Xeno & Wiploc on the Problem of Evil

[wiploc]

Originally Posted by wiploc
I yearn for the order and simplicity of a thread with only two participants. What say you and I do a formal debate on the LPOE?

crc


Sure, I'd love to. But it sounds like you have a problem with my definitions. Would it be a debate on my use of words, or whether the argument successfully defeats the LPOE?

I think the PoE (Problem of Evil (what you call the LPOE (logical problem of evil) to distinguish it from the EPOE (evidential problem of evil)) proves that a "perfect" (omnimax; tri-omni; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) god does not exist; you think I'm wrong; so that seems the obvious thing to debate. If such a god could possibly exist, I'd like to know about it.

However, you also claim that there are more than five possible responses to the PoE. My five:

1. Grant that god isn't really omnipotent.
2. Grant that god isn't really omniscient.
3. Grant that god isn't really omnibenevolent.
4. Claim we don't really suffer.
5. Abandon logic.

And I'm happy to talk about that too.

Then there's also your FWD (free will defense). You think it works, and I think it doesn't. We could debate this, which is pretty central to our discussion so far.

Normally, I'm a negative kinda guy (I let other people take the affirmative), but with the PoE I normally take the affirmative. On the other hand, your FWD is an affirmative position too. And I've never done one of those debates where both sides post simultaneously, so I'm going to suggest that. We've each seen the other's case, so our opening posts can be both making our own cases and responding to what we think the other guy will say.

"Use of words" shouldn't be the core of the debate, but it will necessarily come up. For instance, I'm still troubled by your conflation of frustration (of purpose) and suffering. I've yet to learn whether you think they are the same or are just defining them as the same. Since I think they are different, I don't know which value to plug into your argument in order to read your argument with the same meaning that you had when you wrote it. Any help with this would be appreciated. Any words we get clear on here won't have to be struggled with during the debate.

Maybe 2000 word posts, one week limits, six rounds? I'm entirely flexible.

Point of etiquette: If you suspect you aren't going to make a posting deadline, you could warn me by PM. This won't keep my desire from being frustrated, but it will reduce the associated suffering. :)

We need a topic or title.

Problem of Evil: Does the PoE Prove That a Perfect God Does Not Exist.

Free Will Defense: Does the FWD defeat the Problem Of Evil?

Either of those would work for me.

[Xeno]

"Use of words" shouldn't be the core of the debate, but it will necessarily come up. For instance, I'm still troubled by your conflation of frustration (of purpose) and suffering. I've yet to learn whether you think they are the same or are just defining them as the same. Since I think they are different, I don't know which value to plug into your argument in order to read your argument with the same meaning that you had when you wrote it. Any help with this would be appreciated. Any words we get clear on here won't have to be struggled with during the debate.

I'd prefer to have use of words cleared up before the debate, because to me these are minor issues.

I do think suffering is exactly equivilent to desire frustration. That is, every case of suffering can be reduced to a frustrated desire.

Maybe 2000 word posts, one week limits, six rounds? I'm entirely flexible.

Sounds good.

Problem of Evil: Does the PoE Prove That a Perfect God Does Not Exist.

Free Will Defense: Does the FWD defeat the Problem Of Evil?

I'd prefer the Free Will Defense title, as I suspect I'll primary be defending why the FWD defeats the problem of evil.

[wiploc]

I'd prefer to have use of words cleared up before the debate, because to me these are minor issues.

I agree that we'll do well to clear up anything we can ahead of time.




I do think suffering is exactly equivilent to desire frustration. That is, every case of suffering can be reduced to a frustrated desire.

And every frustrated desire causes suffering?

And suffering is the same thing as unhappiness?



I'd prefer the Free Will Defense title, as I suspect I'll primary be defending why the FWD defeats the problem of evil.


I'm happy with the free will defense title. But, and I want to be clear on this, you see your free will defense as a refutation of my PoE, right?

[Xeno]

And every frustrated desire causes suffering?

And suffering is the same thing as unhappiness?

Sounds good.

I'm happy with the free will defense title. But, and I want to be clear on this, you see your free will defense as a refutation of my PoE, right?

Well then maybe we should change it to the "Problem of Evil: Does the PoE Prove That a Perfect God Does Not Exist. "

I'm pretty sure I can tweak my argument to defeat any PoE, as long as "evil" is defined as something general such as "unhappiness", we incorperate desire into the meaning of "unhappiness" and "happiness", and absolutely no evidential arguments are presented, ie. the existence of something beyond unhappiness.

[wiploc]

And suffering is the same thing as unhappiness?


Sounds good.

Okay, I was just making sure we were on the same page.



And every frustrated desire causes suffering?

Sounds good.

