What to do about ISIS

[Irysa]

How are my choices all illusions?

The claim that it is ridiculous for a God esque being to exist is not relevant to the free will issue, you're appealing to ridiculousness.

How are they not? I'm appealing to ridiculousness because there is no other way to combat such a position.

"I can choose to do things QED I have free will" has no application to a position that sustains that we are not capable of free will, and are in fact, simply under the illusion of such. There is no way to demonstrate that this is the case, in the same way there is no way to demonstrate that a completely invisible, undetectable entity exists in the universe, but people find reasons to believe as such anyway. Simulteanously, there is no way to demonstrate that this is NOT the case, because your own deductions can be simply claimed to be an undetectable illusion. "I think therefore I am" can't work against it. It's an argument that essentially denies existance in itself, and is so absurd that it can't be even be reasoned with.

But what will happen then? Will we recognize the Islamic State as a sovereign nation? Will the people in ISIS be the ones who's opinions matter? I still maintain that even if we give them a ceasefire it will only lead to another war. We shouldn't stop with anything less with the total destruction of ISIS, or future generations will suffer in future wars.

I can't see the future - I don't know exactly what would result from such a negociation. I agree that there are things that we should not concede, but simulteanously would not rule out an attempt at negociations with potentially more moderate leaders.

Another redrawing of borders of the middle east may be the least grievous solution. There isn't neccesarily entirely a bad thing, Kurdistan could become a reality for example.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Irysa

[Rapier]

With regards to natural disasters, I also have questions about it (on that matter, my opinion is more akin to that of dondon and Chiki, that they are not necessary to exist nor are they born from human action - well, most of them aren't, therefore God could've made then unexistance since the beginning). Yet a weird question comes up in my mind: Are natural disasters evil? How are they evil? That might sound ridiculous (I admit, I don't have a proper concept of good or evil, I just use what is accepted by common sense about them), but an earthquake that kills a lot of people as a consequence is different from someone who deliberately chooses to kill a lot of people and pursue this on purpose. In that sense, an earhquake is merely a proccess of nature. We just consider it evil because it harms us, not because it is evil in and on itself.

That said, this is no argument, because these natural disasters do not need to exist. God, through omnipotence, could've made a perfect working nature that does not create natural disasters.

"I can choose to do things QED I have free will" has no application to a position that sustains that we are not capable of free will, and are in fact, simply under the illusion of such

I really fail to understand how we can choose between multiple options and not have free will at the same time. What am I missing?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Rapier

[Irysa]

I really fail to understand how we can choose between multiple options and not have free will at the same time. What am I missing?

The deterministic/anti free will position is that you aren't actually choosing based on your own "free will". The choice you make is simply predetermined, and you did not actually make a choice, you followed a subroutine (or whatever) that says "Rapier does X". You're under the illusion that you made that choice.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Irysa

[Chiki]

How would it have been less evil for God to not allow Adam and Eve to commit a sin both consented to without breaking the pact of free will and becoming an all manipulative, totalitarian deity?

I ignored it because it's a stupid point tbh. If I tried to save my 6 year old cousin from being hit by a car, am I breaking the pact of free will? Am I becoming an all manipulative, totalitarian cousin? LOL.

Similarly, if God doesn't allow Adam and Eve to commit a sin because of the horrible consequences it would lead to, I don't see how that's wrong......

bad things, including needless suffering, will take place.

Thank you for admitting this point, because it's enough for me to prove that God doesn't exist!

1) Anyone who lets people die even though they had the power to stop it is evil. (I think everyone can agree on this.)

2) God lets people die needlessly. (You just admitted this)

3) God is evil. (Follows from 1 and 2)

---

4) God is omnibenevolent (by definition).

5) So God is not evil. (follows from 4).

---

6) God doesn't exist because his existence leads to a contradiction (nothing can be evil and not evil at the same time).

There, I proved that God doesn't exist.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Chiki

[Irysa]

Or people claiming he's benevolent are just wrong and he does exist.

1) Anyone who lets people die even though they had the power to stop it is evil. (I think everyone can agree on this.)

