Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

Here I will be giving my version of the Problem of Evil. To pre-empt inevitable responses of the form "define what you mean by 'evil,'" I usually present this in the form of a problem of suffering, because we all know what suffering is.

This is an argument that relies on a few definitional premises: thus we can also pre-empt a few other responses by noting that if the premises don't apply, then neither does this argument; e.g., if you believe in a God that doesn't meet the definition provided in the argument of omnipotence, or omnibenevolence, or whatever, then the argument does not apply, so there's no need to point that out.

What sort of God is this argument aimed at?
This argument is aimed at any God that's claimed to be:

Omnipotent: For the purposes of this argument, omnipotence is the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. This avoids silly paradoxes like "making a rock so large He can't lift it," or any other irresistible force meets immovable object type paradox (these are not logically possible, so we don't have to worry about them).

Omniscient: For the purposes of this argument, it's sufficient for an omniscient being to know every possible truth and avoid believing every possible falsity. We do not have to worry about deeper nuances such as "can God predict an exact free will choice," that will be irrelevant here.

Omnibenevolent: This is probably the trickiest one to nail down. For the purposes of this argument, a being is omnibenevolent if it doesn't desire to cause suffering and purposefully takes every measure logically possible to prevent its instantiation. This definition leaves open the door for certain theodicies which will be addressed piecemeal.

The argument proceeds like a traditional PoE: the existence of physical suffering is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator. What is meant by physical suffering? I mean just that: any form of suffering ultimately caused by the physical universe, such as stubbed toes, disease, aging, animal suffering, etc. This does not include non-physical forms of suffering, such as suffering from unrequited love, or a lost friendship after treating a person like a jerk.

Why do I make this distinction? Because one of our premises, as requested by so many theists, is that free will is a highly desirable attribute of the universe such that God wants to make beings that have free will (or the illusion thereof, but we are not entering that debate here). Since God is in charge of the physics of the universe, God is culpable for physical suffering, but not culpable for suffering caused by two friends splitting apart as that comes ostensibly from the friends' own free will.

"But Cat," you might ask, "what about physical suffering people inflict on each other, like a stabbing?" Ostensibly God could stop this sort of suffering without removing free will: people physically incapable of stabbing each other are still relevantly free because they can still wake up and choose what they're wearing today, where they're going, who they're hanging out with, what they're going to do when they get there, etc.

"But Cat, someone that can't stab someone else is less free than someone who can." Technically true, but we have to ask if that's a good sort of freedom to have for the sake of it? We already have multiple actions we aren't free to do, yet still consider ourselves free: I can't teleport to Mars or walk unaided on my ceiling. Am I not free because of these few actions I'm physically prohibited from performing? I don't think that would be a reasonable take to have. Additionally, if we really did want to make the argument that "more freedoms, no matter what kind, are better," then we must reach the absurd conclusion that a universe where we're free to enact Hellish tortures with telekinesis or pyrokinesis or whatever on other people only seen in horror movies in our universe is somehow "more free" and therefore "better." I don't think that's a good line of argument, and I hope you agree. So, let us agree that God can cease physical suffering without removing our status as free beings with agency, and that objections this is "less" free are ill-founded.

So, with all of that background established, is it possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being to create a universe with free agents that doesn't contain physical suffering?

Yes. I think it was Swinburne that first called one of these concepts a Toy World, so I will use the terminology here. Can God make a Toy World? How would we know if that's possible?

The argument is simple: if something can be simulated, then an omnipotent, omniscient being can actualize it; because if something can be simulated, that means that it's logically possible.

It's easy to conceive of a universe in which physical suffering is physically impossible. Most gamers have done this in the 90's when they first typed in "iddqd" while playing Doom. Nearly any video gamer that's used an invincibility cheat can probably easily imagine a world in which actors in that world don't suffer physically because the physics of the world simply don't allow it. We can imagine that God could easily do this with something like conditional physics (e.g., for a knife blade, if the knife blade meets tomato flesh, then cut. If the knife blade meets human flesh, remove all inertia).

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then God should have created a world minimizing the amount of suffering to the extent possible to keep free agency according to the premises. Such a world would be a Toy World, one in which physical suffering is impossible, yet in which free agents can still make choices (and so, they can still suffer if they bring it upon themselves entirely without physics, such as by breaking a friendship or unrequited love: not even an omnimax being could prevent that if free agency is a goal, so God is not culpable).

