Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 5:31:42 GMT
Chapter 34 - Existence is evidence of God's goodness
The young man claims Job is wrong in saying God has deprived him of justice. He claims that it is unthinkable that God would commit an evil act. His evidence for this claim is the fact that if God wanted to do evil, everything would already be destroyed by his power. He claims Job needs to take a repentant heart to God to humble himself and learn where he needs to improve. Why should God heal Job if he refuses to repent? He thinks Job deserves the utmost trial for daring to speak ill of God - a sin of rebellion.
*Thought Experiments*
Job's friend begins an interesting argument from the perspective of a thought experiment. Assuming a universe governed by an evil God, he concludes that an evil God would destroy everything. When he looks at reality, he finds that creation is not completely destroyed, and therefore concludes that God cannot be evil.
*Evil God Thought Experiment*
If I were to run the same thought experiment, I would first want to begin by defining evil. If we run with the assumption that evil means the desire for destruction, then Job's analysis of an evil God might be correct. But if we interpret evil as the desire for maximal suffering, then we might produce a different type of universe. When I try to imagine a universe with the maximum amount of suffering, it ends up looking something like the Christian idea of hell - a place with an infinite number of conscious beings all experiencing an infinite amount of pain and suffering.
*Good God Thought Experiment*
If I were to run the good God thought experiment, I would define goodness as the maximization of the wellbeing of conscious entities. This would produce a universe similar to heaven - an infinite number of conscious beings experiencing infinite joy.
*God and Devil Equal in Power Thought Experiment*
If I were to imagine a good God who was omnipotent, but in contrast, an omnipotent evil also existed, then the forces of evil might be able to challenge God's ability to create a good universe. In the Animorphs book series, K.A. Applegate reifies this thought experiment in her creation of god-level characters, namely the Ellimist and the Crayak. The Ellimist is the last remnant of an alien race that evolved so much that they evolved into the godly status of omnipotence. The Crayak, conversely, was the last remnant of an opposing alien species that also evolved into omnipotence. The Ellimist travelled the universe in the hopes of sparking life and goodness throughout the cosmos. The Crayak travelled throughout the universe and left a wake of war and destruction as he enjoyed watching things burn. The two Gods were constantly fighting over the implementation of their ideals on the universe. For every planet that the Ellimist would create, the Crayak would destroy a planet. It became such a fierce battle that for each action the other would take, the opponent would reverse time to undo their progress. The Ellimist and the Crayak soon realized that their powers had the ability to undo each other and were faced with a stalemate. Since neither of their ideals could be accomplished under a stalemate, this result was not satisfying to either of them. They eventually decided to mutually consent to playing a competitive game of wits, with the rules being that the winner takes all. Whoever wins the game gets to determine the fate of the universe without interference by the other. Under the framework of the game, each god was able to select different planets as their chess pieces. They were allowed to use their power in minimalistic ways to inspire the citizens of their planets to evolve, progress, and eventually defeat the other chess-piece planets. For each unit of power the Ellimist used to help inspire his aliens, the Crayak was able to use an equivalent amount of power to inspire his. The question then was, who's aliens would be more successful, with the minimal amount of help from above. This type of cosmic game explains how we can suffer the effects of evil, but still have hope in a good future. It makes the concept of evil more acceptable, because the existence of evil is not something God wants - it is something God is currently powerless to avoid. It makes it easier to trust God and want to fight on God's behalf, because the goodness of God is easier to believe now that evil can be explained by the existence of a supreme evil power. With the power of evil magnified, and the stakes are higher, and one might have greater motivation to fight for principles of goodness. This conception makes a nuanced universe of good and bad a viable reality. Under this thought experiment, it would make sense if there was a good and an evil impulse within every creature, as the dual gods might simultaneously inspire creatures from two directions. Yet, under this thought experiment, there seems to be no self-evident reason why the universe would be constructed of energy particles that go through phases of evolution, unless the energy particles were axiomatic to existence and become tools of the gods. It would seem perfectly logical for this dualistic universe to be created in a more videogame-like fashion, where objects can be summoned or removed from existence with ease, without violating the laws of physics that require conservation of energy. Entropy doesn't seem like an essential law of physics for this tournament universe - no video game incorporates entropy, yet they all serve their competitive purposes just fine. If the twin gods created the universe, I would imagine that they would create it for the purpose of optimizing the nature of their game. So, for example, a chess board is optimized with a certain chess piece to space ratio - 32 / 64 or 50%. So, we might infer that a large number of planets should have life if they were to act as chess pieces for the gods. Yet, fermi's paradox leads us to the opposite conclusion - we have found no traces of intelligent life elsewhere.
