God and smallpox

[The Pixie]

Love as a Deontic Moral Principle

The question is, now that God has created mankind, what does he do? His entire purpose is done now, from what you say here. He has created beings he loves and who are capable of internalizing through experience love of him and of the good. Does he put his feet up, after a good job done?

Creation is eternal.

What does that mean? Is God actively involved in maintaining the universe instant by instant?

You're thinking of creation as happening at a point in time.

Yes, I think of creation as happening at a point in time. I think of creation as being the action or process of bringing something into existence, in this case the world. The world already exists, it has been created.

I cannot help but wonder if this conversation would be easier if you used words in their conventional sense, or at least define them properly when you do not.

God upholds the world in an ongoing manner. That's the causal story.

Okay, so let us compare God to the universe. The universe upholds the world in an ongoing manner. And like God, has spawned creatures capable of love, and is itself capable of love (as long as we assume it is first), and like God never intervenes to reduce suffering.

God is the reason for the world, not the purposeless cause of the world. Quantum fluctuation would not even be the cause of the world, but at most the cause of this universe. Our reason for being is God and God's love. It's the difference between the "why" and the "how", even tho quantum fluctuation would not even be the "how" of the world. It's a metaphysical difference between the two that is crucial, not a causal difference, which is all you seem to be able to focus on.

What is the difference, morally? As far as I can tell the quantum flunctuation or the universe itself has the same deontic morality, which is love, i.e., creating beings capable of love, and loving them. Your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle had no mention of purpose or "causal story".

And that is the issue; your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle.

Remember, this overarching meta-principle is supposed to justify God breaking the rule he invented for himself of not intervening. If you read the Bible, those occasions when God did intervene after the first couple of chapters, it was not to creating beings he loves and who are capable of internalizing through experience love of him and of the good.

Does he have some other agenda?

This is obfuscation. This theodicy is an attempt to reconcile the world the way it actually is now with an omni-God. It's not an argument about Biblical hermeneutics or about quantum theory. Is an omini-God logically compatible with the world as it is now? Yes or no?

I can see it is obfuscation, and I am doing my best to cut through it.

I will note that what you say here does not address this supposed overarching meta-principle at all. Obfuscation at its finest.

Look, if you want to change your position, or just to explain it better, that would be great. Until you do, I will keep asking about the overarching meta-principle that you claim is God creating creatures capable of love and loving them.

That is right. The purposeless quantum fluctuation that hypothetically engendered the universe and so mankind has created beings he loves and who are capable of internalizing through experience love of him and of the good.

This is silly even by your standards! You're using teleological concepts and language to talk about a purposeless force. What would be the reason for the quantum fluctuation? Does it carry its reason for being as an essential attribute? Is it purposive? Are you focusing only on outcomes?

I am pointing out that your overarching meta-principle applies to something that is clearly purposeless. It does not matter what its reason is, it does not matter if its reason for being is an essential attribute. It does not matter if it has purpose. None of these were cited by you as part of that overarching meta-principle.

Again, if you want to rethink that overarching meta-principle, now would be a good time.

Of course, you may object that the quantum fluctuation does not love, but according to your use of the word here, it does, just by virtue of creating a species capable of love. And by assuming it loves, of course, but you do that for God too.

This is a diversion.

No it is not. According to your explanation of God's overarching meta-principle, that morality is also true of the quantum fluctuation.

You find that ridiculous. So do I! But it is not my explanation. It is ridiculous because your explanation makes no sense.

The point surely is the expected outcome. You cause the suffering in the expectation that the cat will benefit in the long term.

Ah, but with the quantum fluctuation notion, there is no expected outcome. Expectation is a teleological idea. So I guess you agree that outcomes are not sufficient for moral evaluation, and you're not a consequentialist after all?

I do not think the quantum fluctuation is a moral agent. I think that that would be ridiculous.

However, if we use your explanation of God's overarching meta-principle, that morality is also true of the quantum fluctuation. And it is ridiculous because your explanation makes no sense.

But here is a different approach. Take a few examples from the Bible that you believe actually happened, and show how God's intervention was morally right for him, given love as his overarching meta-principle. Then we can compare that with "Love, creating beings he loves and who are capable of internalizing through experience love of him and of the good, that is his purpose."

Is the world as it is logically compatible with an omni-God?

