What if I were God?

[Nullasalus]

This is a very good post! Alas, I will have to take exceptions to some (not all!) of your points.

No, I don’t think so. At the the level of God, these cannot be differentiated. At our level, most definitely. We are not able to assess all the ramifications of our actions (or lack of them). We are not able to bring forth exactly as we wish to, because we are not powerful enough. We can err, and many times we do.

None of this is applicable to God. For God there is no difference between “allowing” something and “intending” something. There is no difference between “guilt by commission” and “guilt by omission”. These categories only apply to non-omniscient and non-omnipotent beings.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can bring forth anything and everything exactly as he intends to. There is no “excuse” for failure. It is hard to be “perfect”. The phrase “the buck stops here” is most certainly applicable to God - and no one else.

I was not clear: If a doctor injects a patient with a needle, the pain is foreseen, it’s allowed willfully. But it’s not the focus, and not the true intention. Getting the vaccine from the needle into the patient is the intention.

The same distinction is in play when talking about God. Pain is permitted, but it’s not the intention - it’s not even necessarily welcome. But it’s a necessity towards a goal.

That is a very interesting point. I have to think about the distinction between “significantly” better and “superficially” better. Adding another good person to an already perfect world would be “superficially” better, but not “significantly” better. In other words, it would not change the “perfection” of the world in any way. So Plantinga is incorrect.

I’m sorry, but no. Maybe you disagree with Plantinga, but his point remains that there is no truly perfect universe that cannot be made better. Whether you say it’s superficially better or significantly better has no bearing - down goes the logical problem of evil, while the evidential problem remains.

As you said, we’re dealing with omnipotence and terms of perfection. The fact that an omnipotent being cannot logically create an inexhaustibly ‘perfect’ world that cannot be better is enough to show that a less-than-perfect world both could and must be the goal even of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. He used the example of ‘one more person’ only to illustrate the fact that you can always, in a variety of ways, improve any given world. Eventually, a cutoff point is required - a world (or worlds) that is ‘good enough’. All things considered, we have strong evidence to regard our world as one which meets such a standard.

(Again, the evidential problem remains - there are arguments against this, and arguments for. But by and large, the logical problem has been retired, even in professional philosophical circles.)

Yes, this is a valid point. (You see, I do not object out of spite, I only object when I see a good, logical reaon to do so. ) But, of course, I must point out something. Indeed I would not be “me” if I were to be created differently.

The question is: “who would care”? Or more precisely: “who would know”? I would not, since I would be unaware of the “different me”. And by the same token, no one else would. We all would be different beings, without any knowledge that we “could have been different”.

Right now, if another sperm cell of my father would have impregnated my mother’s ovum, I would be different. Sure, and who cares? What significance does such a “would have been” carry?

Yes, the “goods” would be different in a world with different beings. But no one would be aware of it. So to postulate it is of no relevance.

… will continue. I would be over the 6000 character limit.

For one, God would know. If we’re operating from the perspective of God and talking about benevolence, it seems awfully strange to argue ‘Well, God could just do it and no one would be the wiser’. If that’s your rendition of benevolence, I take issue with it.

Two, you’re aware right now. So am I. And since I’m aware of it, I’m placed in a very strange position - being grateful to God for permitting my past (a past that extends vastly beyond my own birth and life), evil and all. Your arguments have been to show a gap between the world we live in, and the world we’d expect from a benevolent God. My response has been to show that there is no gap - that the faults of the world we inhabit are, within the world itself (and by the grace of God) not only surmountable, but necessary. For all I know, God has orchestrated an infinity of universes whose histories, to a point, range from vastly worse than ours, to vastly better, but through His orchestration all are ascendant and redeemed.

But the greater point is, if we’re talking about the existence of evil, it’s incredibly important to understand what God can do by permitting evil, and that the results of evil are not merely the perceived end. Back to the doctor with the needle - something is achieved that requires pain. In this case, God triumphs over evil - it is horrible, we should work to prevent future evil, we yearn for the day when so many evils are eradicated from the world. But to God, the good results are instrumental, and the evil itself will be ultimately incidental.

 

[Nullasalus]

Continued from above.

Please demonstrate a few.

I’ve already done so - you yourself, me myself. Change history and remove the evils, and neither of us come into being.

