The "blueprint" for a perfect world

[JapaneseKappa]

How to create a “perfect” world? First, the definition of “perfect” needs to be ironed out. For the purposes of the discussion, I will propose the following definition: “a perfect world is where there is no pain or suffering due to either natural causes or due to volitional decisions”. If you disagree with this definition, we cannot have a conversation, until you provide another one which we can agree upon.

This is an approach that is near and dear to my heart. Our goal is essentially this:

Create some sort of function that takes as (name removed by moderator)ut various facts about the world, and outputs an “overall goodness” number. We will then call the world(s) with the largest goodness number “perfect.”

Your initial suggestion of “quantity of pain and suffering” is an excellent choice for the first (name removed by moderator)ut. Specifically, the “goodness” of the world should increase as the quantity of pain and suffering in that world decrease.

Your first two models, however, only serve to demonstrate how that criteria alone might not be adequate.

So it seems to me that it would be reasonable to add “number of intelligent creatures” as an (name removed by moderator)ut alongside “quantity of pain and suffering.” It seems to me that more intelligent creatures are better, at least for small numbers of creatures. Unlike the “suffering” metric, I suspect there should be a Goldilocks number of creatures .

I think we should also add something like “quantity of joy experienced by all creatures.” Now, there is a common objection to this sort of metric: specifically that you can always add more creatures and thereby get more joy. So to avoid that problem, I will phrase it this way:

Quantity of joy experienced by the least joyful creature.

Now the total number of creatures is irrelevant, this metric simply says that the more joyful everyone is, the better the universe is and you can’t make lots of people joyful at the expense of someone else.

 

[fhansen]

I cannot comment on this. I do not feel any “love” toward those homeless people I help out whenever I meet one.

I don’t know that you have to feel anything. But unless the motivation is one of pure selfishness then love, to whatever degree and by whatever name we might use, could well be an underlying motivation. I’m not sure what else would cause one to bother.

Do you have any evidence for this? But even if a tree would like to cause harm, resulting in pain and suffering… it would be unable to do so. Without the pain receptors there can be no pain.

Well, do you have any evidence to the contrary? I’ll admit I’m not a botanist-and know even less about rational, sentient plant matter. But the point is that free will is simply a very easy thing to abuse, and the right use of it, directed by unselfishness, at least, is not always so easy to find in this world. So, yes, if a being is incapable of physically carrying out an expression of ill will, such as to cause harm to another, then at the very least there would be less net pain in the world. But I’d submit that, to the degree that a tree may *like *to cause harm, the net quantity of love in the world would be less, and therefore the perfection of the world would be less. Loveless beings tend to cause pain, whether telepathically, non-verbally, verbally, whatever. That’s why Jesus told us that sin/evil originate in the heart, distinct from and preceding our actions.

Obviously he lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, he apparently also lacked other unnecessary accessories, such as a horn in the back of his head. The knowledge of good and evil had benefit only in a negative sense-once sin was committed, once an evil choice was made- evil was probably already, instantly, known. In any case it would be known; humanity now experiences it everyday. There’s nothing positive about it* except* that we learn to reject it by the experience *of *it, embracing good instead.

The word “vegetative state” is inapplicable for the world I proposed. There is active thinking, interacting with other beings, there is “free will”, and all sorts of goodies. What is missing is the possibility of pain and suffering.

Sometimes it does other times it does not. And I have yet to see an instance where the pain was logically necessary to achieve some good. Logically necessary means that the pain cannot be lessened or eliminated without giving up on that “good”.

Maybe. I don’t claim to have all possible answers to the question/problem of evil. In the Christian scheme of things God, Himself, even entered the world and suffered under it, conquered it, proving the triumph of good over it in the end. For whatever reason, He didn’t prevent it to begin with, and, while all evil will eventually be eliminated, it’s allowed to co-exist with good for now. The basic message is that existence, even with the evil that’s temporarily allowed to have its way, is still worth it in the end. I think most of us would agree, whether or not we’re believers.

 

[fhansen]

Sorry, that is a description of what “love” is supposed to achieve. It does not tell me, what “love” IS. Let me show the different possible meanings.