This is me trying to get you to explain what love as an over-arch meta-principle really means. I thought if you could talk us through a worked example, as it were, that might help. I had forgotten your powers of obfuscation; the last thing you want to do is to make that clear, it would seem.


That Tautology

By the same logic, allowing smallpox to flourish cannot be morally evaluated apart from the expected effect. You cannot look at E(a), but have to look at E'(a).

Agreed.

All of my posts so far on this thread have been attempting to unpack E'(a), whereas you keep bringing it back to E(a), just the outcome of the evil of smallpox.

Really? That is news to me. I think the distinction is so small it does not matter.

Okay, so a is the eradication of smallpox. E'(a) is the negative impact on the greater good that God expects. My contention, the one I have repeated several times now, can be summarised:

Either E'(a) < 0 or not E'(a) < 0

We cannot look just at the evils of the world, whether amenable by humans or not, as counter-evidence of an omni-God. We cannot look just at the suffering quotient of my cat to evaluate my actions as opposed to my neighbors and as opposed to the cat getting hit by lightning.

Why?

The way you stated it originally was not that way. That's why the original formulation had an equivocation embedded in it.

Right. So I took that on board, and modified it, and now I have removed that equivocation.

Yes, from God's perspective, allowing smallpox to flourish was for the greater good, which entailed the possibility of human eradication of smallpox. The two clauses are essentially joined together. God's greater good entails free actions to ameliorate the logical consequences of the greater good. It's paradoxical at first blush, because the concept of freedom is paradoxical.

That is fine, that means that E'(a) < 0, right? The entailing part is included in E' because God expected that possibility.

You haven't answered that argument but merely labeled it a false dichotomy. And you are saying that God should eliminate all bad things, or at least all the bad things that humans can eradicate or lessen. Smallpox operates as a placeholder for that class of things in your argument.

Yes, smallpox is a placeholder for a class of things, specifically those things for which their elimination, a, E'(a) is greater than zero. That is not the same as all bad things (necessarily) or all bad things humans can eradicate or lessen.

You haven't argued for what the difference is in principle between smallpox and that class of evils it's a member of. If it weren't smallpox, it'd be polio and if not polio then ....to evil n.

Only those for which E'(a) > 0.


Non-Intervention

Maybe he wiped out 100,000 diseases far worse than smallpox. You're assuming we know far more than we know.

Maybe he has.

Oops, there goes your non-intervention arguments.

You can deny that the resurrection happened, but you can't say for sure that God did or did not prevent an evil before anyone knew it existed. Beyond this, you're left with asking why there is any evil at all that humans can remove, like headaches, hangnails, etc...

If Christianity is true, then God is willing to relax his non-intervention rule. Same applies if God has wiped out other diseases without us knowing about it. So what is your point?

So you think that IF there is an omni-God, his having reasons for acting we cannot grasp is just as improbable as that we are in a computer-generated reality?

Well, actually a computer-generated reality makes sense and I can see no evidence against it, so I would consider that more likely.

It's logically coherent in terms of the effects of the world as it is but not in terms of the cause of the world as it is. You continue to confuse two different contexts of justification.

Then please explain. What are the effects of the world? What is being affected? What is the cause of the World? Do you mean God? If so, is this related to the idea that God is still "creating" the world right now?

[met]

Yes, I think of creation as happening at a point in time. I think of creation as being the action or process of bringing something into existence, in this case the world. The world already exists, it has been created.

I cannot help but wonder if this conversation would be easier if you used words in their conventional sense, or at least define them properly when you do not.

Lawd! An omni-God maintains the universe either actively or passively, but from our perspective it doesn't matter, can't possibly. The classical, all-foreseeing X-Ian God brings everything that ever happens in the world into existence simultaneously (in a sense) from the perspective of a divine timeless existence, whilst ALLOWING for "bad things" to make space for free will.

That's what's meant in classical X-Ian theological talk by "God's creation."

Christ and other cases of divine "interventions" or participation in the world are enigmatic to an extent, but usually seen as relational and demonstrative - Gods efforts "within" time to relate to and communicate with time-bound creatures.

So, like that.

Yes, smallpox is a placeholder for a class of things, specifically those things for which their elimination, a, E'(a) is greater than zero. That is not the same as all bad things (necessarily) or all bad things humans can eradicate or lessen

I think what it's claiming, using more common theological terms, is that there are some evils that it is difficult to believe could be necessary for any greater good? And you are arguing, "IF God exists, then what good could there be in his or her allowing mankind to (apparently) cure a terrible disease " on their own"- ie seemingly-independently? Wouldn't that only reinforce atheist claims?"

