Problems with the Problem of Evil

[Jarhyn]

What is decided happens milliseconds prior to your conscious thoughts and actions.

This process has nothing to do with 'free will' or even general will, the impulse we feel to act.

This thread was doing just fine without you bringing in your dubious "understanding" of cognitive processes.

Can we NOT have this argument in this thread?

 

[pood]

What is decided happens milliseconds prior to your conscious thoughts and actions.

Of course it's decided beforehand.
It would be cart before the horse otherwise.

I bet if you drill down you could probably observe/measure events along the way in the chain of causation happening nanoseconds...yoctoseconds before the eventual "conscious" actions.

The point is that it is not decided by what you call free will. It's not even decided by an act of will. It's not even decided consciously. It's the information processing activity of the brain that 'decides' and reports the action in conscious form, thoughts and feelings, for it to be acted out.

Your claim that free will is the driver of decision making not only puts the cart before the horse, but gets the agency of cognition completely wrong.

First, you must. know, from our previous discussions, that this is not completely or even substantively correct. The Libet experiments, for example, as we have pointed out, showed that the conscious mind has a veto power over subconscious decision-making — Libet called this “free won’t,” and, speaking of his own experiments, decided that they do NOT rule out free will. However, we’ve discussed this, and this has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and yet you continue to make the same erroneous assertions after multiple corrections.

Second, it doesn’t matter if most, or even all, of our decisions are made subconsciously via information processing, because it is still US making those decisions — our subconscious is not separate from US. Moreover, much of that subconscious processing occurs as a result of a feedback loop which processes conscious activity previously registered.

You seem to have the idea that in order for us to have some kind of free will, our decisions must always be made consciously, else we are puppets of our subconscious. But that would be absurd, because it would be saying we are puppets of ourselves — which is meaningless. I am a writer, and I am very familiar with the oft-described sensation, by many writers, of often feeling that when the words are flowing and everything is clicking into place, that one is taking dictation — not producing the words at all, but simply transcribing them. But the source of this phenomenon is simply that the writer’s subconscious has sorted through the options and has come up with the solution for the conscious mind then to consider. But the product still belongs to the writer, because the subconscious is PART OF the writer.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is decided happens milliseconds prior to your conscious thoughts and actions.

Of course it's decided beforehand.
It would be cart before the horse otherwise.

I bet if you drill down you could probably observe/measure events along the way in the chain of causation happening nanoseconds...yoctoseconds before the eventual "conscious" actions.

The point is that it is not decided by what you call free will. It's not even decided by an act of will. It's not even decided consciously. It's the information processing activity of the brain that 'decides' and reports the action in conscious form, thoughts and feelings, for it to be acted out.

Your claim that free will is the driver of decision making not only puts the cart before the horse, but gets the agency of cognition completely wrong.

First, you must. know, from our previous discussions, that this is not completely or even substantively correct. The Libet experiments, for example, as we have pointed out, showed that the conscious mind has a veto power over subconscious decision-making — Libet called this “free won’t,” and, speaking of his own experiments, decided that they do NOT rule out free will. However, we’ve discussed this, and this has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and yet you continue to make the same erroneous assertions after multiple corrections.

Second, it doesn’t matter if most, or even all, of our decisions are made subconsciously via information processing, because it is still US making those decisions — our subconscious is not separate from US. Moreover, much of that subconscious processing occurs as a result of a feedback loop which processes conscious activity previously registered.

You seem to have the idea that in order for us to have some kind of free will, our decisions must always be made consciously, else we are puppets of our subconscious. But that would be absurd, because it would be saying we are puppets of ourselves — which is meaningless. I am a writer, and I am very familiar with the oft-described sensation, by many writers, of often feeling that when the words are flowing and everything is clicking into place, that one is taking dictation — not producing the words at all, but simply transcribing them. But the source of this phenomenon is simply that the writer’s subconscious has sorted through the options and has come up with the solution for the conscious mind then to consider. But the product still belongs to the writer, because the subconscious is PART OF the writer.