Here we just aren't on the same page. I'm guessing that you aren't trying to define frustration as equal to suffering, but rather you think there is a one to one correlation in real life. Is that right?

I think we sometimes suffer without being frustrated, and sometimes are frustrated without suffering.

I recall sitting on a tack in high school. It hurt. I was unhappy because of the pain. I had not formed the desire not to be sitting on a tack. Frustration didn't come into it.

Another example: Back in my twenties, I sometimes had very strong reactions to cigarette smoke. I would be minding my own business, and then abrubtly be in a rage, consumed with anger, but with no object of my anger. I would turn around in alarm, trying to figure out what was wrong, if there was somebody I should be hitting or what, and I would see someone smoking upwind of me. I would realize that I was having a medical reaction to the smoke, and I would control my anger. From that point, from when I figured out what was wrong, I suppose you could say that I formed a desire not to be breathing the smoke. But I don't see how you can backdate that desire to when the distress occured.

And if you try it, if you try to formulate a desire not to have an shooting pain or not to have abrupt inexplicable rage, I think you will have to generalize it so that eventually it turns out that you are defining "suffering" as, "a frustrated desire not to be suffering." Because you can't say I had a desire to be out of the cigarette smoke before I knew I was in cigarette smoke. You can't say I had a desire not to be sitting on a tack before I knew I was sitting on a tack.

Ever had an anxiety attack? No object of desire is associated with those. Suppose a doctor thought he could self-induce an anxiety attack in order to confirm his idea of what causes them. He does so; and he gets unhappy because of the fulfillment of his desire, not because of its frustratation.

Okay, I've been talking about unhappiness that is not the frustration of desire, and is not caused by the frustration of desire. Now I'm going to talk about frustration of desire that is not unhappiness and does not cause unhappiness:

Imagine a sports team having a winning season: They want to win the pennant, but they haven't yet. They are ecstatic because they want to win the pennant and they may get to. You seem to define their ecstacy as suffering. A desire not-yet-fulfilled is equal to suffering according to your system.

I don't know why you want to say such a thing. It appears on its face not to be true, and it would seem to require endless word-juggling to defend. For instance, in the case of the sports team, you could say, "I don't care what they think they desire (to win the pennant), what they actually desire is to think that they may win the pennant." But then you wind up having to say that people aren't conscious of their own desires---in which case, how is this supposed to be a free will defense?

It seems to me that, in real life, frustration and unhappiness are two different things. We like our children to be resillient: we are proud of them when they don't let being frustrated make them unhappy.




Well then maybe we should change it to the "Problem of Evil: Does the PoE Prove That a Perfect God Does Not Exist. "

I'm pretty sure I can tweak my argument to defeat any PoE, as long as "evil" is defined as something general such as "unhappiness", we incorperate desire into the meaning of "unhappiness" and "happiness", and absolutely no evidential arguments are presented, ie. the existence of something beyond unhappiness.


"Evil" is "the causes of unhappiness." By extension, the word can be used to refer to the unhappiness itself. The frustration of desire is an evil when it causes unhappiness, and it is not evil when it doesn't.


How are we doing?

crc

[wiploc]

... and absolutely no evidential arguments are presented, ie. the existence of something beyond unhappiness.

I'm strictly an LPOE guy. I'm not that comfortable with the EPOE. If I make an IPOE move, it will be an accident, and you can call me on it.

crc

[Xeno]

I recall sitting on a tack in high school. It hurt. I was unhappy because of the pain. I had not formed the desire not to be sitting on a tack. Frustration didn't come into it.

Whether you were aware of your desire to not sit on a tack or not, you did have the desire for something sharp not to go into your bottom. I seperate the conscious affirmation of a desire with the claim that desires can be predicated on agents. In other words, I can predict your desires by your re/actions better then by what you say your desires actually are.

To illustrate the point, if you did have the desire to have something sharp go into your bottom, sitting on the tack would have made you happy.

Another example: Back in my twenties, I sometimes had very strong reactions to cigarette smoke. I would be minding my own business, and then abrubtly be in a rage, consumed with anger, but with no object of my anger. I would turn around in alarm, trying to figure out what was wrong, if there was somebody I should be hitting or what, and I would see someone smoking upwind of me. I would realize that I was having a medical reaction to the smoke, and I would control my anger. From that point, from when I figured out what was wrong, I suppose you could say that I formed a desire not to be breathing the smoke. But I don't see how you can backdate that desire to when the distress occured.

Again, the conscious awareness of a desire is not enough for a desire to exist in a person. For example, people don't admit to themselves that they like to see people fail, yet sometimes seeing people fail makes them happy. For the same reason, a different criteria for the existence of desire must be made to attribute a desire to people (see Dennett), and the best thing, failing a completely understanding of the brain, is to predict desires based on reactions. As you had a strong reaction to the smoke (you call it medical, to mean it was unconcious), you could be predictively attributed the desire not to be around smoke.