Is that it?

[Jim B.]

Okay, so let us compare God to the universe. The universe upholds the world in an ongoing manner. And like God, has spawned creatures capable of love, and is itself capable of love (as long as we assume it is first), and like God never intervenes to reduce suffering.

The world means whatever exists in space and time or whatever makes up reality. The world doesn't mean this planet. This is common usage in philosophy. The universe or multiverse doesn't uphold itself. Without God or something very much like it, the world is a brute fact.

How is the universe capable of love? Because it's given rise to beings capable of love? So I guess it's capable of speech and sorting laundry as well?

I have said numerous times now that God's non-intervention principle is not exceptionless. Do you recall those times? If we achieve nothing else on this thread, please acknowledge that I have written this several times. You may not agree with it or understand it, but just acknowledge that I have written it at least a half a dozen times.

What is the difference, morally? As far as I can tell the quantum flunctuation or the universe itself has the same deontic morality, which is love, i.e., creating beings capable of love, and loving them. Your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle had no mention of purpose or "causal story".

And that is the issue; your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle.

The difference morally is that we exist at all and are capable of love and morality and free actions. Under this version of theism, God is the ground of being and existence. The difference morally is that we and all living things are and have intrinsic worth and rights.

You're focused on a certain kind of outcome (minimizing or eradicating all suffering) that you would expect, given that there is a God. These expectations can't be assumed because they're central to what we're discussing. Our intuitions of how we would expect the world to be even physically, let alone metaphysically, have been notoriously and wildly unreliable because of hidden variables we couldn't anticipate.

If you're looking only at minimizing or eradicating suffering, then there'd be no difference morally between me trying to save my cat's life, my sadistic neighbor, and cancer. All three cause my cat the exact same amount of suffering resulting in death, so what is the difference morally between the three?

I can see it is obfuscation, and I am doing my best to cut through it.

I will note that what you say here does not address this supposed overarching meta-principle at all. Obfuscation at its finest.

Look, if you want to change your position, or just to explain it better, that would be great. Until you do, I will keep asking about the overarching meta-principle that you claim is God creating creatures capable of love and loving them.

Love is the reason for the world. Love is the reason for non-intervention as a default state, barring extraordinary, overriding circumstances. This is not obfuscation. Just because you may disagree with or misunderstand something doesn't mean it's obfuscating. You're offering the world as capable of love and deontic moral principles is classic obfuscation. You're trying to argue that because your point is obviously incoherent, then my point must be also without any argument for the analogy. If you can throw enough dust into the umpire's eyes, then maybe the run will be ruled "safe." Textbook obfuscation.

I am pointing out that your overarching meta-principle applies to something that is clearly purposeless. It does not matter what its reason is, it does not matter if its reason for being is an essential attribute. It does not matter if it has purpose. None of these were cited by you as part of that overarching meta-principle.

This is because you have one set of expectations of what a "Godded" universe must be like, and any deviation from those unexamined presuppositions must equal purposeless universe. This is classic question-begging.

Again, if you want to rethink that overarching meta-principle, now would be a good time.

If you want to think through your position for the first time, now would be a good time.

Of course, you may object that the quantum fluctuation does not love, but according to your use of the word here, it does, just by virtue of creating a species capable of love. And by assuming it loves, of course, but you do that for God too.

Do you understand the difference between having a purpose and not having a purpose? The universe does not "create" anything, unless you want to strip language of all intentional meaning. I wouldn't be surprise if you do.

However, if we use your explanation of God's overarching meta-principle, that morality is also true of the quantum fluctuation. And it is ridiculous because your explanation makes no sense.

It's the difference between existence having a reason and a purpose and existence being a brute purposeless fact. Just that wee bit of difference.

This is me trying to get you to explain what love as an over-arch meta-principle really means. I thought if you could talk us through a worked example, as it were, that might help. I had forgotten your powers of obfuscation; the last thing you want to do is to make that clear, it would seem.