Guess we're having this argument in this thread...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is decided happens milliseconds prior to your conscious thoughts and actions.

This process has nothing to do with 'free will' or even general will, the impulse we feel to act.

This thread was doing just fine without you bringing in your dubious "understanding" of cognitive processes.

Was it? It seemed to be tedious and going no where.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is decided happens milliseconds prior to your conscious thoughts and actions.

This process has nothing to do with 'free will' or even general will, the impulse we feel to act.

This thread was doing just fine without you bringing in your dubious "understanding" of cognitive processes.

Was it? It seemed to be tedious and going no where.

"Not all who wander are lost", but this shoved it straight on into a wood chipper...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Could Biblegod commit an act so diabolical that even the conservative Christians would admit it was incomprehensibly evil?

(My guess is no -- their reasoning is ever so elastic, and Biblegod commits frequent infanticide as it is.)

 

[pood]

Guess we're having this argument in this thread...

I think it’s OK here as long as it stays tied in with the subject matter of the thread.

 

[SIB]

Assumption.: if God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

I made this same same mistake. Then I realized that the events we see around determine the traits of the thing. Like the events we see determine everything else we describe. lol, within the confines of a smart ape that is.

So, for me, the conclusion that "something more" matches observation than than the reverse. The claim, or belief, that nothing more, in a spiritual sense that is, is as about as reliable as a belief in a omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Both imply far more than we know and neither match observation better than other beliefs. For example, its probably between the too.

As far as practicality goes, that is no my area. Yeah, religion is very dangerous. Trying to manipulate the social impact by not openly discussing the best conclusions due to a fear that some obnoxious belief run wild with is just intellectually immature. And believe me, I know, it takes one to know one.

So I list the all the beliefs and discuss them. Balance.
1-no gods or gods of any type
2-I don't have to say anything (but post hundreds of posts, over years, telling others they are wrong). Special Pleading to me.
3-something more {sliding scale here). I have no idea and really don't care past is what is being claimed match events we see around us.
4-diest-ish. Kind of goes with 3.
5-my god only

we can add any others and discuss.

The weights we assign have to addressed. I feel very bad, but things like abuse have to be rationally discussed in terms of how observations are weighted. It is horrible, but doesn't determine how the universe works. And things like "other" countries on the internet. To ignore this is a red flag. Of course, to solely focus on it is paranoid also. Balance.

for me, 1 and 5 seem least reliable to me in terms of just how the universe works. #2 is political. theist and atheist coming in belief forums with social change considerations is well ... think of the things we would admit to or deny if wee are focused on "Social Change for practical reasons". The means justifies the end type thinking.

 

[Elixir]

Assumption.: if God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

I made this same same mistake. Then I realized that the events we see around determine the traits of the thing. Like the events we see determine everything else we describe. lol, within the confines of a smart ape that is.

So, for me, the conclusion that "something more" matches observation than than the reverse. The claim, or belief, that nothing more, in a spiritual sense that is, is as about as reliable as a belief in a omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Both imply far more than we know and neither match observation better than other beliefs. For example, its probably between the too.

As far as practicality goes, that is no my area. Yeah, religion is very dangerous. Trying to manipulate the social impact by not openly discussing the best conclusions due to a fear that some obnoxious belief run wild with is just intellectually immature. And believe me, I know, it takes one to know one.

So I list the all the beliefs and discuss them. Balance.
1-no gods or gods of any type
2-I don't have to say anything (but post hundreds of posts, over years, telling others they are wrong). Special Pleading to me.
3-something more {sliding scale here). I have no idea and really don't care past is what is being claimed match events we see around us.
4-diest-ish. Kind of goes with 3.
5-my god only

we can add any others and discuss.

