered the possibility that we actually, without being aware of it, want the world to be full of suffering and pain?

What if we don't eant the world to be full of suffering and pain and we are not aware of it?

Come on bro this is silly and shows how desperate people can get to save their belief in god.

 

[Harmonica]

What if we don't eant the world to be full of suffering and pain and we are not aware of it?

Come on bro this is silly and shows how desperate people can get to save their belief in god.

Nice try, but I don't believe in god. You obviously can't entertain an idea to save your life. Plus you are laughably superficial and devoid of psychological insight if you think such a thing as people wanting something other than they're saying isn't possible.