Here's a worked example:
Is there a world? Is the world supportive of life that is conscious capable of love and being loved, rights-worthy, intentional, free, moral? Is absence of suffering the greatest good? Is suffering the greatest evil? Is moral evaluation based upon outcomes? Is an Omni=God logically compatible with such a world? If it is logically compatible, how plausible is it that an infinite mind would have reasons for acting that could be jusitifiable given the world? How plausible is it that an infinite mind could be capable of acting on moral and valuational variables that would be further beyond human comprehension than the variables embedded in the physical world?

Okay, so a is the eradication of smallpox. E'(a) is the negative impact on the greater good that God expects. My contention, the one I have repeated several times now, can be summarised:

Either E'(a) < 0 or not E'(a) < 0

Ceteris parabus, E'(a) has a net negative effect, because the meaning of a for God =/= a for humans.

We cannot look just at the evils of the world, whether amenable by humans or not, as counter-evidence of an omni-God. We cannot look just at the suffering quotient of my cat to evaluate my actions as opposed to my neighbors and as opposed to the cat getting hit by lightning.

Why?

Because moral evaluation does not depend on outcomes. Remember the amputated leg and the cat?

That is fine, that means that E'(a) < 0, right? The entailing part is included in E' because God expected that possibility.

No, if by < 0, you mean ceteris parabus a net positive effect.

Yes, smallpox is a placeholder for a class of things, specifically those things for which their elimination, a, E'(a) is greater than zero. That is not the same as all bad things (necessarily) or all bad things humans can eradicate or lessen.

Smallpox for God is a placeholder for the class natural evils. Smallpox for humans is a particular evil.

Maybe he has.

Oops, there goes your non-intervention arguments.

It's not exceptionless. Remember?

If Christianity is true, then God is willing to relax his non-intervention rule. Same applies if God has wiped out other diseases without us knowing about it. So what is your point?

That God's default state is non-intervention, just as my default state is non-killing. I can't possibly state all the possible exceptions and reasons for orderings of moral principles in my decision-making, given various situations, but I can understand my moral framework in principle. The same applies to God except the scale is infinitely greater.

Well, actually a computer-generated reality makes sense and I can see no evidence against it, so I would consider that more likely.

That's because you already have firmly fixed in place what you would require of a theistic world. A computer-generated reality would not be an explanation on the same order, even if it were true.

Then please explain. What are the effects of the world? What is being affected? What is the cause of the World? Do you mean God? If so, is this related to the idea that God is still "creating" the world right now?

The effects of the world would mean us and what is good and evil for us as opposed to what is good and evil for God, the cause of and reason for us and what is good and evil for us.

Again, I ask you:

Is an omni-God logically compatible with the world?

[The Pixie]

I am breaking this into two parts; this post deals only with love as the over-arching meta-principle.

How is the universe capable of love? Because it's given rise to beings capable of love? So I guess it's capable of speech and sorting laundry as well?

According to your explanation of what love is in this context, it merely means engendering creatures capable of love and being capable of love itself.

Let us assume the universe capable of love... It is then clearly true that the universe does the above.

Before you object to that being circular, please explain why it is not circular for God.

I have said numerous times now that God's non-intervention principle is not exceptionless. Do you recall those times? If we achieve nothing else on this thread, please acknowledge that I have written this several times. You may not agree with it or understand it, but just acknowledge that I have written it at least a half a dozen times.

Sure, loads of times.

Eventually, after ten pages of tail chasing, you deigned to reveal that non-intervention was not the overarching meta-principle anyway, so we are now trying to discuss what you mean by love, which is.

What is the difference, morally? As far as I can tell the quantum flunctuation or the universe itself has the same deontic morality, which is love, i.e., creating beings capable of love, and loving them. Your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle had no mention of purpose or "causal story".

And that is the issue; your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle.

The difference morally is that we exist at all and are capable of love and morality and free actions.

That is the case whether we were engendered by God or the quantum fluctuation.

Under this version of theism, God is the ground of being and existence. The difference morally is that we and all living things are and have intrinsic worth and rights.

How does that work? For example, if I infringe your rights, what will God actually do? My guess is he will do exactly the same as the quantum fluctuation. I.e., diddly squat.

How does God communicate those rights? For example, how did he tell us about the right to freedom of religion? Looks to me like the quantum fluctuation actually wins here, because it has no sacred book that specifically commands against freedom of religion.

As far as I can tell, the only difference here is that belief in God gives people the idea that they have worth and rights, when the reality is that those rights and worth comes from their fellow man.