Yes. My question is: “who would know or who would care”? Your point seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong): it is better to be sick and cured than it is better not to be sick at all. I simply cannot see how this could be substantiated.

No, my point is that it’s better to be sick and be cured than to never exist. Already responded to ‘who would know or care’.

Who would miss the rapists, the torturers, the murderers - even if they could be “cured”? Not the victims, I am sure. And what about those who are not “cured”?

Yes, I assert that the ones who are “created” with disposition to be “evil” would be much better off, not to have been created at all, than to have been created, allowed to do their evil acts, and then condemned to eternal suffering. Go and ask anyone in hell and see what their response is… nonexistence is definitely preferable to eternal damnation.

Who says they’re all condemned to hell? What about ones who were created, allowed to do their evil acts, and then redeemed? Did you know that while Catholics believe in hell, we still may pray that hell is empty?

But go further. What if that murderer was someone’s father? We can’t make the father as having never been born, and still have his children.

Again: You are arguing that if God existed, he would never allow any individuals who are less than perfect, or individuals who have experienced less than perfect situations, to exist. And when I point out how many are condemned to non-existence as a result, your response is ‘Who would know?’ This doesn’t strike you as strange?

Unfortunately this is all a “could have been” piled up on more “could have been”. The soldier’s possible (or actual) repentance does not “undo” the previous deed.

That is one of the points of contention. You assert that later “good” can “wipe out” previous evil. Not acceptable, I am afraid. If a father would unjustly beat his kid in a drunken stupor, giving a lollipop later with not “undo” or invalidate the previous “evil”.

I’m not talking about giving a lollipop. I’m talking about a child who, either in life or after resurrection, comes to thrive past his experiences, learns from them, is no longer scarred by them, and may even love his father - who himself would have reformed himself, become a better person, shown regret for his sins, and accepted his new life. Your response is ‘a good God would have never allowed either of these lives to be lived’. Once again, I question that.

Sorry, this is not convincing at all. The idea that this is the “best possible world” is easily invalidated.

Not from my perspective. Change the world, change me. Change the past, change me. This is the only world I could have existed in. The only ‘possibilities’ that can be better or worse for me are futures - and once those futures come to pass, they become an essential part of my existence. Best of all possible worlds.

Now here you have my unqualifed disagreement - unlike the previous part, where we did agree on certain points. The advances you speak of are due to completely and totally secular causes. The secularity you condemn is the reason for these advances, and not some “plan of God”.

‘Totally secular’? I’m sorry, but no. Classifying the good as ‘secular’ does no more to remove God’s will and plan from the question than arguing ‘God permits, but does not desire, evil’ would excuse God from the evil. Further, I have never condemned secular acts (certainly not in this thread), though I do condemn secularism and what that implies.

You yourself said it - we’re talking about a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and (though being judged on this point) benevolent. The totally was foreseen and permitted. You can’t argue that God permitted and therefore is responsible for every evil incident, yet good incidents are ‘secular’ and have nothing to do with God. All or nothing.

You could not demonstrate it.

I’m sorry, but I did. Your classifying the improvements as ‘superficial’ doesn’t change that - we’re dealing with the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem of evil.

Is it logically possible for a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God to allow evil? Yes - on the grounds that any given world can always be made better, onto infinity. To actualize a world, a cutoff point must be made. The world would be less than perfect. So right there, a perfect creator has logical necessity to create a less than perfect world, because a true ‘perfect’ world is not available. And the moment you justify a less than perfect world, you justify any less than perfect world (except, perhaps, one in which there came no redemption.)

This before getting to the fact that, given what I’ve outlined, some possible goods can only come from worlds where evil is permitted. The logical problem is dead. The evidential problem is at issue.

 

[ateista]

I was not clear: If a doctor injects a patient with a needle, the pain is foreseen, it’s allowed willfully. But it’s not the focus, and not the true intention. Getting the vaccine from the needle into the patient is the intention.

The same distinction is in play when talking about God. Pain is permitted, but it’s not the intention - it’s not even necessarily welcome. But it’s a necessity towards a goal.

I heard that argument before, and it has merit, but far from convincing by itself. Your task is not yet complete. I have a few objections, which must be addressed.

One is that the “gain” must be worth the “pain” and so the pain should never exceed the necessary amount. Suppose there is a doctor who must treat a snakebite in an environment where there are no antidotes available: so his only option is amputation. The result: saving the patient’s life is worth the loss of the limb.