Eh, a doctor who facilitates an assissted suicide doesn't neccessarily count as evil. If you add a bit more clarity to this then it's fine though.

[dondon151]

I really fail to understand how we can choose between multiple options and not have free will at the same time. What am I missing?

i program a robot that dispenses a candy. it can dispense snickers, jolly ranchers, or werther's toffees. it has a random number generator that determines what it can dispense. does this robot have free will? it can choose between multiple options.

you might argue that he's not really "choosing" because an RNG is determining his action (although RNGs are never truly random; they are always based on physical states). suppose instead that the robot dispenses a candy based on the color shown to him. does this robot have free will? it can choose between multiple options.

suppose that this robot has a sufficiently advanced AI so that i can ask it philosophical questions and it can answer them. i say to this robot, "you do not have free will." but how would the robot actually know whether or not it has free will?

Edited April 28, 2015 by dondon151

[Chiki]

Or people claiming he's benevolent are just wrong and he does exist.

Eh, a doctor who facilitates an assissted suicide doesn't neccessarily count as evil. If you add a bit more clarity to this then it's fine though.

No, that would be changing the definition of what God is. God, in the sense that he is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient provably doesn't exist. God, in the sense that he is omnipotent and omniscient, however, may exist.

Ok, that can be changed a tiny bit. Suppose you're omnipotent and you had the power to stop the Nepal earthquake, and didn't. That's evil.

[Rapier]

Basically, as far as we know, at least one of these statements is false:

1) God exists

2) God is omnibenevolent

3) God is omniscient

4) God is omnipotent

5) This is not the best of all possible words

God's inexistance can not be proved philosophically without also proving this is not the best of all possible worlds, which until now is impossible to say. It is perfectly valid to claim this is not the best of all possible worlds.

I ignored it because it's a stupid point tbh. If I tried to save my 6 year old cousin from being hit by a car, am I breaking the pact of free will? Am I becoming an all manipulative, totalitarian cousin? LOL.

Similarly, if God doesn't allow Adam and Eve to commit a sin because of the horrible consequences it would lead to, I don't see how that's wrong......

You're misunderstanding it, or didn't read my post correctly.

If God were to stop them from commiting a sin they consented to, he would be breaking the free will pact (let us drift away from the discussion whether it exists or not for a moment). But if God is omnibenevolent, he wouldn't lie. Therefore, he himself imposed a restriction that he wouldn't intervene in free will. And if he didn't even make such a deal of free will, that would mean God is manipulative and totalitarian. Which brings me to 5, this is the best of all possible worlds.

Your citations of rape and saving your cousin are nowhere similar to the case, because they require a victim and a guilty party, where the guilty party is stopped to save the victim. In Adam and Eve's case, they are simultaneously the victims and the guilty parties. A better comparison would be the siblings having unsafe sex one, or a couple trying to suicide. Both are harmful imoral actions, but should we stop them forcefully?

So, if you save your cousin from a car like Urameshi Yusuke, you're not a totalitarian mean cousin. But if you stop someone from having unsafe sex and getting aids, or from smoking and possibly getting lung cancer later on, then yes. No, you can't stop someone from harming themselves if they deliberately take this path, otherwise it would be immoral and totalitarian (hey, we have seen this a lot on politics, haven't we? People who try to tell us what we should consume and do, because 'it would be the best for us', followed by a threat of prosecution if not complied). On the latter case, as well as in Adam and Eve's case, personal responsibility is taken into account.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Basically, as far as we know, one of these statements is false:

1) God exists

2) God is omnibenevolent

3) God is omniscient

4) God is omnipotent

5) This is not the best of all possible words

no, lol. if 5 is false, then at least one of 2, 3, or 4 is false. if one of 2, 3, or 4 is false, then 1 is false.

[Rapier]

no, lol. if 5 is false, then at least one of 2, 3, or 4 is false. if one of 2, 3, or 4 is false, then 1 is false.

At least one*

My bad.