1. Love is the emotion I feel toward my spouse. It is a very complex state of mind, caring, attraction, attention… and lots more - erotic love included. This is “love-1”.
2. Another one is the love I feel toward my child. This one does not have the erotic aspect, but there is caring, helping, etc…This is “love-2”.
3. Love one feels toward a “pet”. This is “love-3”.
4. I love a good steak. Very different from the other ones… “love-4”.
5. I also love to sit on the porch and watch the birds… “love-5”…

And innumerable more. All of them are instances of the abstract word “love”. So which one do you use?

Maybe the best way to define love as it’s meant by Christianity, as a “theological virtue”, or “agape”, is to describe it:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails." 1 Cor 13

But even that cannot come close to doing it justice. Love is a state of being, epitomized in the personhood of God, Himself. In it’s fullest glory it/He is an unimaginably profound and ineffable experience; the most beautiful experience a being can have. In everyday experience we perhaps know it, to the greatest extent possible, in our own willingness to sacrifice for another, even to die for the sake of our children, for example.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But even that cannot come close to doing it justice. Love is a state of being, epitomized in the personhood of God, Himself. In it’s fullest glory it/He is an unimaginably profound and ineffable experience; the most beautiful experience a being can have. In everyday experience we perhaps know it, to the greatest extent possible, in our own willingness to sacrifice for another, even to die for the sake of our children, for example.

I hear this kind of imprecise “we can’t define it but trust me it’s awesome” language thrown around a lot when talking about religious topics. It always reminds me of this scene from the men in black:

youtube.com/watch?v=OXRi28W-ENY

It always sounds to me like the religious person is playing the role of the “Captain America” guy: he wants to score some brownie points with his audience by showing off his piety while missing the fact that he isn’t answering the question in a useful manner.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is an approach that is near and dear to my heart. Our goal is essentially this:

Create some sort of function that takes as (name removed by moderator)ut various facts about the world, and outputs an “overall goodness” number. We will then call the world(s) with the largest goodness number “perfect.”

Your initial suggestion of “quantity of pain and suffering” is an excellent choice for the first (name removed by moderator)ut. Specifically, the “goodness” of the world should increase as the quantity of pain and suffering in that world decrease.

Your first two models, however, only serve to demonstrate how that criteria alone might not be adequate.

So it seems to me that it would be reasonable to add “number of intelligent creatures” as an (name removed by moderator)ut alongside “quantity of pain and suffering.” It seems to me that more intelligent creatures are better, at least for small numbers of creatures. Unlike the “suffering” metric, I suspect there should be a Goldilocks number of creatures .

I think we should also add something like “quantity of joy experienced by all creatures.” Now, there is a common objection to this sort of metric: specifically that you can always add more creatures and thereby get more joy. So to avoid that problem, I will phrase it this way:

Quantity of joy experienced by the least joyful creature.

Now the total number of creatures is irrelevant, this metric simply says that the more joyful everyone is, the better the universe is and you can’t make lots of people joyful at the expense of someone else.

I have no problems with your analysis. My aim was to stay as close to the existing world as possible. Another aim was to preserve the “free will” of the inhabitants, so they could do whatever they wanted to do. I also agree with you that the amount of joy is a good value to be maximized. But different entities may have different concepts of “joy”, and I did not want to “micromanage” the world, or impose my value system on them. Let them decide what is good for them.

So for me the idea of allowing maximum freedom and eliminating the possibility of pain and suffering seemed like a very reasonable way to achieve “perfection” - where I defined “perfection” as maximum freedom while eliminating pain and suffering.

 

[fhansen]

I hear this kind of imprecise “we can’t define it but trust me it’s awesome” language thrown around a lot when talking about religious topics. It always reminds me of this scene from the men in black:

youtube.com/watch?v=OXRi28W-ENY

It always sounds to me like the religious person is playing the role of the “Captain America” guy: he wants to score some brownie points with his audience by showing off his piety while missing the fact that he isn’t answering the question in a useful manner.

And those who dismiss it so cavalierly remind me of my redneck brother-in-law; “if I ain’t seen it, it didn’t happen.” God is real, I can’t state it any better. All the rest follows from that simple truth. The ignorant can’t be forced out of their “bliss” I guess.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I have no problems with your analysis. My aim was to stay as close to the existing world as possible. Another aim was to preserve the “free will” of the inhabitants, so they could do whatever they wanted to do. I also agree with you that the amount of joy is a good value to be maximized. But different entities may have different concepts of “joy”, and I did not want to “micromanage” the world, or impose my value system on them. Let them decide what is good for them.