Now, if the doctor has access to an adequate antidote, and still does not use it (amputates when there is no medical necessity for it), then the pain was not minimized, and therefore it was not necessary.

At this moment you must prove that despite God’s omnipotence, the only available methods are always optimal. And I doubt you can prove that. Among other things, medical science becomes better every day. The methods become more and more refined, illnesses which could not be cured yesterday are curable today. You must prove that every death which was due to less perfect medical science yesterday and which can be cured today - was necessary yesterday - but it is not necessary today. And that is a very tall order.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue that God is benevolent, then you must prove, that every bit of pain ever inflicted on anyone (or anything: animals) is counterbalanced by some good, which is worth the pain, and which could not be achieved without inflicing that pain. Good luck.

I am afraid, there is one more requirement: this “good” which cannot be achieved by lesser amount of pain must apply to the entity that was affected by the pain. It is nonsensical to say that the doctor inflicts some pain on person “A” in order to cure person “B”, if that pain is not freely accepted and volitionally agreed upon by person “A”.

I went through this discussion before. No one ever could offer the necessary proofs. I will not tell you what kind of answers I received, because I don’t want to “pollute” your thought process.

Yes, your argument is a good starting point but not yet complete. If you can supply the necessary proofs, it will be complete and convincing.

I’m sorry, but no. Maybe you disagree with Plantinga, but his point remains that there is no truly perfect universe that cannot be made better. Whether you say it’s superficially better or significantly better has no bearing - down goes the logical problem of evil, while the evidential problem remains.

It is more than simple disagreement. His reasoning rests on the incorrect foundation which can be summed up as: “more is better”. And that foundation is simply false.

Adding one more “perfect human” to an already “perfect world” does not necessarily make that world “more perfect”. Regardless of the significant - superficial dichotomy the conceptual basis of “more is better” is incorrect. An ecological system must be balanced, must be in harmony in order to call it “perfect”. Adding or subtracting - changing - will destroy that balance. As such a “local” perfection can be achieved.

Now, I agree with one thing: it is not possible to define “perfection” for such a diverse entity as a whole world. It is mathematically impossible. It is called multi-functional mathematical programming, and it is generally impossible to optimize more than one function over a defined area.

As you said, we’re dealing with omnipotence and terms of perfection. The fact that an omnipotent being cannot logically create an inexhaustibly ‘perfect’ world that cannot be better is enough to show that a less-than-perfect world both could and must be the goal even of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. He used the example of ‘one more person’ only to illustrate the fact that you can always, in a variety of ways, improve any given world. Eventually, a cutoff point is required - a world (or worlds) that is ‘good enough’. All things considered, we have strong evidence to regard our world as one which meets such a standard.

This is the point where I must point back to the two necessary proofs I requested above. if you can supply the necessary proofs for:

All pains ever inflicted will bring forth a well specified result, which is desirable and which will counterbalance the pain inflicted and which was necessary to achieve that result. No pain was ever inflicted on someone which was “gratituous”. No pain was ever inflicted on someone, who did not benefit from it.

That would conclude your proof that God is benevolent.

(Again, the evidential problem remains - there are arguments against this, and arguments for. But by and large, the logical problem has been retired, even in professional philosophical circles.)

If you mean that the concept of “perfection” is undefinable for something as “fluid” as a world, then I agree. The concept of a “world” is so vaguely defined, that the “perfection” cannot be adequately defined.

It is of course possible to have a well-defined subset of a world, and clearly defined **set of attibutes **which will “measure” the perfection of this world. That is not a fruitless endeavor.

But this does not dispense with the problem of “evil”, it only dispenses with the generic concept of perfection.

 

[ateista]

No, my point is that it’s better to be sick and be cured than to never exist.

You compare incommensurables. The proper question is: “is existence better than nonexistence” - under any and all circumstances. You are welcome to try and substantiate it.

Who says they’re all condemned to hell? What about ones who were created, allowed to do their evil acts, and then redeemed? Did you know that while Catholics believe in hell, we still may pray that hell is empty?

You may pray for whatever you want to. As far as I understand the Catholic teaching (maybe dogma?) says that anyone who dies in the state of unrepented mortal sin “goes” to hell.