[quoet]And if you try it, if you try to formulate a desire not to have an shooting pain or not to have abrupt inexplicable rage, I think you will have to generalize it so that eventually it turns out that you are defining "suffering" as, "a frustrated desire not to be suffering." Because you can't say I had a desire to be out of the cigarette smoke before I knew I was in cigarette smoke. You can't say I had a desire not to be sitting on a tack before I knew I was sitting on a tack. [/quote]

I await your response to the above.

Ever had an anxiety attack? No object of desire is associated with those. Suppose a doctor thought he could self-induce an anxiety attack in order to confirm his idea of what causes them. He does so; and he gets unhappy because of the fulfillment of his desire, not because of its frustratation.

The reason people don't like anxiety attacks is because they have a desire to not feel as they feel when the anxiety attack happens. I would say your hypothetical doctor has two desires:

1. The desire to not feel like he is having an anxiety attack.
2. The desire to discover the cause of anxiety attacks by self-inducing one.

Whatever determines his relative happiness, he is suffering by 2 and happy by 1.

Imagine a sports team having a winning season: They want to win the pennant, but they haven't yet. They are ecstatic because they want to win the pennant and they may get to. You seem to define their ecstacy as suffering. A desire not-yet-fulfilled is equal to suffering according to your system.

No, I think again you are combining desires. The team has two desires:

1. To make it to the position where they are in contention for the pennant.
2. To actually win the pennant.

They are happy via the fulfillment of desire 1, and are probably slightly suffering by the frustration of desire 2.

I don't know why you want to say such a thing. It appears on its face not to be true, and it would seem to require endless word-juggling to defend. For instance, in the case of the sports team, you could say, "I don't care what they think they desire (to win the pennant), what they actually desire is to think that they may win the pennant." But then you wind up having to say that people aren't conscious of their own desires---in which case, how is this supposed to be a free will defense?

I think it's not so much word juggling as being very explicit about the conditions for happiness.

It seems to me that, in real life, frustration and unhappiness are two different things. We like our children to be resillient: we are proud of them when they don't let being frustrated make them unhappy.

OK, but the only cause for unhappiness is an unfulfilled desire, do you agree or disagree?

"Evil" is "the causes of unhappiness." By extension, the word can be used to refer to the unhappiness itself. The frustration of desire is an evil when it causes unhappiness, and it is not evil when it doesn't.

How are we doing?

crc

OK, but I'm curious on whether you would agree that "every instance of evil is attributable to an unfulfilled desire", because that would really be going to the hard of the matter.

[wiploc]

Whether you were aware of your desire to not sit on a tack or not, you did have the desire for something sharp not to go into your bottom.

Maybe you are thinking of preferences, as opposed to desires?




To illustrate the point, if you did have the desire to have something sharp go into your bottom, sitting on the tack would have made you happy.


That's not how it works when I give blood.



And if you try it, if you try to formulate a desire not to have an shooting pain or not to have abrupt inexplicable rage, I think you will have to generalize it so that eventually it turns out that you are defining "suffering" as, "a frustrated desire not to be suffering." Because you can't say I had a desire to be out of the cigarette smoke before I knew I was in cigarette smoke. You can't say I had a desire not to be sitting on a tack before I knew I was sitting on a tack.

I await your response to the above.

If a chemical imbalance or an electrical stimulation to the brain made someone happy, according to your theory, that someone must have wanted a chemical imbalance or a brain stimulation. She didn't have to consciously know she wanted it, but she had do have formed that desire, however secretly from herself.

Trying to recast all unhappinesses as thwarted desires seems to me like a lot of work for nothing. There's no payoff. It's like saying the sun is really going around the Earth, and than trying to imagine all the new laws of physics that it would take to explain that. There's no point in changing the language that way, and it's easier to talk the normal way.

In regular English, it just isn't true that thwarted desires and unhappinesses are perfectly correlated. Thwarted desires and unhappinesses are separate concepts, and thats why we have separate terms for them.



No, I think again you are combining desires. The team has two desires:

1. To make it to the position where they are in contention for the pennant.
2. To actually win the pennant.

They are happy via the fulfillment of desire 1, and are probably slightly suffering by the frustration of desire 2.

In real life, we observe that people are often happy while their desires are unfulfilled. In your system, we have to say that they say they are happy, and they think they are happy, and they act like they are happy, but actually happiness doesn't correlate with any of those things; no, actual happiness is some metaphysical entity that correlates only with the frustrated desires of people who may not even know what desires they have.