So for me the idea of allowing maximum freedom and eliminating the possibility of pain and suffering seemed like a very reasonable way to achieve “perfection” - where I defined “perfection” as maximum freedom while eliminating pain and suffering.

Sure, but it seems to me that “free will” is a binary proposition, not a sliding scale. A universe would either have free-will-capable creatures or not. I don’t know what 50% free will looks like. What it sounds to me like you want is something along the lines of “a universe whose rules will interfere with the will of the inhabitants the least.” Or put another way: a universe whose inhabitants are as close to omnipotent as possible.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t know that you have to feel anything. But unless the motivation is one of pure selfishness then love, to whatever degree and by whatever name we might use, could well be an underlying motivation. I’m not sure what else would cause one to bother.

Wishing the best for someone else AND acting on it is very commendable and praiseworthy. Only “willing” the best for others, but NOT acting on it is something else altogether. That is not just not praiseworthy, but downright despicable.

Well, do you have any evidence to the contrary? I’ll admit I’m not a botanist-and know even less about rational, sentient plant matter. But the point is that free will is simply a very easy thing to abuse, and the right use of it, directed by unselfishness, at least, is not always so easy to find in this world. So, yes, if a being is incapable of physically carrying out an expression of ill will, such as to cause harm to another, then at the very least there would be less net pain in the world. But I’d submit that, to the degree that a tree may *like *to cause harm, the net quantity of love in the world would be less, and therefore the perfection of the world would be less.

Wishing to do something “good” but being unable to do it, or wishing to do something “bad” but being unable to do it both belong to the “pie in the sky” realm. Collectively they are called “wishful thinking”.

Loveless beings tend to cause pain, whether telepathically, non-verbally, verbally, whatever. That’s why Jesus told us that sin/evil originate in the heart, distinct from and preceding our actions.

Trees do not have “hearts”, either anatomically of figuratively. It is impossible to cause harm or pain to an entity, which cannot experience harm or pain.

Maybe. I don’t claim to have all possible answers to the question/problem of evil.

Don’t worry, nobody does. It is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity, which cannot be explained away or rationalized away.

In the Christian scheme of things God, Himself, even entered the world and suffered under it, conquered it, proving the triumph of good over it in the end. For whatever reason, He didn’t prevent it to begin with, and, while all evil will eventually be eliminated, it’s allowed to co-exist with good for now. The basic message is that existence, even with the evil that’s temporarily allowed to have its way, is still worth it in the end. I think most of us would agree, whether or not we’re believers.

Most of us? Very probably. But just because this existence is “bearable”, and only a few people will want to “opt out” (by committing suicide) is not much of a commendation for the “goodness” of the creator. If you can perform action “A”, which brings along a “better result”, or perform action “B” which will bring forth an inferior result - all other things being equal - then you do not deserve an praise for actualizing “B”, even though many or even most people would find it “bearable”.

As you said before, the best thing for us would be to be together with the sum of all “good”, God himself. As such the question arises: why did God create us all directly into his presence? Don’t worry about trying to explain it away, you cannot do it. It was a rhetorical question, simply to “prod you” into contemplating it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sure, but it seems to me that “free will” is a binary proposition, not a sliding scale.

It all depends on how one defines “free will”. In my definition, the “will” cannot be separated from the ability to “act” on that “will”. There are people who disagree, but I have never seen a plausible argument for that view. In other words: the phrase “free will” cannot be separated from “freedom to act”. If you are able to “will” something, but are unable to act on that “will”, then what is the point of “willing it”?

 

[Beryllos]

As if there would be only ONE rational being who asks difficult questions.

Great minds think alike.

I guess, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Perhaps I do, but it does not take a lot of time for me to find something I myself posted.

 

[Aloysium]

Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Great minds think alike.

Very true. There are many great believers who think alike. And there are many atheists who think alike. So what?

Perhaps I do, but it does not take a lot of time for me to find something I myself posted.

I am sure you are right. But what is the point? There are many posts which express same or similar views, even using similar words. What is the significance of it?