I’m not talking about giving a lollipop. I’m talking about a child who, either in life or after resurrection, comes to thrive past his experiences, learns from them, is no longer scarred by them, and may even love his father - who himself would have reformed himself, become a better person, shown regret for his sins, and accepted his new life. Your response is ‘a good God would have never allowed either of these lives to be lived’. Once again, I question that.

I am talking about a principle: later good deeds cannot be used to excuse or invalidate prior bad deeds - unless you can show a logical causation which makes the prior bad deed necessary.

Not from my perspective. Change the world, change me. Change the past, change me. This is the only world I could have existed in. The only ‘possibilities’ that can be better or worse for me are futures - and once those futures come to pass, they become an essential part of my existence. Best of all possible worlds.

The problem with this approach that you presume yourself as “static” - and that is simply not true. You keep changing, the “you” which reads this post now is not the same “you” who existed before reading this post.

None of us is a “static” entity, events which happen to us, will change us in some manner. You cannot argue that changing the past would “invalidate” you, while accepting that every breath you take changes you without “invalidating” you.

‘Totally secular’? I’m sorry, but no. Classifying the good as ‘secular’ does no more to remove God’s will and plan from the question than arguing ‘God permits, but does not desire, evil’ would excuse God from the evil. Further, I have never condemned secular acts (certainly not in this thread), though I do condemn secularism and what that implies.

I am talking about the advances in technology and in science - which improves our lives. None of them is due to some Godly “revelation”.

You yourself said it - we’re talking about a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and (though being judged on this point) benevolent. The totally was foreseen and permitted. You can’t argue that God permitted and therefore is responsible for every evil incident, yet good incidents are ‘secular’ and have nothing to do with God. All or nothing.

And indeed I don’t. I don’t think that the bad comes from God either. Both bad and good are part of the Universe. Being an atheist, I could hardly do otherwise.

You, however, do precisely that. You give credence to God, when you think it is due, but deny to “criticize” God when something is “not so good”. I don’t know about you personally, but I heard countless times that the disasters are attributed to “Mother Nature” - never to God. (Well, maybe Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk does, when they say that God sent AIDS as a “cure” for homosexuality… but they are not Catholics.)

 

[Nullasalus]

One is that the “gain” must be worth the “pain” and so the pain should never exceed the necessary amount. Suppose there is a doctor who must treat a snakebite in an environment where there are no antidotes available: so his only option is amputation. The result: saving the patient’s life is worth the loss of the limb.

…

Yes, your argument is a good starting point but not yet complete. If you can supply the necessary proofs, it will be complete and convincing.

You already agreed that any change to the universe as it is is a change to yourself - and that a change to yourself is tantamount to you no longer existing.

If you agree with that, then any incident in history - good or evil, natural or due to exercise of will - has or will affect the history of a person. A senseless murder 3000 years ago affects lives and conditions today in ways that go beyond reasonable listing. Same goes for a flood a year ago. Or the extinction of a proto-hominid species several million years ago.

The further back in time you go, the greater the amount of changes caused by any incident, good or bad. But in particular, individuals who exist later have existences dependent on those past incidents. Wipe out the evil, remove the individual. There’s only one logical way for them to come into existence. And since any evil of this type can be overridden in time by good, it’s justified.

No truly gratuitous evils. Best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz said. Because, as Aquinas said, any change to the universe means another universe.

It is more than simple disagreement. His reasoning rests on the incorrect foundation which can be summed up as: “more is better”. And that foundation is simply false.

Only if you take the tact that ‘existence is not better than non-existence’. You already said that the addition of one more person is good - just ‘superficially good’. That’s enough to close the logical problem of evil. We’re onto the evidential problem. If you don’t agree with that, so be it - we’ll just have to disagree there. But I can’t see why you’d bother - it’s pretty explicit.

You compare incommensurables. The proper question is: “is existence better than nonexistence” - under any and all circumstances. You are welcome to try and substantiate it.

I substantiated it conditionally within christian doctrine. You’re welcome to deny that it’s better to be brought into existence with temporary evil and eventual eternal, ascendant good, than to never exist.

You may pray for whatever you want to. As far as I understand the Catholic teaching (maybe dogma?) says that anyone who dies in the state of unrepented mortal sin “goes” to hell.

And none of us are privy to know the thoughts of any individual unto death - what constitutes a mortal sin is severe. In truth, I don’t even have to go as far as this, but it’s on the table as far as Catholic belief goes.