You're focused on a certain kind of outcome (minimizing or eradicating all suffering) that you would expect, given that there is a God. These expectations can't be assumed because they're central to what we're discussing. Our intuitions of how we would expect the world to be even physically, let alone metaphysically, have been notoriously and wildly unreliable because of hidden variables we couldn't anticipate.

Sure, but we have to work with what we have to hand. We might be wrong. This might all be a computer simulation.

Also, what do you mean by assuming an expectation?

If you're looking only at minimizing or eradicating suffering, then there'd be no difference morally between me trying to save my cat's life, my sadistic neighbor, and cancer. All three cause my cat the exact same amount of suffering resulting in death, so what is the difference morally between the three?

We have moved beyond this. Remember, E'(a) is the perceived negative impact on the greater good.

Love is the reason for the world. Love is the reason for non-intervention as a default state, barring extraordinary, overriding circumstances. This is not obfuscation. Just because you may disagree with or misunderstand something doesn't mean it's obfuscating.

None of that explains what "love" is in this context.

A quantum fluctuation could be the cause of the universe; can we label that love? I am sure you would say no, and yet it fits what you say here.

Indifference is a reason for non-intervention as a default state, and the quantum fluctuation is certainly indifferent. So that is love right?

Of course not. Look, I doubt you are doing this deliberately, but at every point you are failing to explain what you mean, and I honestly doubt you really know. You have been conditioned to think "God is love", but that does not really say anything about what that love is, and so here you are trotting out any nonsense you can.

Seriously, how can you claim love is non-intervention. Have you ever loved someone? Did you act with indifference to that person?

You're offering the world as capable of love and deontic moral principles is classic obfuscation. You're trying to argue that because your point is obviously incoherent, then my point must be also without any argument for the analogy.

My point is that your definition of love also applies to the quantum fluctuation, and that therefore your definition is flawed.

I do not think the quantum fluctuation is capable of love and deontic moral principles.

I do think the quantum fluctuation is capable of love and deontic moral principles under the contrived and nonsensical definitions are are putting forward.

Do you understand the difference between having a purpose and not having a purpose? The universe does not "create" anything, unless you want to strip language of all intentional meaning. I wouldn't be surprise if you do.

There was nothing about purpose in your definition of love, so this is irrelevant. At least until you give a clear definition.

It's the difference between existence having a reason and a purpose and existence being a brute purposeless fact. Just that wee bit of difference.

Also not relevant to your definition of love.

See, Jim, you have this definition of love, capable of love and creating creatures capable of love, and really it does not cut it. You accuse me of obfuscating, but it is clear your position is a tangle of half-baked ideas. You seem to think purpose and reason are relevant, so why is there no sign of either in your definition?

If love is the reason for non-intervention, then non-intervention should be a logical consequence of your definition of love, and it clearly is not; it is entirely neutral to your definition.

[The Pixie]

Pix: But here is a different approach. Take a few examples from the Bible that you believe actually happened, and show how God's intervention was morally right for him, given love as his overarching meta-principle. Then we can compare that with "Love, creating beings he loves and who are capable of internalizing through experience love of him and of the good, that is his purpose."

Jim: Is the world as it is logically compatible with an omni-God?

Pix: This is me trying to get you to explain what love as an over-arch meta-principle really means. I thought if you could talk us through a worked example, as it were, that might help. I had forgotten your powers of obfuscation; the last thing you want to do is to make that clear, it would seem.

Jim: Here's a worked example:
Is there a world? Is the world supportive of life that is conscious capable of love and being loved, rights-worthy, intentional, free, moral? Is absence of suffering the greatest good? Is suffering the greatest evil? Is moral evaluation based upon outcomes? Is an Omni=God logically compatible with such a world? If it is logically compatible, how plausible is it that an infinite mind would have reasons for acting that could be jusitifiable given the world? How plausible is it that an infinite mind could be capable of acting on moral and valuational variables that would be further beyond human comprehension than the variables embedded in the physical world?

A worked example of what?

I ask for an example of God intervening from the Bible where you could show how it was morally right for him, and you give a whole bunch of questions in response?

In what possible sense is a bunch of questions "a worked example"? Do you have any idea?

Okay, so a is the eradication of smallpox. E'(a) is the negative impact on the greater good that God expects. My contention, the one I have repeated several times now, can be summarised:

Either E'(a) < 0 or not E'(a) < 0

Ceteris parabus, E'(a) has a net negative effect, because the meaning of a for God =/= a for humans.