Let’s concentrate on the topic at hand. Looks like it is more productive. There are / were some posters who wanted a “blueprint” of a hypothetical world, without pain and suffering. It was my desire to provide such a world. If you think that I failed, please show where I erred. If you think that I succeeded, I would appreciate if you pointed it out.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Matthew 7:6 comes to mind.

Now that is very rude. In my opinion, of course.

 

[fhansen]

Wishing the best for someone else AND acting on it is very commendable and praiseworthy. Only “willing” the best for others, but NOT acting on it is something else altogether. That is not just not praiseworthy, but downright despicable.

Ok, was that supposed to remotely address my point? Or do you just prefer not to understand? All morally good or evil acts come from a morally good or evil will. Bad behavior doesn’t happen without a bad desire. If you’ve ever spent much time around people of consistent ill will, generally proud arrogant, cold, mean and abusive, their mere presence is fearful and objectionable-not even telepathy is needed to convey it. Would you prefer to spend eternity, say, in such a perfect world of hatred? Or would you prefer beings who you know actually love you, whether or not they happen to have the physical means to express it?

Trees do not have “hearts”, either anatomically of figuratively. It is impossible to cause harm or pain to an entity, which cannot experience harm or pain.

It was you who anthropomorphed trees. I just went along with it.

Don’t worry, nobody does. It is the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity, which cannot be explained away or rationalized away .

It helps greatly that God, Himself, identified with that suffering by experiencing it.

Most of us? Very probably. But just because this existence is “bearable”, and only a few people will want to “opt out” (by committing suicide) is not much of a commendation for the “goodness” of the creator. If you can perform action “A”, which brings along a “better result”, or perform action “B” which will bring forth an inferior result - all other things being equal - then you do not deserve an praise for actualizing “B”, even though many or even most people would find it “bearable”.

It means that we cherish our existence, even in this messed up world, and even as we shake our fists at the God who gave it to us.

As you said before, the best thing for us would be to be together with the sum of all “good”, God himself. As such the question arises: why did God create us all directly into his presence? Don’t worry about trying to explain it away, you cannot do it. It was a rhetorical question, simply to “prod you” into contemplating it.

I assume you meant why did God *not *create us all in His immediate presence? It’s been contemplated for centuries-only decades by myself. I can only say that there’s merit and justice in believing in and seeking the highest good in a world that may or may not pay lip service to God while generally preferring not to believe in Him in any case, in large part due to fear of what the crowd will think of them. And when we *do *seek thusly, He does allow us into His presence, unexpectedly. And then it’s all over; then we know. The Master never really went away; we did. And the naysayers can say their nays, but then they come off like someone who’s never been to Bejing telling everyone that Bejing doesn’t exist-just because they’ve never been there. More understandable in the case of God, but just as wrong.

 

[Beryllos]

In a sense, yes. But what is NOT there is the pain and suffering. Life and death are not contradictory, life and suffering are contradictory.

I am not convinced of that.

In a way, pain is just a biological signal in animals which elicits a survival response to stress or injury. The survival response usually involves movement, which is a characteristic of animals.

Plants also respond to stress and injury. Plants have their own biochemical signaling mechanisms and their own survival responses. For example, many plants produce toxins when they are under attack by insects. The biochemical signals that mediate that response in plants are analogous to pain in animals.

I would go further “out on a limb” and say that plants also suffer. They do not suffer in the same way as animals, but they certainly can be seen to suffer. If you don’t believe me, ask someone who works with plants.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ok, was that supposed to remotely address my point? Or do you just prefer not to understand? All morally good or evil acts come from a morally good or evil will. Bad behavior doesn’t happen without a bad desire. If you’ve ever spent much time around people of consistent ill will, generally proud arrogant, cold, mean and abusive, their mere presence is fearful and objectionable-not even telepathy is needed to convey it.

Any kind of attitude is expressed in actions. Thoughts, which are not expressed in actions are not important.

It means that we cherish our existence, even in this messed up world, and even as we shake our fists at the God who gave it to us.

Tell that to those who are unable to endure their suffering, and commit suicide to escape it.

I assume you meant why did God *not *create us all in His immediate presence?