The weights we assign have to addressed. I feel very bad, but things like abuse have to be rationally discussed in terms of how observations are weighted. It is horrible, but doesn't determine how the universe works. And things like "other" countries on the internet. To ignore this is a red flag. Of course, to solely focus on it is paranoid also. Balance.

for me, 1 and 5 seem least reliable to me in terms of just how the universe works. #2 is political. theist and atheist coming in belief forums with social change considerations is well ... think of the things we would admit to or deny if wee are focused on "Social Change for practical reasons". The means justifies the end type thinking.

^ This looks to me like trying to define the problem with the problem with the problem of evil.

IMO the entire "discussion" is ill founded, as there is no PROBLEM of evil in the first place.
Evil is whatever we call evil.
And that depends almost entirely on what was so defined for each of us in early childhood.

Problem(s) with evil are real, if we either disagree about what is and is not evil (which we do), or find ourselves compelled to combat, negate or otherwise get rid of that which we have accepted as evil (which we mostly do).

So yeah, we have problems with evil. But problems with the problem(s) of evil? I don't think so. Problems with evil are doing just fine, thank you. Problems with evil don't need any "fixing" by those who would like to find problems with the problems that evil confers upon us. Our energies are best spent negating evil (as we each see it) directly, where the opportunity arises to do so. Trying to make it more complicated than that simply gives license to evil, to present itself as intractable, and efforts to counter it as "problems" themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Assumption.: if God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

I made this same same mistake. Then I realized that the events we see around determine the traits of the thing. Like the events we see determine everything else we describe. lol, within the confines of a smart ape that is.

So, for me, the conclusion that "something more" matches observation than than the reverse. The claim, or belief, that nothing more, in a spiritual sense that is, is as about as reliable as a belief in a omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Both imply far more than we know and neither match observation better than other beliefs. For example, its probably between the too.

As far as practicality goes, that is no my area. Yeah, religion is very dangerous. Trying to manipulate the social impact by not openly discussing the best conclusions due to a fear that some obnoxious belief run wild with is just intellectually immature. And believe me, I know, it takes one to know one.

So I list the all the beliefs and discuss them. Balance.
1-no gods or gods of any type
2-I don't have to say anything (but post hundreds of posts, over years, telling others they are wrong). Special Pleading to me.
3-something more {sliding scale here). I have no idea and really don't care past is what is being claimed match events we see around us.
4-diest-ish. Kind of goes with 3.
5-my god only

we can add any others and discuss.

The weights we assign have to addressed. I feel very bad, but things like abuse have to be rationally discussed in terms of how observations are weighted. It is horrible, but doesn't determine how the universe works. And things like "other" countries on the internet. To ignore this is a red flag. Of course, to solely focus on it is paranoid also. Balance.

for me, 1 and 5 seem least reliable to me in terms of just how the universe works. #2 is political. theist and atheist coming in belief forums with social change considerations is well ... think of the things we would admit to or deny if wee are focused on "Social Change for practical reasons". The means justifies the end type thinking.

^ This looks to me like trying to define the problem with the problem with the problem of evil.

IMO the entire "discussion" is ill founded, as there is no PROBLEM of evil in the first place.
Evil is whatever we call evil.
And that depends almost entirely on what was so defined for each of us in early childhood.

Problem(s) with evil are real, if we either disagree about what is and is not evil (which we do), or find ourselves compelled to combat, negate or otherwise get rid of that which we have accepted as evil (which we mostly do).

So yeah, we have problems with evil. But problems with the problem(s) of evil? I don't think so. Problems with evil are doing just fine, thank you. Problems with evil don't need any "fixing" by those who would like to find problems with the problems that evil confers upon us. Our energies are best spent negating evil (as we each see it) directly, where the opportunity arises to do so. Trying to make it more complicated than that simply gives license to evil, to present itself as intractable, and efforts to counter it as "problems" themselves.

Well, nature does have an observable property around entities which apply simulations, wherein the simulation, owing to its suitability to some goal of accessing some natural gradient force useful for the continuation of a metastable process, will come to be selected naturally upon the ability of the instance to execute the process.