[dondon151]

that doesn't matter, your claim

God's inexistance can not be proved philosophically without also proving this is not the best of all possible worlds, which until now is impossible to say. It is perfectly valid to claim this is not the best of all possible worlds.

is wrong. if this is not the best of all possible worlds, then obviously god is either not being as good is he can be, unaware that he's not being good, or powerless to make this world better.

there can be various definitions as to what constitutes a "better" world, but it's pretty trivial to imagine a better one by almost any definition. suppose a "better" world is one in which i have $20 more to my name (because i would be happier if i had more money and a "better" world maximizes happiness). this world doesn't exist, so we're not living in the best of all possible worlds.

the fact that the best thinkable world where everyone is happy and no one is sad cannot possibly exist (because resources aren't infinite and opportunity costs exist) indicates that the concept of an all-powerful god is logically self-contradictory. some christian apologists contend that god cannot violate logical consistency, but if god created the universe, why can't he violate logical consistency?

Therefore, he himself imposed a restriction that he wouldn't intervene in free will. And if he didn't even make such a deal of free will, that would mean God is manipulative and totalitarian.

how is being "manipulative and totalitarian" necessarily bad? a totalitarian society in which every individual is happy cannot be claimed to be unequivocally bad.

and regardless, god is manipulative and totalitarian in a bad way because he determines where i go in the afterlife and if i don't suck his dick, i'm supposed to be fucked for eternity.

Edited April 28, 2015 by dondon151

[Chiki]

1) God exists

2) God is omnibenevolent

3) God is omniscient

4) God is omnipotent

5) This is not the best of all possible words

God's inexistance can not be proved philosophically without also proving this is not the best of all possible worlds, which until now is impossible to say. It is perfectly valid to claim this is not the best of all possible worlds.

What Leibniz thinks about possible worlds is very very different from what Platinga (1974) thinks about possible worlds (to those who don't know, Platinga is one of the most famous theist philosophers alive).

It's very technical and hard to explain, and this is probably incorrect but I'll try to explain it as simply as possible. Platinga thinks that possible worlds are mere mathematical objects: sets of propositions that describe what the world (not Earth, but the universe) is like. For example, there is a possible world such that there is one proposition true in it: there is a red ball. Since Platinga thinks that possible worlds are mere abstract objects, we have a possible world for literally every set of proposition, and there is an infinite number of propositions (snow is white, grass is green, Snowy sucks at Fire Emblem, etc.)*

There is also a possible world, call it A, in which there is a single planet in which there is nothing except billions and billions of people living in perfect happiness, in which there's no crime or wrongdoing whatsoever. There is also a possible world which corresponds to everything that is true in our world, the actual world, call it B. A is obviously better than B, so it is trivial in Platinga's view that this is not the best of all possible worlds.

How does God fit into the possible worlds picture? Platinga thinks that necessary existence is a perfection, and since God is perfect, God then must exist necessarily. So there is not a single possible world without the following proposition: God exists.

* A quick correction. We don't have a possible world for literally every single set of propositions, because even sets of propositions, in the possible worlds account, have certain necessary truths. For example, 1+1=2, 2+2=4 etc. are all truths that must be in every set of propositions that express a certain world. Platinga just thinks that "God exists" is one of these propositions.

What would Platinga say about the free will debate? That is, why doesn't God intervene in our affairs if he's omnipotent and omnibenevolent? My guess is that he would try to say that this is the best of all possible worlds. Since God exists necessarily, it is logically impossible for there to be a world that is better than ours. Because if there were a better possible world, then God would be wrong for not creating that world instead of ours. Let that sink in. It's laughably stupid. How can it be logically impossible for there to be a world better than ours?!

If God were to stop them from commiting a sin they consented to, he would be breaking the free will pact (let us drift away from the discussion whether it exists or not for a moment). But if God is omnibenevolent, he wouldn't lie. Therefore, he himself imposed a restriction that he wouldn't intervene in free will.

Ok, I'm so confused. What's a "free will pact?" Who said God made a "free will pact?" What did God do in the Bible exactly?

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

I'm not answering dondon right now because I feel tired, and my mind is not working as well as it should (well, compared to how it normally works, at least). I think his point should be actually addressed to the best of my abilities.

Ok, I'm so confused. What's a "free will pact?" Who said God made a "free will pact?" What did God do in the Bible exactly?