I did not ask that. I was just asking if you accept that it must be true that:

Either E'(a) < 0 or not E'(a) < 0

... where a is the eradication of smallpox. E'(a) is the negative impact on the greater good that God expects.

And to be clear, I am not saying it is the same for God as it is for humans,

Jim: We cannot look just at the evils of the world, whether amenable by humans or not, as counter-evidence of an omni-God. We cannot look just at the suffering quotient of my cat to evaluate my actions as opposed to my neighbors and as opposed to the cat getting hit by lightning.

Pix: Why?

Jim: Because moral evaluation does not depend on outcomes. Remember the amputated leg and the cat?

Exactly. Which is why we are now looking at E'(a). Had you missed that? Try to keep up, it is getting boring when you go back to where we were five pages ago.

That is fine, that means that E'(a) < 0, right? The entailing part is included in E' because God expected that possibility.

No, if by < 0, you mean ceteris parabus a net positive effect.

See I might be more likely to think you were not obfuscating it you took this opportunity to say why not.

By the way, what has "ceteris parabus" got to do with it? We are talking about the greater good. Surely that is already the overall picture.

Yes, smallpox is a placeholder for a class of things, specifically those things for which their elimination, a, E'(a) is greater than zero. That is not the same as all bad things (necessarily) or all bad things humans can eradicate or lessen.

Smallpox for God is a placeholder for the class natural evils. Smallpox for humans is a particular evil.

God is not debating us. For the purposes of this argument, smallpox is a placeholder for things where E'(a) is greater than zero.

It's not exceptionless. Remember?

No, it is ad hoc.

That God's default state is non-intervention, just as my default state is non-killing. I can't possibly state all the possible exceptions and reasons for orderings of moral principles in my decision-making, given various situations, but I can understand my moral framework in principle. The same applies to God except the scale is infinitely greater.

Right. Non-killing is derived from your morality, and if it is moral to do so, you will kill. God's morality is based on that tangled conceptualisation of love.

That's because you already have firmly fixed in place what you would require of a theistic world.

That is like saying you reject relativity because Einstein already had a firmed fixed idea of what the world would be like if relativity was true - even when show the world really is like that.

A computer-generated reality would not be an explanation on the same order, even if it were true.

Why?

Pix: I am arguing for a world without smallpox. We know that that is logically coherent, because we are currently living in such a world.

Jim: It's logically coherent in terms of the effects of the world as it is but not in terms of the cause of the world as it is. You continue to confuse two different contexts of justification.

Pix: Then please explain. What are the effects of the world? What is being affected? What is the cause of the World? Do you mean God? If so, is this related to the idea that God is still "creating" the world right now?

Jim: The effects of the world would mean us and what is good and evil for us as opposed to what is good and evil for God, the cause of and reason for us and what is good and evil for us.

Here is a great example of why this thread is going nowhere. I asked you to explain, and this is the response.

From this, it would appear you believe a world without smallpox is logically coherent for mankind, but not logically coherent for God. Which means we currently live in a world that is logically incoherent for God. Do you really think that?

And this is what you consider an explanation?

Again, I ask you:

Is an omni-God logically compatible with the world?

Sure. But not a perfectly moral one.

[met]

Is an omni-God logically compatible with the world?

Sure. But not a perfectly moral one.

I think you're right there to say that horrors like smallpox do tend make it difficult to think of God as "perfectly good" AT LEAST IN HUMAN TERMS. And, for me, even arguments like Meta's "sotereological drama" have some issues - someone might point out "that sounds like humans are just "divine lab rats" who are being "trained" for some further, undisclosed divine purpose" and wonder why THAT would justify all the present suffering?

[The Pixie]

I think you're right there to say that horrors like smallpox do tend make it difficult to think of God as "perfectly good" AT LEAST IN HUMAN TERMS. And, for me, even arguments like Meta's "sotereological drama" have some issues - someone might point out "that sounds like humans are just "divine lab rats" who are being "trained" for some further, undisclosed divine purpose" and wonder why THAT would justify all the present suffering?

I think there has to be some sense that perfectly good would be to some degree humanocentric.

We can imagine a god who causes great suffering in mankind as you suggest here, as "divine lab rats" for the benefit of some future race. The overall good of the universe might increase, but the suffering for humans would be much greater. Would that be perfectly moral? I would say no, but I suppose othyers might disagree.