As a result, there is a set of general logic around goals and their relationship to goal seeking agents that can, at least in part, be understood in universal terms.

We call certain things in that paradigm "evil", and so "evil" is real (or at least 'a general class of actions possible within reality') even if many attempts we have made to define evil are ill-informed.

 

[Elixir]

Well, nature does have an observable property around entities which apply simulations, wherein the simulation, owing to its suitability to some goal of accessing some natural gradient force useful for the continuation of a metastable process, will come to be selected naturally upon the ability of the instance to execute the process.

The suitability of a simulation to a goal doesn't guarantee its continued utility. The attainment of "a goal" cannot be a metastable process; to be metastable it would have to be "attainment of goals", which it could continue to perform even in the face of variable goals.
Or do you have a concrete example to the contrary?

 

[Learner]

Sisters of the same genetics - not all of them have obesity!

OMFG! Whodathunkit??
(Other than anyone who has ever studied the matter, in even the most cursory manner.)Ya might wanna brush up on what “same” means in that context.

Common genetic traits in families that are inherited. That context in where geneticist can tell with fair amount of accuracy - what diseases you can be prone to, who you are related to, by studying the inherited traits that go through bloodlines for hundreds of years.

Perhaps you’d like to explain how that contradicts my statement, even at face value.

Well ok, I was talking generally in context about people from all walks of life and various genetics who could potentially be obese, some less than others of course.

It's quite noticeable when in general terms we see the example: 'Public advice' from National Health Officials or Medical Institutions who with the Government are obliged to give out health information - information in this regard, obesity. The concern is the rise of obesity. The information is based on dietary habits not genetics!

That should explain 'face value' that your argument is quite faulty.

Yet you have the same genetics.

They clearly don't. Some genetics skip around. This is well understood, and well understood why

Learner thinks genetics are like a four digit security code.
The idea that “identical” ova can diverge, seems to be foreign to our Creo.

Yes I guess so. I don't know much about the "obesity gene".

Sigh.

Genetics of obesity in humans.

Pood, you did notice the warning about changing wordings in someone's post mentioning that it's against the rules of the forum: 'revising someone's words in a way that distorts their message..' said in the IIDB staff post, which you liked. (Thanks to the staff btw for reminding us of the rules).

The words 'Obesity gene" I posted was sarcasm, elixir crossed it out and replaced it with the word 'genetics' changing it into an argument line both he and bilby are trying to pursue. Don't fall for it.
I am still not sure what it is about genetics I'm supposed to have said exactly, all I read is: "you don't know nothing about genetics"(he says yawning and scratches below).

I took an excerpt from your link.

Obesity is a major health problem worldwide. It is more common in established countries but is on the increase in developing countries

If it's down to genetics in contrast as quoted above being a major health problem then sure, then being obese is potentially a normality in humans, not a rarity for the few only, with somewhat very "unique" genetics.

 

[pood]

Sisters of the same genetics - not all of them have obesity!

OMFG! Whodathunkit??
(Other than anyone who has ever studied the matter, in even the most cursory manner.)Ya might wanna brush up on what “same” means in that context.

Common genetic traits in families that are inherited. That context in where geneticist can tell with fair amount of accuracy - what diseases you can be prone to, who you are related to, by studying the inherited traits that go through bloodlines for hundreds of years.

Perhaps you’d like to explain how that contradicts my statement, even at face value.

Well ok, I was talking generally in context about people from all walks of life and various genetics who could potentially be obese, some less than others of course.

It's quite noticeable when in general terms we see the example: 'Public advice' from National Health Officials or Medical Institutions who with the Government are obliged to give out health information - information in this regard, obesity. The concern is the rise of obesity. The information is based on dietary habits not genetics!

That should explain 'face value' that your argument is quite faulty.

Yet you have the same genetics.

They clearly don't. Some genetics skip around. This is well understood, and well understood why

Learner thinks genetics are like a four digit security code.
The idea that “identical” ova can diverge, seems to be foreign to our Creo.