This is easier, though. But first, you gave a definition of possible worlds given by Platinga. What do you have to say about Leibniz's argument and his own take on possible worlds? Just out of curiousity; feel free to ignore this.

I confess that I don't remember the details, but it is stated that God gave people free will (let's take it as an axiom for the argument's sake). Free will is defined as it is in common sense, ie. being able to choose. In Adam and Eve's case, they chose to harm themselves (that is, attain the knowledge about evil that they lacked) consciently, and were more than capable of discerning and rationalizing (as the Bible says, at least, they were overall better than 'modern' humans). If God were to stop them from harming themselves consciently, it would be a violation of free will, that which he gave his creations. If he were to violate free will, he'd be a tyrant who controls his creations like minions, therefore not an omnibenevolent being.

Ok, maybe he did -not- make a free will pact, but if he were to violate free will it would be even worse, because then God would show a totalitarian, evil self.

How is it moral to stop someone conscious and mentally capable from harming him/herself by coercion? By that logic we should prohibit smoking and alcohol too, but we take it that mentally capable and conscious people have the right to do whatever they want with their lives. This is the same.

... Ok, this post sucks, but I'm not afraid to err. Here we go.

a totalitarian society in which every individual is happy cannot be claimed to be unequivocally bad.

Ok, this is something I can answer.

You don't need to look further than Brave New World, or George Orwell, or even Ayn Rand, to see how totalitarian societies are dystopian by nature (as if our totalitarian, real regimes were not enough to give a clue). It requires that you sacrifice your freedom for security. It is also morally questionable whether a Great Leader should have the authority to trample people's choices to enforce his rule. I for one would certainly not like to live in a society whose ruler can arbitrariously take my rights away and kill me just like that.

Besides, the thought of maximizing happiness = good is utilitarian in nature. Yet people can be happy with evils, so long as they are benefitted from it. A thief is happy with the object he stole, for example. So, it justifies many atrocities to keep this maximized happiness, even if it costs the happiness of a minority. So it should be thrown in the garbage as an ideology, as evil is qualitative, not merely quantitative. No evil should be tolerated. Period.

I will honestly never understand how the left-wing can believe an all powerful State can be a good thing. I miss the renaissance and enlightenment intelectuals that defended that giving too much power to a figurehead is bad.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Rapier

[-Cynthia-]

how is being "manipulative and totalitarian" necessarily bad? a totalitarian society in which every individual is happy cannot be claimed to be unequivocally bad.

and regardless, god is manipulative and totalitarian in a bad way because he determines where i go in the afterlife and if i don't suck his dick, i'm supposed to be fucked for eternity.

It did always strike me as odd that God supposedly loves everyone- but if you don't pay him lip service you suffer for all eternity- and it's not like he really needs the support since he's all powerful anyway. Sounds like a huge ego problem rather than 'omnibenevolence'.

[Irysa]

God's inexistance can not be proved philosophically without also proving this is not the best of all possible worlds, which until now is impossible to say. It is perfectly valid to claim this is not the best of all possible worlds.

Actually, I don't think there's even such a thing possible as "the best of all possible worlds". We can always just add one more person who is completely enriched and happy into any universe. Infinity + 1. It's kind of like the smallest possible rational number problem in reverse, we can simply divide something in two again to keep making it smaller forever.

No, that would be changing the definition of what God is. God, in the sense that he is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient provably doesn't exist. God, in the sense that he is omnipotent and omniscient, however, may exist.

Sorry, I have this habit of reading "God" as a more general concept rather than an established definition. Given the context, it was pretty obviously the latter, apologies.

Suppose you're omnipotent and you had the power to stop the Nepal earthquake, and didn't. That's evil.

Yeah this is fine, at least according to my moral framework. There's not even an argument to be made about consequences, since true omnipotence means there can't be a cost for such a thing.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Irysa

[Chiki]

I confess that I don't remember the details, but it is stated that God gave people free will (let's take it as an axiom for the argument's sake). Free will is defined as it is in common sense, ie. being able to choose. In Adam and Eve's case, they chose to harm themselves (that is, attain the knowledge about evil that they lacked) consciently, and were more than capable of discerning and rationalizing (as the Bible says, at least, they were overall better than 'modern' humans). If God were to stop them from harming themselves consciently, it would be a violation of free will, that which he gave his creations. If he were to violate free will, he'd be a tyrant who controls his creations like minions, therefore not an omnibenevolent being.