The problem with this approach that you presume yourself as “static” - and that is simply not true. You keep changing, the “you” which reads this post now is not the same “you” who existed before reading this post.

None of us is a “static” entity, events which happen to us, will change us in some manner. You cannot argue that changing the past would “invalidate” you, while accepting that every breath you take changes you without “invalidating” you.

Presume as static? I’m relying on the fact that I am not static.

Changing the past absolutely would invalidate me - I am constituted in large part by the choices I made, the experiences I’ve had. Remove those, and you remove me. On the same token, experiences I have in the immediate present are required for me to live - I navigate through them, as life requires that dynamism. Change my future all you like - since it hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t constitute me.

I am talking about the advances in technology and in science - which improves our lives. None of them is due to some Godly “revelation”.

They don’t need to be. My God isn’t just the God of miracles - He’s the author of nature. Again, just as every evil is an evil God permitted, every good is a good God permitted. From the perspective of a christian, giving thanks to God for the advances of science, technology, and elsewise is entirely natural.

You, however, do precisely that. You give credence to God, when you think it is due, but deny to “criticize” God when something is “not so good”. I don’t know about you personally, but I heard countless times that the disasters are attributed to “Mother Nature” - never to God. (Well, maybe Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk does, when they say that God sent AIDS as a “cure” for homosexuality… but they are not Catholics.)

You are not talking to other people - you are talking to me. Just as I’m not talking to Dawkins - I’m talking to you.

I give thanks to God every day, regardless of how my day has been. I accept that God permits evil - you want me to criticize God? I’ve explained why those evils, evil as they are, are now essential to my and others’ being. God can and does draw good out of evil, vastly more than most people immediately consider. I have many reasons (and not just personal revelation - I rely on reason and, surprisingly enough, science) to expect every evil will be answered for in time, through God.

For me, the problem of evil is solved. It’s a dead issue. And it will be when everyone I love dies, and I’m on my deathbed. I see strong justifications of why it not only can, but must be permitted - I have no standing to criticize God, knowing that.

 

[ateista]

You already agreed that any change to the universe as it is is a change to yourself - and that a change to yourself is tantamount to you no longer existing.

Not true. You may be somewhat different or you may not be different at all. You forget about that. If the past would have ben different, this different past may erase you from existence, may change you in a significant way, may change you in an insignificant way, or it may have absolutely no effect on you - depending on the change.

You assert that a random eddy of wind, (which did not happen in this existence) a few million years ago and which would have torn off an autumn leaf one second before it actually happened, would have erased you out of existence.

If you agree with that, then any incident in history - good or evil, natural or due to exercise of will - has or will affect the history of a person. A senseless murder 3000 years ago affects lives and conditions today in ways that go beyond reasonable listing. Same goes for a flood a year ago. Or the extinction of a proto-hominid species several million years ago.

But I don’t accept this premise. You must show that every incident does have an effect on everything else, which does not diminsh over time, and that effect will actually “erase” you from existence, not merely create a difference. You must show that universe has no inertia. You postulate an ever increasing domino effect. And that needs to be proven, not simply assumed.

But even if you could do that, you would have to prove that existence is always preferable to non-existence. You must prove that the actual existence is always preferable to any hypothetical “modified” existence. Moreover this “preferable” state must be made by the individual who is affected.

The further back in time you go, the greater the amount of changes caused by any incident, good or bad. But in particular, individuals who exist later have existences dependent on those past incidents. Wipe out the evil, remove the individual. There’s only one logical way for them to come into existence. And since any evil of this type can be overridden in time by good, it’s justified.

“Can be” is not enough.

No truly gratuitous evils. Best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz said. Because, as Aquinas said, any change to the universe means another universe.

“Another”? That is a matter of definition. But more to the point, the denial of gratitous evil leads to a very interesting observation: it implys either a statistical nonsense, or a constant interference by God.

I will explain. Suppose we only look at one type of evil only: a drunken father beating his children. Suppose that this beating will bring forth some unspecified good, which cannot be achieved in any other manner. (Problem number one for you: what “good” comes out of such a beating? Not what good “may” come out.)

Now accepting that this good will come out, the pain the children experience must be commensurate to this good. If the father would only hit them one less time, the pain is not enough to bring forth this good. If he hits them one extra time, the pain will be excessive and as such it will not be necessary.