Another question is whether such a god would be worthy of our love and worship. I think that is a clearer No!

[met]

Well, I dunno, because I think one aspect of any concept ]of God is "a level of goodness beyond ourselves" .... which is kind of a tacit admission that we ourselves often are not very nice. But I also think one problem with (almost) every theodicy is the inherent attempt to EXPLAIN suffering, which tends to minimize it (and is also implicitly justifying) ...

[met]

I think there has to be some sense that perfectly good would be to some degree humanocentric.

We can imagine a god who causes great suffering in mankind as you suggest here, as "divine lab rats" for the benefit of some future race.

What about for the sake of some future life of our own? (Sort of...)

But the problem with that for me is it tends to obscure the strong tradition of "selflessness" that is so much a part of the X-ian tradition...

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it ....

[Jim B.]

According to your explanation of what love is in this context, it merely means engendering creatures capable of love and being capable of love itself.

Let us assume the universe capable of love... It is then clearly true that the universe does the above.

Here is what I wrote on pg 15 of this thread, on Tues Oct 14, 3:37 pm:

(Love as God's overarching meta-principle) has to do with what God's purpose is. Love, creating beings he loves and who are capable of internalizing through experience love of him and of the good, that is his purpose. It is teleological.

(emphasis added)

First of all, when I wrote "over-arching meta-principle," I was clearly referring to a moral principle, since that is the context of this discussion. Secondly, my description of God's over-arching meta-principle has to do essentially with his purpose, his intention, his telos, as the passage I just quoted makes clear. Given this context,"create" is meant in a purposive, teleological sense, and not in the blind, non-teleological sense of "bringing into existence," as in a flower bringing its blossom into existence. Thirdly, I wrote above and several other places that God loves, and not just that he "engenders creatures capable of love." So how could you possibly construe this as meaning that the universe itself could be capable of all of that? The universe causes beings who love, but that doesn't mean the universe loves. The universe causes beings with purposes but that doesn't mean the universe has a purpose. The universe causes beings with moral principles but that doesn't mean the universe is capable of morality...Get the picture?

I am not saying there is such a God or if there is, that God fits this description. This discussion takes the "omni-God" as a premise and then tries to see if that God is, first, compatible with this world, and second, plausible, given this world.

Before you object to that being circular, please explain why it is not circular for God.

It's only circular if you object to the definition of an omni-God. Is that what you're doing? I'm still not clear if your argument is the logical or the evidential kind(?)

Sure, loads of times.

Eventually, after ten pages of tail chasing, you deigned to reveal that non-intervention was not the overarching meta-principle anyway, so we are now trying to discuss what you mean by love, which is.

Even a cursory look over this thread came up with this quote of mine from pg 3, Tues Sep 06, 3:29 pm:

God could violate this principle (of non-intervention) in the case of smallpox, but the overridingness of that case would have to be strong enough to overcome the principle. Most cases don't meet that threshold.

And this from pg 7, Tues Sep 13, 2016, 4:34 pm:

If (God) intervened, he'd need an overriding principle strong enough to outweigh the need for an integral, free-standing world...If God's prima-facie rule is "Do not intervene," then the default condition would be non-intervention in the interest of a greater good.

So I said it wasn't exceptionless at least as early as page 3 of a 17 pg (and counting!) thread.

What is the difference, morally? As far as I can tell the quantum flunctuation or the universe itself has the same deontic morality, which is love, i.e., creating beings capable of love, and loving them. Your explanation of love as the over-arching meta-principle had no mention of purpose or "causal story".

Wrong. See the first quote above. How do you figure that the QF "loves" us other than by causing humans, ie beings who love? I am not saying that God loves us, or that we can know that God loves us because he engenders beings who love, but the very opposite. This is definitionally part of what an omni-God would be. It's possible that there's no such God and that love is merely an emotion arising out of certain physical conditions. Your argument seems to be that because we can conceive of present conditions as having arisen form the QF, that the QF is therefore morally equivalent to God? Is that what you're saying? But according to the definition of an omni-God, there'd be no QF or anything else in existence without God. God alone would have aseity. I'm not arguing here that GOd is the knockdown best contrastive explanation for the world but that he is compatible with the world and plausible, given the world. That's all a theodicy has to do.