*Good God Follows Rules Thought Experiment*
Based on my experience, most western theists assume this type of a God. They assume an all powerful God that will ultimately defeat a weaker evil, and the thing that stops God from preventing evil are divine laws. This God is almost omnipotent, but he is not powerful enough to override divine law. Certain laws must be followed like - free will, a path for spiritual progress, justice, and obedience. Under this paradigm, evil doesn't exist because the devil is too powerful, but rather evil exists because it is a byproduct of divine laws. For example, God is obligated to bestow freedom to conscious beings, therefore they might commit evil acts. God is obligated to provide a path to spiritual progress, and he cannot violate divine law by granting spiritual progress with the snap of his fingers. He must provide a path for spirits to earn their progress outside of divine magic. This spiritual progress might entail a journey through a fallen world of suffering and labor. When I imagine this type of a universe, I imagine a world where trials are cookie-cutter designed for spiritual progress. I do not imagine this world to be a world of random suffering, but rather intelligently planned suffering. I do not imagine a world where some spirits need to only experience disability and some spirits need to only experience luxury and wealth. I imagine this world more like a video game universe where every character goes through the same steps of progression. Each character has the same set of trials at different times as they progress. Each type of suffering experienced has a specific intelligible lesson attached to it, and the mastery of the lesson immediately levels you up so that you don't need to continue suffering. I don't imagine pointless types of suffering - like hunger, thirst, irritable bowel syndrome, headaches, etc. I imagine starting out, learning the lesson of fairness as a child. You learn how to share toys and play fairly. You learn reciprocity. You suffer when things aren't fair, and you have joy when things are fair. You level up when you master the lesson of treating others fairly. Then perhaps you are faced with the test of sacrificing to help others. You have the option to have fun exploring a world that for the most part is safe (wont kill you), or help someone in need (someone stuck in a trap within the world). If you ignore the person who is trapped, eventually you will also fall into a trap and learn the importance of sacrificing your own pleasure to help others. These traps don't need to torture you with insidious pain, suffering, and death, but merely cause you to suffer the boredom of the opportunity cost. You can still learn moral lessons without the abundance of invidious suffering in the world. Perhaps the next level of the videogame will teach the lesson of moral courage. Expanding upon the prior lessons, you are now faced with a simulation of all of your peers at school. Your peers try to pressure you into treating a classmate unfairly. Everyone wants to grab an innocent yet unpopular classmate and forcibly push them into one of the traps, merely to bully them. You enjoyed a time of popularity, and now you are forced to make the ethical decision on whether or not to violate a classmates rights based on peer pressure. If you fail this test, then eventually the classmates will turn on you and place you into one of the traps. Finally learning to stand up for your moral principles at the sacrifice of the adoration of your peers, you will graduate from this level, and all of the simulated classmates will disappear since they were never real to begin with. The nature of this universe is purely educational. None of it needs to be real. None of it should be unstructured random chaos, but rather every inch should be designed to support specific lessons. Gratuitous suffering is not necessary.
*No God Thought Experiment*
When I imagine a universe with no God, I imagine that there is a type of natural force that generates a creation out of the production of opposite pairs. Perhaps existence started from a state of zero. But then zero evolved into a pair of opposites - a negative one and a positive one. This cycle of natural creation phenomena gets repeated until it scales up the creation of a universe - produced out of nothing logically. I imagine that in this universe, things happen naturally according to the structure of the elements created therein. The materials follow predictable patterns able to be discovered by science. There would be a high element of randomness to this universe, but it might be possible for systems of increasing order to naturally be produced if there is enough complexity built into the fabric of the materials generated by the universe. Only systems that can maintain themselves would exist within this naturalistic universe - hence patterns of evolution might emerge.
*Conclusion*
In comparing which thought experiment most closely matches our reality, I find that the possibility of no God seems most logical in the face of the reality in front of us.