Ok, maybe he did -not- make a free will pact, but if he were to violate free will it would be even worse, because then God would show a totalitarian, evil self.

How is it moral to stop someone conscious and mentally capable from harming him/herself by coercion?

Ok, first of all, since there's no pact of free will, let's change the example a little bit. Suppose there's a 25 year old girl who is completely mentally capable and intelligent, and she decides to kill herself by jumping in front of a car. A parent stopping his 25 year old daughter from crossing the road so she doesn't get hit by a car is not denying his daughter free will. He's just watching out for her safety!! Don't confuse the two.

Your second point: it may not be moral to stop Adam and Eve from harming themselves, because they are mentally capable. Fine, I'll grant that. But according to the Bible, isn't that what started sin in the first place? So Adam and Eve sinning made us sinners too. I don't deserve to suffer because of Adam and Eve's stupidity. Neither does anyone else. So God making us suffer because of Adam and Eve is evil.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

Ok, you have a point, and it's good. King's down. =P

Actually, I don't think there's even such a thing possible as "the best of all possible worlds". We can always just add one more person who is completely enriched and happy into any universe. Infinity + 1.

Happiness is not always equal to goodness. It is possible to be happy with evil. It should not be taken as a maxim for goodness.

[Irysa]

Happiness is not always equal to goodness. It is possible to be happy with evil. It should not be taken as a maxim for goodness.

We can just add both then to keep the balance exactly the same. The point remains. Regardless of how you want to take it, we can just keep adding +1 of something for a better world. If the total amount isn't relevant and balance is what matters, then that would mean our world is equal to nothing, which means nothing can count as "a best possible world", and this world is not nothing.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Irysa

[Chiki]

Happiness is not always equal to goodness.

In this case it is. Take this world. Call it A. Add in 1000 extremely rich billionaires who donate their money to help others, such that poverty no longer exists. Call it B.

B is better than A. It's not up to debate.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chiki

[Moishe Oofnik]

In this case it is. Take this world. Call it A. Add in 1000 extremely rich billionaires who donate their money to help others, such that poverty no longer exists. Call it B.

B is better than A. It's not up to debate.

A.Rich people wont donate all their money

B.1000 rich people cant rid of poverty

[Chiki]

A.Rich people wont donate all their money

B.1000 rich people cant rid of poverty

A. I've stipulated that they will.

B. I've stipulated that they can.

In thought experiments, you conceive of a possible world in which your described situation is true. Whenever someone says "well your thought experiment isn't realistic" they don't understand what a thought experiment is.

Why are you allowed to just stipulate whatever you want in thought experiments? Because it's assumed that ethical truths, like "it is wrong to kill people" (assuming morality is objective) and logical truths such as "1+1=2" are true in every possible world. So ethical truths should hold for every possible world and for every thought experiment. So it's perfectly fine to stipulate whatever you want.

[dondon151]

Besides, the thought of maximizing happiness = good is utilitarian in nature.

you don't even need to maximize anything in order to conceive of a better possible world. you just need to improve something in a way that makes the world better. there is no well-defined metric for what is "better," but you can ask anyone and they'll give you a response. some random leper in bangladesh is probably better off not having leprosy than having leprosy. assuming an omnibenevolent god, why does that bangladeshi have leprosy? i can assure you that leprosy exerts a negative effect on his quality of life.

I will honestly never understand how the left-wing can believe an all powerful State can be a good thing. I miss the renaissance and enlightenment intelectuals that defended that giving too much power to a figurehead is bad.

i don't believe that an all powerful state is a good thing; i'm merely stating that it's possible to conceive of a totalitarian society in which every individual is happy. in fact, i recall that in 1984 and brave new world, the vast majority of inhabitants in those dystopian societies were happy.

i mean, if you own a pet, you are a totalitarian to that pet. your pet is probably happier being under your ownership and getting everything that he needs rather than being out in the wild having to fend for himself.