Yes I guess so. I don't know much about the "obesity gene".

Sigh.

Genetics of obesity in humans.

Pood, you did notice the warning about changing wordings in someone's post mentioning that it's against the rules of the forum: 'revising someone's words in a way that distorts their message..' said in the IIDB staff post, which you liked. (Thanks to the staff btw for reminding us of the rules).

The words 'Obesity gene" I posted was sarcasm, elixir crossed it out and replaced it with the word 'genetics' changing it into an argument line both he and bilby are trying to pursue. Don't fall for it.
I am still not sure what it is about genetics I'm supposed to have said exactly, all I read is: "you don't know nothing about genetics"(he says yawning and scratches below).

I took an excerpt from your link.

Obesity is a major health problem worldwide. It is more common in established countries but is on the increase in developing countries

If it's down to genetics in contrast as quoted above being a major health problem then sure, then being obese is potentially a normality in humans, not a rarity for a few with somewhat "unique" genetics.

I quoted your post just as it was, so I have no idea why you are reminding about the rules.

As to the rest, I don’t know what you are on about with this, either. You seem to be suggesting that obesity is from overeating by people refusing to exercise their God-given will not to gorge on food, or some such shit, but I really can’t parse it at this point. The point is that some people have genetics-based proclivity to obesity, and this can be true regardless of how much they eat.

 

[TomC]

The words 'Obesity gene" I posted was sarcasm, elixir crossed it out and replaced it with the word 'genetics' changing it into an argument line both he and bilby are trying to pursue. Don't fall for it.

What I saw going on was you adding nuanced opinions to an anecdote that was very irrelevant to the real issue.
There's a tiny number of people who have a rare glandular condition. But the vast majority of weight issues are the result of people consuming more calories than they metabolise. That looked like your point to me.

A very reasonable and nuanced addition to the discussion.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

There's a tiny number of people who have a rare glandular condition. But the vast majority of weight issues are the result of people consuming more calories than they metabolise. That looked like your point to me.

I am used to creos talking about the “this” gene and the “that” gene, and my alteration of Learner’s “obesity gene” post was not done with any intent to change the meaning of what he said, but to point out its flaw. And I thought (and still think) that that was obvious.
What was NOT obvious (to me) was the Learner was capable of sarcastically mocking typical creo-speak. And it still doesn’t look that way to me, despite his disclaimer.

 

[TomC]

I am used to creos talking about

What was NOT obvious (to me) was the Learner was capable of sarcastically mocking typical creo-speak.

Maybe the problem is not @Learner but your assumptions about Learner.
What I saw was a more nuanced opinion than Jarhyn and his self centered anecdote about his family.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Maybe the problem is not @Learner but your assumptions about Learner.

That’s what I said.

 

[TomC]

Maybe the problem is not @Learner but your assumptions about Learner.

That’s what I said.

And it still doesn’t look that way to me, despite his disclaimer.

Yeah right.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The words 'Obesity gene" I posted was sarcasm, elixir crossed it out and replaced it with the word 'genetics' changing it into an argument line both he and bilby are trying to pursue. Don't fall for it.

What I saw going on was you adding nuanced opinions to an anecdote that was very irrelevant to the real issue.
There's a tiny number of people who have a rare glandular condition. But the vast majority of weight issues are the result of people consuming more calories than they metabolise. That looked like your point to me.

A very reasonable and nuanced addition to the discussion.
Tom

In what way?

The point wasn't people aren't responsible for their actions, it was "WTF is the deal with cancers and other crap?" And the response was 'smoking causes cancer' and 'overeating causes obesity'. While both of these statements have some level in truth to them, St. Jude's has children who have cancer. We know some people have natural weight issues. What's the deal with that?

The response has been, 'not god's fault'. Probably like how sickle cell isn't god's fault either. He just randomly assembled the systems together.

Also, almost this entire thread has been a derail.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes, and the Christians have not accounted for R Kelly's utility in the Great Creation.