Yes, that is the question, and there is no rational answer for it. If “love” is to act in the best interest of the other one, and for us the best possible existence is to be in God’s immediate presence, then the only rational action would be to create us to be with him. That follows from the definition of “love”. Everything else is a cop-out, or rationalizing.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I am not convinced of that.

You prove it to yourself every time you try to avoid pain.

Plants also respond to stress and injury. Plants have their own biochemical signaling mechanisms and their own survival responses. For example, many plants produce toxins when they are under attack by insects. The biochemical signals that mediate that response in plants are analogous to pain in animals.

Analogous, but not the same.

I would go further “out on a limb” and say that plants also suffer. They do not suffer in the same way as animals, but they certainly can be seen to suffer. If you don’t believe me, ask someone who works with plants.

Another analogy. Pain and suffering presuppose a neural mechanism and a pleasure/pain center in the brain.

 

[fhansen]

Any kind of attitude is expressed in actions. Thoughts, which are not expressed in actions are not important.

Tell that to those who are unable to endure their suffering, and commit suicide to escape it.

No one wants to commit suicide. Pain, more often than not emotional pain from nothing more than thoughts in the end, drive people to act against their innate desire for continued existence.

Yes, that is the question, and there is no rational answer for it. If “love” is to act in the best interest of the other one, and for us the best possible existence is to be in God’s immediate presence, then the only rational action would be to create us to be with him. That follows from the definition of “love”. Everything else is a cop-out, or rationalizing.

But do we really want to be with him to begin with? Do we really value love, do we even want a creator-God who is love? Or would we prefer that being to remain at an arms distance, because of the demands love might place on us? To put it another way: do we, who demand that God does all that He coukd possibly do to ease suffering in this world, do everything possible that we could reasonably do to end suffering in this world? Do we, who have the hands and feet to play god ourselves in our own ways, really care as much as we say he should care?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No one wants to commit suicide. Pain, more often than not emotional pain from nothing more than thoughts in the end, drive people to act against their innate desire for continued existence.

Which means that they do NOT “cherish” their existence any more.

But do we really want to be with him to begin with?

Of course. To be created directly into everlasting “bliss” is “best thing since sliced bread”. Who would reject it?

Do we really value love, do we even want a creator-God who is love? Or would we prefer that being to remain at an arms distance, because of the demands love might place on us?

Uh-oh. True love does not make “demands”.

To put it another way: do we, who demand that God does all that He coukd possibly do to ease suffering in this world, do everything possible that we could reasonably do to end suffering in this world? Do we, who have the hands and feet to play god ourselves in our own ways, really care as much as we say he should care?

That is not an excuse. I can just visualize a super-rich guy, who simply sits on his many trillions of dollars, but does not share with those living in abject poverty. When one of his “admirers” is asked how can he adore such a selfish person, he asks you back: “So how much did YOU give?” Such a “defense” is actually worse than the accusation.

 

[fhansen]

Which means that they do NOT “cherish” their existence any more.

They’d still prefer it, if the huge majority gives us any indication, but pain can be overwhelming, overriding that preference.

Of course. To be created directly into everlasting “bliss” is “best thing since sliced bread”. Who would reject it?

Pride opposes itself to love, because love requires humility while the world is rife with self-righteousness. So, yes, I see it everyday in this world-if love and humility are the price of bliss, many will try to find their bliss elsewhere.

Uh-oh. True love does not make “demands”.
Yes, it demands that we love in return-that we aren’t part of the problem but the answer.

Love is patient and kind and forgiving and helpful and self-sacrificing but its goal is for all to ultimately participate in and benefit from a world where all embrace it’s goodness-where evil is simply, finally, rejected. And, yes, people even hate this demand, this obligation: that’s the essential message in the story of the fall of man.

That is not an excuse. I can just visualize a super-rich guy, who simply sits on his many trillions of dollars, but does not share with those living in abject poverty. When one of his “admirers” is asked how can he adore such a selfish person, he asks you back: “So how much did YOU give?” Such a “defense” is actually worse than the accusation.

No, that’s an excuse-and one that’s used frequently for people to justify doing nothing themselves. It’s easy to complain about life-another thing to try to make it better. We’re all here potentially as the hands of god or satan-or somewhere between-but usually more concerned about feeding our own faces then helping those in need, which the world is full of.