Yet the world we observe has plentiful sources of physical suffering. This is incongruent with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God existing: due to God's omnipotence, He could have made the Toy World, due to His omniscience he knew how to make the Toy World, and due to his omnibenevolence he ought to have created the Toy World, but He ostensibly chose not to, and created a world with copious amounts of physical suffering instead. This incongruence is a good reason to doubt the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God exists.

Now, I mentioned that the definition of omnibenevolence (since it is rather inexhaustive) allows for some theodicies: we can still get our typical theodicies such as the good-making theodicy (maybe physical suffering is a necessary means to a good end, e.g. firefighters are heroes, heroes are good, and firefighters/heroes can't exist unless the bad things they fight exist). My response to this sort of theodicy is that it's kind of like arguing it's "worth it" to invent smallpox because it would be "good" to cure smallpox. It's hard to articulate why this is absurd, but there it is, I hope you agree that this is absurd.

We might also encounter the theodicy by which the theist says, "God actualized physical suffering for a mysterious reason that only God knows, but we can be sure that it's a good reason." This is special pleading, and I always like to illustrate how this sort of thinking is a trap that can never be escaped from. Let me tell you a quick story and I think you'll agree that once this special pleading is adopted, nothing can ever shake the theist out of it, and I think we should agree that these kinds of traps are fallacious for a reason and should be avoided:
The Special Pleading Problem in Story Form (adapted form a story by Mark Vuletic) wrote: Suppose that P dies and goes to Heaven, and he's thrilled to enter a room with God sitting on a throne. God gets up, cackles wickedly, and mercilessly hits P in the stomach with a flanged mace.

P is hurt, but he thinks to himself, "I know that God is good, and since I am a finite creature, I can't always imagine the reasons God has for doing some of the things that God does. Therefore I can conclude that God had a good reason for doing that, and isn't malevolent."

God strikes P with the mace again. Then again. Then again. Over, and over, and over. P still thinks, "Surely God has some good, yet unknowable reason for doing this to me."

A year goes by. A decade. A century. P still thinks God has a good reason. A millennia. An eon. And so on.

At what point can P ever give up and just admit that God might be malevolent? His thinking -- assuming that his finite epistemology and God's presumed goodness -- is completely unassailable. So on he goes being mercilessly beaten by a malevolent God, forever believing God is benevolent for reasons mysterious to him.
For obvious reasons, I think we can see why this kind of special pleading is fallacious and should be warned against.

I'll conclude the post at this point. There are a multitude of other theodicies and defense, but I can respond to those as they come out. Thanks!
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Aside: does any religion, other than some Christian denominations, venerate an omni-everything God? Do Moslems consider Allah in that way? I don't know. The Jews? Not sure about them either. And what about all the non-Abrahamic faiths? Does anyone know more than I do about this?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Astro Cat wrote: June 20th, 2022, 10:45 pm So, with all of that background established, is it possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being to create a universe with free agents that doesn't contain physical suffering?
I would generalise your question just a little farther: is a universe without suffering even possible?

[In this question, I intend "suffering" to apply to any and all living things, not just humans.]

Can we usefully and meaningfully conceive of a universe without suffering? How would it work? Would living things still eat other living things for sustenance? What about accidental injuries that would result in suffering? Is a universe without suffering logically possible?

I think it might be handy to answer such questions as these 👆 before we start trying to determine if God is responsible for suffering. Fair enough?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Angelo Cannata »

God doesn't need to obey to logic. He is the creator of logic, he establishes if and how logic works, he is the master of everything. If he is God, he can make a world without suffering, no matter if it is logical or not.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Atla »

We would need something as dumb as solipsism + chosen one syndrome to get around the problem. :)

Joe is a solipsist and also has chosen one syndrome. Joe knows that the world isn't actually real, it's just a pretty convincing simulation, created by God solely for Joe. There is no suffering, all those simulated humans and other lifeforms can't actually suffer.

It's all just a training simulation, Joe is training to become an Angel, he was chosen by God for this task. As an Angel, Joe will do only good. But for that, Joe has to understand first, what suffering and bad are like, hence the simulation.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 21st, 2022, 12:56 pm God doesn't need to obey to logic. He is the creator of logic, he establishes if and how logic works, he is the master of everything. If he is God, he can make a world without suffering, no matter if it is logical or not.
I refuted this line of reasoning in this original post here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18048

God does have to obey logic, and cannot be the creator of logic. See the link for more.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

Atla wrote: June 21st, 2022, 1:30 pm We would need something as dumb as solipsism + chosen one syndrome to get around the problem. :)

Joe is a solipsist and also has chosen one syndrome. Joe knows that the world isn't actually real, it's just a pretty convincing simulation, created by God solely for Joe. There is no suffering, all those simulated humans and other lifeforms can't actually suffer.