Explain to me, how is this possible? How will every drunken father stop at precisely the proper time and not go any further? The only explanation is that God “mysteriously” stops the father at the precise time when “enough” pain has been administered - at that means constant “meddlig” - which you deny. Or it simply happens “by accident” - which is a statistical absurdity.

Now, there may be a third option: the father can beat the kids as long as he pleases, and God will “modify” the good to be commensurate to the actually administered pain - which means that the father - by freely choosing - the random amount pain will “force” the “immutable” God to change the “good” which is supposed to come.

Finally: there is only one person who is justified to declare if the pain was “worth” the result: the person involved. No one else can make that decision.

And this brings us to the problem of animals. No one can reasonably argue that animals do not feel pain. Their pain is not “balanced” by some good **for them **- especially if the pain is fatal. As I said, your task is not easy.

Only if you take the tact that ‘existence is not better than non-existence’.

Actually I did not say that. I asked you to substantiate that any existence is better than non-existence. Also to prove that the actual existence is better than any hypothetical other existence. And that is another hard problem.

You already said that the addition of one more person is good - just ‘superficially good’. That’s enough to close the logical problem of evil.

I did not say exactly that. I merely say that adding one person may be an improvement, but it may be a dertiment, too - depending on the circumstances. I explicitly stated that every system (for which perfection can be defined) has an optimal point and either adding or subtracting one “unit” will ruin the perfection.

 

[Nullasalus]

Not true. You may be somewhat different or…/quote]

There is no ‘insignificant change’ when we’re talking about a subject like this, over long periods of time; a single change spreads out. And frankly, we’re talking about evils. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, murders, rapes, assaults. These are big events. Even small ones can have drastic changes in a timeline, but for the ones we’re discussing in the context of evil, they almost certainly would.

You assert that a random eddy of wind…

 

[Nullasalus]

And this brings us to the problem of animals. No one can reasonably argue that animals do not feel pain. Their pain is not “balanced” by some good **for them **- especially if the pain is fatal. As I said, your task is not easy.

You’re the one who has to argue against chaos theory here - my task is simple in comparison.

Maybe their pain is balanced - Christian thought speaks of all creation being redeemed, so it’s possible. Is the plan the same for them as humans? Probably not. Then again, it doesn’t need to be.

Actually I did not say that. I asked you to substantiate that any existence is better than non-existence. Also…

Not my problem. If you don’t think existence is better than non-existence according to the provisions I’ve laid out, you may as well just walk away. To me, you’re willing to question any axiom if it gives too much justification to God.

I did not say exactly that. I merely say that adding one person may be an improvement, but it may be a dertiment, too - depending on the circumstances. I explicitly stated that every system (for which perfection can be defined) has an optimal point and either adding or subtracting one “unit” will ruin the perfection.

“May” means nothing here. You said it would be superficially good - if you want to back off from that, so be it, but I’m going to question why you’re doing so. Your statement that there are ‘optimal points where adding or subtracting any unit will ruin the perfection, even if you’re God’ is something I’d love to see substantiated. It sounds like utter fantasy to me.

 

[ateista]

There is no ‘insignificant change’ when we’re talking about a subject like this, over long periods of time; a single change spreads out. And frankly, we’re talking about evils. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, murders, rapes, assaults. These are big events. Even small ones can have drastic changes in a timeline, but for the ones we’re discussing in the context of evil, they almost certainly would.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you consider yourself as “static” or “dynamic”. Only if you view existence as static can you say that there is no “insignificant” change.

And your premise was that “any” change will obliterate you. If you happened to choose a different type of cereal yesterday would make your current “you” disappear, and a different “you” would be in existence. That was your premise.

Now you changed it and wish to speak of “big changes” only.

Have you ever heard of chaos theory? Look it up. Look up ‘butterfly effect’ while you’re at it. Just try, with certainty, to make the tiniest change to a system that will have no successive effects over deep time.

I am quite familiar with chaos theory. The so called “butterfly effect” is just a popular misconception.

What chaos theory actually says is that the effects of small differences in the (name removed by moderator)ut parameters cannot be predicted over time. It does not say that all small changes will inevitably bring forth gigantic results.

And we’re not talking about ‘random eddy of wind’ - we’re talking about evils. Those are big events in comparison.

You were talking about “any” change, I simply pointed out that your original assertion is incorrect.