NEXT: Chapter 35 - Insulting to God
The young man claims Job is wrong in saying God has deprived him of justice. He claims that it is unthinkable that God would commit an evil act. His evidence for this claim is the fact that if God wanted to do evil, everything would already be destroyed by his power. He claims Job needs to take a repentant heart to God to humble himself and learn where he needs to improve. Why should God heal Job if he refuses to repent? He thinks Job deserves the utmost trial for daring to speak ill of God - a sin of rebellion.
*Thought Experiments*
Job's friend begins an interesting argument from the perspective of a thought experiment. Assuming a universe governed by an evil God, he concludes that an evil God would destroy everything. When he looks at reality, he finds that creation is not completely destroyed, and therefore concludes that God cannot be evil.
*Evil God Thought Experiment*
If I were to run the same thought experiment, I would first want to begin by defining evil. If we run with the assumption that evil means the desire for destruction, then Job's analysis of an evil God might be correct. But if we interpret evil as the desire for maximal suffering, then we might produce a different type of universe. When I try to imagine a universe with the maximum amount of suffering, it ends up looking something like the Christian idea of hell - a place with an infinite number of conscious beings all experiencing an infinite amount of pain and suffering.
*Good God Thought Experiment*
If I were to run the good God thought experiment, I would define goodness as the maximization of the wellbeing of conscious entities. This would produce a universe similar to heaven - an infinite number of conscious beings experiencing infinite joy.
*God and Devil Equal in Power Thought Experiment*
If I were to imagine a good God who was omnipotent, but in contrast, an omnipotent evil also existed, then the forces of evil might be able to challenge God's ability to create a good universe. In the Animorphs book series, K.A. Applegate reifies this thought experiment in her creation of god-level characters, namely the Ellimist and the Crayak. The Ellimist is the last remnant of an alien race that evolved so much that they evolved into the godly status of omnipotence. The Crayak, conversely, was the last remnant of an opposing alien species that also evolved into omnipotence. The Ellimist travelled the universe in the hopes of sparking life and goodness throughout the cosmos. The Crayak travelled throughout the universe and left a wake of war and destruction as he enjoyed watching things burn. The two Gods were constantly fighting over the implementation of their ideals on the universe. For every planet that the Ellimist would create, the Crayak would destroy a planet. It became such a fierce battle that for each action the other would take, the opponent would reverse time to undo their progress. The Ellimist and the Crayak soon realized that their powers had the ability to undo each other and were faced with a stalemate. Since neither of their ideals could be accomplished under a stalemate, this result was not satisfying to either of them. They eventually decided to mutually consent to playing a competitive game of wits, with the rules being that the winner takes all. Whoever wins the game gets to determine the fate of the universe without interference by the other. Under the framework of the game, each god was able to select different planets as their chess pieces. They were allowed to use their power in minimalistic ways to inspire the citizens of their planets to evolve, progress, and eventually defeat the other chess-piece planets. For each unit of power the Ellimist used to help inspire his aliens, the Crayak was able to use an equivalent amount of power to inspire his. The question then was, who's aliens would be more successful, with the minimal amount of help from above. This type of cosmic game explains how we can suffer the effects of evil, but still have hope in a good future. It makes the concept of evil more acceptable, because the existence of evil is not something God wants - it is something God is currently powerless to avoid. It makes it easier to trust God and want to fight on God's behalf, because the goodness of God is easier to believe now that evil can be explained by the existence of a supreme evil power. With the power of evil magnified, and the stakes are higher, and one might have greater motivation to fight for principles of goodness. This conception makes a nuanced universe of good and bad a viable reality. Under this thought experiment, it would make sense if there was a good and an evil impulse within every creature, as the dual gods might simultaneously inspire creatures from two directions. Yet, under this thought experiment, there seems to be no self-evident reason why the universe would be constructed of energy particles that go through phases of evolution, unless the energy particles were axiomatic to existence and become tools of the gods. It would seem perfectly logical for this dualistic universe to be created in a more videogame-like fashion, where objects can be summoned or removed from existence with ease, without violating the laws of physics that require conservation of energy. Entropy doesn't seem like an essential law of physics for this tournament universe - no video game incorporates entropy, yet they all serve their competitive purposes just fine. If the twin gods created the universe, I would imagine that they would create it for the purpose of optimizing the nature of their game. So, for example, a chess board is optimized with a certain chess piece to space ratio - 32 / 64 or 50%. So, we might infer that a large number of planets should have life if they were to act as chess pieces for the gods. Yet, fermi's paradox leads us to the opposite conclusion - we have found no traces of intelligent life elsewhere.