That is the case whether we were engendered by God or the quantum fluctuation.

Sure, but if we are engendered by God, then God would be a different order of explanation than the QF which, without God, would be a brute fact. God would subsume the QF explanatorily and ontologically.

How does that work? For example, if I infringe your rights, what will God actually do? My guess is he will do exactly the same as the quantum fluctuation. I.e., diddly squat.

Yes, but to demand otherwise is to assume an activist, interventionist God, and why that assumption may be unsupported has been what I've been trying to establish for 17 pgs now!

As far as I can tell, the only difference here is that belief in God gives people the idea that they have worth and rights, when the reality is that those rights and worth comes from their fellow man.

Assuming the point at issue again. You do realize that one can believe in the objective reality of rights while still being an atheist, don't you? This issue doesn't lie squarely along the theist/atheist axis.

Sure, but we have to work with what we have to hand. We might be wrong. This might all be a computer simulation.

A computer simulation wouldn't tell us about why there's anything at all, including whatever reality generates the sim, or the status of meaning and value or the logical constraints on existence, assuming that the generating reality exists.

We have moved beyond this. Remember, E'(a) is the perceived negative impact on the greater good.

Apparently we haven't because you still seem to assume that outcomes are a central factor in arbitrating this topic. (See all of this post above). Also, why does E'(a) =/= E(a) given an omni-God?

Love is the reason for the world. Love is the reason for non-intervention as a default state, barring extraordinary, overriding circumstances. This is not obfuscation. Just because you may disagree with or misunderstand something doesn't mean it's obfuscating.

None of that explains what "love" is in this context.

A quantum fluctuation could be the cause of the universe; can we label that love? I am sure you would say no, and yet it fits what you say here.

Indifference is a reason for non-intervention as a default state, and the quantum fluctuation is certainly indifferent. So that is love right?

Case in point to the point I just made! Thank you! You're still obsessed with outcomes alone, so we, or you, rather, haven't, or can't, move on from that. The QF would not be the reason for the world. The QF would not have any reasons at all for its 'indifference' or for anything at all. It would have no purpose, no intention behind its 'non-intervention' which is a misnomer because non-intervention assumes a capacity to intervene that the agent is choosing not to exercise.

Of course not. Look, I doubt you are doing this deliberately, but at every point you are failing to explain what you mean, and I honestly doubt you really know. You have been conditioned to think "God is love", but that does not really say anything about what that love is, and so here you are trotting out any nonsense you can.

Seriously, how can you claim love is non-intervention. Have you ever loved someone? Did you act with indifference to that person?

You assume that non-intervention equals indifference. You assume the point at issue once again! Because God's love is not expressed in the same precise way as we humans express love, you assume that God does not love. But as I wrote before, the way a moral system is expressed depends on the knowledge, responsibilities, powers and ontological status of the agent. Again, you're looking only at outcomes. You're assuming that your criteria are the only ones that can possibly count. I'm suggesting another way of looking at it. And you've conceded that it's possible that God's under constraints that we are not under.

My point is that your definition of love also applies to the quantum fluctuation, and that therefore your definition is flawed.

I do not think the quantum fluctuation is capable of love and deontic moral principles.

I do think the quantum fluctuation is capable of love and deontic moral principles under the contrived and nonsensical definitions are are putting forward.

Is it possible that purpose and non-purpose could result in the same outcomes? If you have a purpose that's frustrated and never expressed, does that mean that your purpose never existed?

There was nothing about purpose in your definition of love, so this is irrelevant. At least until you give a clear definition.

Wrong. See the first quote above.
Aside from that quote, I've written a number of times that love is God's over-arching meta-principle. What do you think I would mean by that? What meaning of the word "principle" do you think I'm referring to here, given this discussion? Do you think it might be a moral principle? Having a moral principle means that this is one's purpose, one's intention, one's motivation, what one recognizes that one ought to do, none of which a QF is remotely capable. Apparently I have to spell everything out in a completely literalistic way as if I'm talking to a computer.

If love is the reason for non-intervention, then non-intervention should be a logical consequence of your definition of love, and it clearly is not; it is entirely neutral to your definition.

How do you figure? Given my original argument, non-intervention does follow as a logical consequence. Causing suffering is sometimes a logical consequence of trying to help someone but suffering can have other causes as well. A consequence can follow logically and still be morally neutral.