And I’m not saying ‘erased’ so strongly. Another ‘nullasalus’ may be around. But even if that were the case, they’d be different. And an iota of difference in a personal timeline is a difference that makes that person not me.

So you really assert that you are “static”.

Again, this goes double if Christianity is true - then I (and others) have eternal life.

Well, this actually is the cut-off point. Insofar you tried to argue on a secular basis, and now you bring in a “transcendental” element.

Chaos theory. Butterfly effect.

An incorrect understanding of chaos theory. You really should study it, if you wish to argue based on it. A cursory look in Wikipedia (for example) is not sufficient.

I do not need to posit ‘erase’ - a different me is not me. A nullasalus who is actually a lutheran is not me. A nullasalus who had 3 cups of espresso instead of 2 is not me.

Static?

A nullasalus who is Frank Sinatra is not me. If you disagree - if you think you would still be you if you were born Frank Sinatra - you’re welcome to that belief. I find it remarkably unpersuasive.

Sure it would be different. But if I were born with one kidney only or with six fingers of both hands, I would still be “me”. Static view vs. dynamic view.

Enough with the ‘you must prove’. I need to do no such thing - I’m stating a cohesive, if cursory, view of individual being. A and A+, where + is a slight modification, is a distinct being. A change in a timeline that changes A’s history to A+'s, removes A. Eradicates. They have different experiences, with different consciousnesses, in different universes. At most, I can try to persuade you of this formulation being reasonable.

Static view.

There’s no ‘you must prove to my satisfaction, or it’s not true’.

No, you don’t have to prove anything. You don’t even have to reply. You only have to prove if you wish to convince me. And you don’t have to do it.

Same goes for ‘existence is preferable to non-existence’. I’ve delineated the conditions, and they depend on the promises of Christianity (or something near enough).

Non secular argument.

If you think it’s better to never exist, than to experience evil temporarily, and good eternally, that’s that. There is nothing more I care to do, other than remark at what interesting standards you have.

Since the “eternal good” is just an assumption it carries no weight for someone who does not believe in it.

‘Will be, according to christianity.’ If christianity is false, and if the future holds no hope for resurrection, eternal life, good, and an end to real evil - well, obviously this fails. I have plenty of reason to believe this isn’t the case.

Non secular argument and personal assumption.

I see no need to answer the rest in detail, because it is all based of “if Christianty is true in assuming that God is benevolent”… which is a non-secular argument.

What you did is remarkably similar to another poster’s stance. He simply said that every evil must bring forth some unspecified good, because otherwise God would not allow it to happen.

In other words, he stipulated that God is benevolent because assuming otherwise it would turn out that God in not benevolent, and therefore all the evidence which seems to contradict this assumption is merely a “measurement error” and must be discarded. Of course this stance is called “cherry-picking”, using evidence which seems to support the hypothesis, and discarding evidence which seems to contradict it.

Well. This concludes the conversation, unless you wish to continue.

 

[Nullasalus]

You can’t have it both ways. Either you consider yourself as “static” or “dynamic”. Only if you view existence as static can you say that there is no “insignificant” change.

And your premise was that “any” change will obliterate you. If you happened to choose a different type of cereal yesterday would make your current “you” disappear, and a different “you” would be in existence. That was your premise.

Now you changed it and wish to speak of “big changes” only.

No - I said that there is no distinction here between ‘little changes’ and ‘big changes’. Change the cereal I had yesterday, and yes - I am gone. I repeated as much with the espresso example.

I’m not having it ‘both ways’. Just because I (as a being) am dynamic does not mean that my past can be dynamic. That very dynamism is why my past as a totality -must- remain it is. Because the entire point of being dynamic IS the series of changes. Changing the past, changes the series, change the person. Dynamism is future-contextual.

I am quite familiar with chaos theory. The so called “butterfly effect” is just a popular misconception.

What chaos theory actually says is that the effects of small differences in the (name removed by moderator)ut parameters cannot be predicted over time. It does not say that all small changes will inevitably bring forth gigantic results.

For one, I don’t need it to inevitably bring forth ‘gigantic results’. A change is a change - 2 espressos versus 3, even if all else remains the same. But the odds of things remaining even nominally the same sink drastically in the conditions we’re talking about - evils and what amounts to deep time.

You were talking about “any” change, I simply pointed out that your original assertion is incorrect.