*Good God Follows Rules Thought Experiment*
Based on my experience, most western theists assume this type of a God. They assume an all powerful God that will ultimately defeat a weaker evil, and the thing that stops God from preventing evil are divine laws. This God is almost omnipotent, but he is not powerful enough to override divine law. Certain laws must be followed like - free will, a path for spiritual progress, justice, and obedience. Under this paradigm, evil doesn't exist because the devil is too powerful, but rather evil exists because it is a byproduct of divine laws. For example, God is obligated to bestow freedom to conscious beings, therefore they might commit evil acts. God is obligated to provide a path to spiritual progress, and he cannot violate divine law by granting spiritual progress with the snap of his fingers. He must provide a path for spirits to earn their progress outside of divine magic. This spiritual progress might entail a journey through a fallen world of suffering and labor. When I imagine this type of a universe, I imagine a world where trials are cookie-cutter designed for spiritual progress. I do not imagine this world to be a world of random suffering, but rather intelligently planned suffering. I do not imagine a world where some spirits need to only experience disability and some spirits need to only experience luxury and wealth. I imagine this world more like a video game universe where every character goes through the same steps of progression. Each character has the same set of trials at different times as they progress. Each type of suffering experienced has a specific intelligible lesson attached to it, and the mastery of the lesson immediately levels you up so that you don't need to continue suffering. I don't imagine pointless types of suffering - like hunger, thirst, irritable bowel syndrome, headaches, etc. I imagine starting out, learning the lesson of fairness as a child. You learn how to share toys and play fairly. You learn reciprocity. You suffer when things aren't fair, and you have joy when things are fair. You level up when you master the lesson of treating others fairly. Then perhaps you are faced with the test of sacrificing to help others. You have the option to have fun exploring a world that for the most part is safe (wont kill you), or help someone in need (someone stuck in a trap within the world). If you ignore the person who is trapped, eventually you will also fall into a trap and learn the importance of sacrificing your own pleasure to help others. These traps don't need to torture you with insidious pain, suffering, and death, but merely cause you to suffer the boredom of the opportunity cost. You can still learn moral lessons without the abundance of invidious suffering in the world. Perhaps the next level of the videogame will teach the lesson of moral courage. Expanding upon the prior lessons, you are now faced with a simulation of all of your peers at school. Your peers try to pressure you into treating a classmate unfairly. Everyone wants to grab an innocent yet unpopular classmate and forcibly push them into one of the traps, merely to bully them. You enjoyed a time of popularity, and now you are forced to make the ethical decision on whether or not to violate a classmates rights based on peer pressure. If you fail this test, then eventually the classmates will turn on you and place you into one of the traps. Finally learning to stand up for your moral principles at the sacrifice of the adoration of your peers, you will graduate from this level, and all of the simulated classmates will disappear since they were never real to begin with. The nature of this universe is purely educational. None of it needs to be real. None of it should be unstructured random chaos, but rather every inch should be designed to support specific lessons. Gratuitous suffering is not necessary.
*No God Thought Experiment*
When I imagine a universe with no God, I imagine that there is a type of natural force that generates a creation out of the production of opposite pairs. Perhaps existence started from a state of zero. But then zero evolved into a pair of opposites - a negative one and a positive one. This cycle of natural creation phenomena gets repeated until it scales up the creation of a universe - produced out of nothing logically. I imagine that in this universe, things happen naturally according to the structure of the elements created therein. The materials follow predictable patterns able to be discovered by science. There would be a high element of randomness to this universe, but it might be possible for systems of increasing order to naturally be produced if there is enough complexity built into the fabric of the materials generated by the universe. Only systems that can maintain themselves would exist within this naturalistic universe - hence patterns of evolution might emerge.
*Conclusion*
In comparing which thought experiment most closely matches our reality, I find that the possibility of no God seems most logical in the face of the reality in front of us.
NEXT: Chapter 35 - Insulting to God
