The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,299
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 15, 2022 15:39:42 GMT
I don't think this avoids the problem. If I think people are suffering, it makes me sad which is another form of suffering and in this case genuine. I understand but I don’t think that’s the type of suffering Epicurus was talking about. Perhaps not but I think it's still a relevant point. There is still suffering of a sort in this world of temporary p-zombies so there is still the question as to why an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would allow that sort of suffering.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 15, 2022 22:12:05 GMT
I understand but I don’t think that’s the type of suffering Epicurus was talking about. Perhaps not but I think it's still a relevant point. There is still suffering of a sort in this world of temporary p-zombies so there is still the question as to why an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would allow that sort of suffering. My first reaction would be to give a yin/yang answer. If it's all good and no bad, there is no real understanding and appreciation of good. Also why honestly the concept of a Christian/Islamic heaven sounds more like a curse to me. Note that this thread doesn't address omnibenevolence. The concept doesn't interest me as much. Could it be a sliding scale too? What if my favorite food is pizza, and I have a hamburger. There is some loss in happiness there. Would an omnibenevolent God allow that?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 15, 2022 23:58:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Sept 16, 2022 0:45:12 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. Which is more likely: your hypothesis that evil is a figment of my imagination or my hypothesis that Yahweh is a figment of your imagination? And, as others have pointed out, what about the evil that has happened directly to me, such as athlete’s foot, mosquito bites, tooth decay, erectile dysfunction, poison ivy, my wife’s farts in bed, etc. In theory, anything is possible. For example: I could be the only real person on this earth. All the rest of you are actors placed here by Jehovah to make me believe that there are 8 billion others, when in fact there are none.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 16, 2022 1:03:35 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. Which is more likely: your hypothesis that evil is a figment of my imagination or my hypothesis that Yahweh is a figment of your imagination? And, as others have pointed out, what about the evil that has happened directly to me, such as athlete’s foot, mosquito bites, tooth decay, erectile dysfunction, poison ivy, my wife’s farts in bed, etc. In theory, anything is possible. For example: I could be the only real person on this earth. All the rest of you are actors placed here by Jehovah to make me believe that there are 8 billion others, when in fact there are none. That is definitely not my hypothesis. It's a way out of the Epicurus argument though. Think Karl Popper and the scientific method. All you have to do is falsify things one time and it's thrown out. It is possible you are the only sentient being in this universe and the rest of us are AI's. What would that mean? Some type of research being done at a higher level of the simulation? Maybe you made a purchase at the Westworld booth at the bazaar and you get to have a lifetime of experience in 5 minutes of your own time.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 16, 2022 1:11:29 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. Which is more likely: your hypothesis that evil is a figment of my imagination or my hypothesis that Yahweh is a figment of your imagination? And, as others have pointed out, what about the evil that has happened directly to me, such as athlete’s foot, mosquito bites, tooth decay, erectile dysfunction, poison ivy, my wife’s farts in bed, etc. In theory, anything is possible. For example: I could be the only real person on this earth. All the rest of you are actors placed here by Jehovah to make me believe that there are 8 billion others, when in fact there are none. I do love the "this could be just my imagination" argument, and I actually ascribe to it in some measure, of course the flip side is that no matter how unreal this creation is, for all intents and purposes it IS real at this point in our understanding, and so one may as well treat is as real.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,299
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 16, 2022 9:32:28 GMT
Think Karl Popper and the scientific method. All you have to do is falsify things one time and it's thrown out. But Popper's view is that a theory needs to be falsifiable in the first place to be considered scientific. Solipsism isn't falsifiable so it can't be considered scientific if we go by Popper's method. It's basically a metaphysical speculation and one that I would say is impossible to actually adopt.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 16, 2022 15:21:10 GMT
Think Karl Popper and the scientific method. All you have to do is falsify things one time and it's thrown out. But Popper's view is that a theory needs to be falsifiable in the first place to be considered scientific. Solipsism isn't falsifiable so it can't be considered scientific if we go by Popper's method. It's basically a metaphysical speculation and one that I would say is impossible to actually adopt. I was falsifying Epicurus.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,299
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 16, 2022 22:53:07 GMT
But Popper's view is that a theory needs to be falsifiable in the first place to be considered scientific. Solipsism isn't falsifiable so it can't be considered scientific if we go by Popper's method. It's basically a metaphysical speculation and one that I would say is impossible to actually adopt. I was falsifying Epicurus. Ah sorry, my mistake
|
|