Edited April 28, 2015 by dondon151

[Rehab]

Did some asshole say "help out anti-Assad rebels years ago (and Syria in general) when they asked for it repeatedly and before their need for firepower drove so many of them to sectarian radicalism" yet? If nah I'll be that asshole, if yeah then good job other asshole

Interesting set of arguments and counterarguments on the authenticity/Islamicness? of ISIS, and implications to draw from it, that I caught at some point, if anybody's interested

Edited April 28, 2015 by Rehab

[blah the Prussian]

How are they not? I'm appealing to ridiculousness because there is no other way to combat such a position.

"I can choose to do things QED I have free will" has no application to a position that sustains that we are not capable of free will, and are in fact, simply under the illusion of such. There is no way to demonstrate that this is the case, in the same way there is no way to demonstrate that a completely invisible, undetectable entity exists in the universe, but people find reasons to believe as such anyway. Simulteanously, there is no way to demonstrate that this is NOT the case, because your own deductions can be simply claimed to be an undetectable illusion. "I think therefore I am" can't work against it. It's an argument that essentially denies existance in itself, and is so absurd that it can't be even be reasoned wi

I can't see the future - I don't know exactly what would result from such a negociation. I agree that there are things that we should not concede, but simulteanously would not rule out an attempt at negociations with potentially more moderate leaders.

Another redrawing of borders of the middle east may be the least grievous solution. There isn't neccesarily entirely a bad thing, Kurdistan could become a reality for example.

I see what you're saying. The problem is I can't see the leaders of ISIS ever being reasonable, or reasonable ones coming to power. I suppose that's a matter of perspective, though.

[eclipse]

Ok, that can be changed a tiny bit. Suppose you're omnipotent and you had the power to stop the Nepal earthquake, and didn't. That's evil.

Here's a better one:

- The earthquake in Nepal happens.

- The earthquake in Nepal doesn't happen, but because of other circumstances (no I'm not an expert in plate tectonics, but since we're pretending to be God, I'm gonna use this), it will cause several volcanoes in very populated parts of the world to erupt, resulting in a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

"Well, change the laws of everything so that none of these happen." Perhaps there's an even bigger ripple that'll result if Earth doesn't let off its internal pressure, one that'll screw up something on the cosmic level. Unfortunately, my powers of foresight fail after that, because I'm not so arrogant that I think I can conceive every single state possible from the consequences of a single action (or lack thereof).

Here's another experiment:

Congratulations on the birth of your first child! You're a Super Parent - you'll know the mental and physical state of your child at all times! Since it's your duty to raise this child, you'll make absolutely certain that they'll never be in danger! So every time this child would do something harmful (like stick a fork in a capacitor), you'll be there to take the fork away. But it IS your child, and you love them dearly, so you won't be really mad at them for trying things out. Next, you'll know exactly what kinds of foods are good for your child, so no chances of things like allergies or food poisoning! Oh, your child doesn't want to hold a fork? That's okay, you can feed them! You can't bear to see your child in pain, so every time that they need attention, you'll be right there, easing their fears and comforting them. Of course, you can't let your child injure themselves - who knows how bad that could be? Thus, you'll catch them before they fall, and of course it'll be with just enough pressure such that you won't cause any bruising. Slowly, your child grows - now, they can interact with the outside world. Another person doesn't like your child? It MUST be the other person's fault - your child is perfect! Remember, pain is a bad thing, so anything that would cause it must be removed! Your child has started school, and they. . .can't figure out the homework? Well, bad grades would mean that they'd be teased in school, and surely that would be a bad thing, so you patiently explain the homework. . .and they fell asleep. What choice do you have, then?

Now, imagine this child grows up, with that kind of parenting mentality. What do you think they'll look like as an adult?

I see what you're saying. The problem is I can't see the leaders of ISIS ever being reasonable, or reasonable ones coming to power. I suppose that's a matter of perspective, though.

I'd rather know who the heck is funding these guys. Building an air force is no small feat.

Edited April 28, 2015 by eclipse