No, I’ve been consistent about what will change a past - that much is simple. The idea that a tiny change will have no effect is a tremendous assumption when we’re dealing with time scales of this size. It’s hard to let that slide.

So you really assert that you are “static”.

What’s so difficult to distinguish here? Do you think that anything truly dynamic has a forever-changing past?

Well, this actually is the cut-off point. Insofar you tried to argue on a secular basis, and now you bring in a “transcendental” element.

In a conversation about God, pointing out the logic of God, I appealed to a view of God? What are the odds.

An incorrect understanding of chaos theory. You really should study it, if you wish to argue based on it. A cursory look in Wikipedia (for example) is not sufficient.

Considering you started off asserting incredulity at the idea of small changes having large effects within a system over time, I think I’m on the firmer ground here. Your rejoinder is ‘Yes, well, maybe not all the time even given eternity!’ Interesting response.

Static?

Sure it would be different. But if I were born with one kidney only or with six fingers of both hands, I would still be “me”. Static view vs. dynamic view.

Static view.

Yes - because if you were born with only one kidney or six fingers (even ignoring that those are, on their own, huge changes) your life would have certainly followed the same course, right? And the lives of others - unaffected too. Your view of individuality isn’t static. It isn’t even dynamic. It’s incomprehensible - just say ‘If I were born as Frank Sinatra, I would still be me’ and complete the circle.

Non secular argument.
Since the “eternal good” is just an assumption it carries no weight for someone who does not believe in it.

Suddenly this standard of ‘it must be a secular argument’ comes up. You came in here arguing against the logical and evidential consistency of the Christian view of God. Now your position is that the view isn’t built exclusively on ‘secular’ (and honestly, you really mean ‘atheist’ - and the two are not the same) points.

Non secular argument and personal assumption.

I see no need to answer the rest in detail, because…

…

… “cherry-picking”, using evidence which seems to support the hypothesis, and discarding evidence which seems to contradict it…

Well. This concludes the conversation, unless you wish to continue.

Listen to me carefully - what you’re trying to do here? It’s extremely unpersuasive. I think even you realize this.

I’ve relied on a very reasonable view of individuality, one you agreed with until it didn’t work out as you intended. I’ve demonstrated the sort of goods that not only can, but must proceed from permitted evil - which you attempted to grapple with, until suddenly declaring ‘Non-secular argument, I’m done!’ And considering your entire argument was predicated on ‘What a God would do if He existed and was benevolent’… well, what - those are suddenly ‘secular assumptions’? And I haven’t even trotted out every bit of reason and evidence available.

Feel free to end things here. I know better than to believe most people would be persuaded in either direction by reasonable philosophical appeal. But I’m more than happy with what I’ve demonstrated through reason and consistency, and have no great desire to beat a dead horse.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t know about “perfect”. One of the attributes of perfection is that it cannot be changed. But of course it did not “change” on its own right. God cursed it… and that was the cause of the change.

I don’t think its necessarily perfect in the true sense of the word, but rather in the general sense that you usually mean it. I.e. no droughts, food readily available, etc. Man lived in harmony with creation, which was lost. The catechism says that with sin, “creation has become alien and hostile to man.” (para. 400)

I would hesitate in using the word “cursed”. I am actually not well versed in this aspect but the catechism says that the harmony man had enjoyed with creation was lost with sin due to the disruption of original justice. See paragraph 400.

Nonsense. The earthquakes, black plauges, diseases are not “created” by “evil” scientists. According to your belief, they are the direct result of God cursing his creation.

You mentioned things like rape and murder, to which I was referring. You actually did list plagues at the end, which I missed.

Again, I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “curse”, at least in its modern understanding.

And no, it is not “just” nor it is “merciful” to issue a “generic” curse, which will affect the innocents - to wit the animals. If the disobedience was such a horrible act, then God should have punished the offenders, not the innocent ones. Is that so difficult to understand? Where is your sense of “justice” that supposedly God himself inscribed into your “heart”?

First off, I think (again, I’m not well educated in this aspect) that the “curse” was a result of man’s actions and was thus not really “imposed” by God, as you imply. It’s more like a side affect of another action.

Two key observations, tell me what you think and we’ll go from there.

1. We can influence others, for both the better and worse. God does not necessarily stop us from doing this. We are “free”, which carries with it the consequences.
2. God does not mete out perfect justice reflective of our actions until we have died.