It's all just a training simulation, Joe is training to become an Angel, he was chosen by God for this task. As an Angel, Joe will do only good. But for that, Joe has to understand first, what suffering and bad are like, hence the simulation.
Heh that's an interesting proposal. I guess we could tack on another premise to the OP that God also desires for there to be multiple, interacting free agents to stave off the solipsism response.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Angelo Cannata »

Astro Cat wrote: June 21st, 2022, 6:08 pm
I refuted this line of reasoning in this original post here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18048

God does have to obey logic, and cannot be the creator of logic. See the link for more.
I cannot see how you refuted it there.
Anyway, I think that, by saying that God has to obey logic, you are confusing God with your idea of God. Your idea of God might need logic, depending on your mentality, but God doesn't. I would say that even the ides of God doesn't need logic: as I ssid, it depends on your mentality.
Logic is an extremely limited and contradictory instrument, so, it is really difficult to me to understand why God should obey to such a ridiculous thing that logic is.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 21st, 2022, 8:31 pm I cannot see how you refuted it there.
Anyway, I think that, by saying that God has to obey logic, you are confusing God with your idea of God. Your idea of God might need logic, depending on your mentality, but God doesn't. I would say that even the ides of God doesn't need logic: as I ssid, it depends on your mentality.
Logic is an extremely limited and contradictory instrument, so, it is really difficult to me to understand why God should obey to such a ridiculous thing that logic is.
When you say God, what are you referring to?

If you're referring to something specific, and not, say, a basketball or a cat, then that means the thing you're referring to is logical. It means it obeys limitation: it's limited to being what it is, and limited from being what it's not. If God is not a basketball, then God is logical and obeys logic.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Angelo Cannata »

How do you know that there aren't errors in your reasoning?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 22nd, 2022, 12:43 am How do you know that there aren't errors in your reasoning?
Did you disagree with what I wrote? You answered a question with a question. Which reasoning do you suspect has an error?
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Angelo Cannata »

We don't need to find errors. The possibility of errors is enough and it is implied by logic itself. Using logic makes us realize that the last checker of its errors is always human. We cannot check if logic contains errors without involving ourselves in the action of checking. This is logical. Human involvement means impossibility to guarantee from errors. So, the impossibility of guaranteeing logic from errors is a constitutive element of logic: it comes directly from logic itself. If logic is logic, then it cannot guarantee itself from errors, otherwise it is not logic.
You think that God should undergo such a ridiculous human instrument that has as its own rules that it has to be not able to guarantee from errors?
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

Angelo Cannata wrote: June 22nd, 2022, 3:15 am We don't need to find errors. The possibility of errors is enough and it is implied by logic itself. Using logic makes us realize that the last checker of its errors is always human. We cannot check if logic contains errors without involving ourselves in the action of checking. This is logical. Human involvement means impossibility to guarantee from errors. So, the impossibility of guaranteeing logic from errors is a constitutive element of logic: it comes directly from logic itself. If logic is logic, then it cannot guarantee itself from errors, otherwise it is not logic.
You think that God should undergo such a ridiculous human instrument that has as its own rules that it has to be not able to guarantee from errors?
I think you are confusing logic for reason.

Reason is the process that humans do when they're thinking through things, making deductions and inductions, forming and evaluating arguments, things of that nature.

Logic is what we use for the reasoning.

For instance, that A = A is strictly logic: something is itself, we call this identity.

Reasoning would be something like "If Sara is shorter than Tom, and Tom is shorter than Bill, then Sara is shorter than Bill."

If God exists, and God is God (and not a basketball or a horse or a dandelion), then the fact that God is God and not something else is a logical fact: that's logic, to have identity. To have limitation. To not be a contradiction.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 451
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Astro Cat »

It should be noted for Star Trek fans that nearly 100% of the time that Spock says something like "that would not be logical" or "that would be the logical course of action," he's actually saying it wrong. What he means is "that would not be reasonable" or "that would be the reasonable course of action."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Angelo Cannata
Posts: 182
Joined: April 17th, 2021, 10:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: Heidegger
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: Toy Worlds and the Problem of Suffering

Post by Angelo Cannata »

You need to use your brain in order to determine what logic is. Something that nobody has identified as logic cannot be considered logic. So, logic is what humans decide that logic is. How can we trust logic, since all its characteristics, including what it is, if it exists or not, are all dependent on humans? You said that A = A is logic. I assume that you used your brain to say this and I needed to use main to understand. How can we trust logic, considering that it is so much dependent on human judgement?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021