The PoE has nothing to do with this magical happiness. It has to do with regular happiness, the kind people have no trouble recognising or talking about.



OK, but the only cause for unhappiness is an unfulfilled desire, do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. You can try to make this case during the debate if you want to, but if you do, and if I decide it is relevant to the PoE, I'll argue against it.




OK, but I'm curious on whether you would agree that "every instance of evil is attributable to an unfulfilled desire", because that would really be going to the hard of the matter.


I think that this claim is obviously wrong.

crc

[Xeno]

Maybe you are thinking of preferences, as opposed to desires?

I don't see the big difference

That's not how it works when I give blood.

Again I think you are simultaniously combining desires. You have

1. The desire to give blood to help other people in need
2. The desire not for something painful to go into your arm and for a weak feeling to follow.

By giving blood, you are happy by desire 1, and suffering by desire 2

If a chemical imbalance or an electrical stimulation to the brain made someone happy, according to your theory, that someone must have wanted a chemical imbalance or a brain stimulation. She didn't have to consciously know she wanted it, but she had do have formed that desire, however secretly from herself.

At the time of the chemical imbalance, if the person is said to be "happy", then the person did desire the "chemical imbalance", if the person is not "happy" then they desired not to be affected by the chemical imbalance. Notice that when we go into this terriotory we have to make assumptions about what a person really thinks, ie. Is this person "really" happy or is this person "just" having a chemical reaction? Is happiness generally "just" a chemical reaction anyway?

Very many non-obvious questions arise along this sort of reasoning, and I doubt your definition resolves them. Case in point:

In real life, we observe that people are often happy while their desires are unfulfilled. In your system, we have to say that they say they are happy, and they think they are happy, and they act like they are happy, but actually happiness doesn't correlate with any of those things; no, actual happiness is some metaphysical entity that correlates only with the frustrated desires of people who may not even know what desires they have.

So how can you tell someone who is "really" happy, from someone who is just "having a chemical imbalance"? How do you differenciate between "a normal chemical imbalance causing happiness" and an "abnormal chemical imbalance causing happiness"?

Trying to recast all unhappinesses as thwarted desires seems to me like a lot of work for nothing. There's no payoff. It's like saying the sun is really going around the Earth, and than trying to imagine all the new laws of physics that it would take to explain that. There's no point in changing the language that way, and it's easier to talk the normal way.

Can I have your definition of unhappiness then, and could you explain an example of unhappiness that does not reduce to my definition?

Note that in behavioral pyschology there's no reason to suppose that the laws governing human happiness/unhappiness should be "very easy to explain".

In regular English, it just isn't true that thwarted desires and unhappinesses are perfectly correlated. Thwarted desires and unhappinesses are separate concepts, and thats why we have separate terms for them.

I politely ask for your definition of unhappiness then, so we can clear this up.

The PoE has nothing to do with this magical happiness. It has to do with regular happiness, the kind people have no trouble recognising or talking about.

What's your definition of happiness then?

Hopefully we can clear up these basic terms before we start the debate.

[wiploc]

What's your definition of happiness then?


Happiness is the emotional state of pleasure, joy, an agreeable feeling, contentment, cheerfulness, lightheartedness, being in good spirits, gladness, gayness, exhilaration, delight, or ecstasy.


Can I have your definition of unhappiness then,

Unhappiness is the opposite: sadness, sorrowfulness, being down in the dumps, in a brown study, misery, low spirits, suffering, emotional distress.



and could you explain an example of unhappiness that does not reduce to my definition?

Some days I just wake up happy. That doesn't mean I've gotten something I wanted. It just means I'm a generally cheerful person.

Once I was walking down the street when a pickup went by. A woman yelled, "Hey, cowboy." It was an unlooked-for compliment.




So how can you tell someone who is "really" happy, from someone who is just "having a chemical imbalance"? How do you differenciate between "a normal chemical imbalance causing happiness" and an "abnormal chemical imbalance causing happiness"?

I think you have misunderstood something I said, but I can't tell what. If someone had a chemical imbalance that made him happy, he would be happy. I don't know enough about body chemistry or language to distinguish a normal chemical imbalance from an abnormal one.




At the time of the chemical imbalance, if the person is said to be "happy", then the person did desire the "chemical imbalance",

This is nuts. Do you desire a chemical imbalance? Does everybody?






Again I think you are simultaniously combining desires. You have

1. The desire to give blood to help other people in need
2. The desire not for something painful to go into your arm and for a weak feeling to follow.

By giving blood, you are happy by desire 1, and suffering by desire 2

A team ecstatic over winning this week's game is clearly not suffering over not having won next week's game. Ecstasy is incompatible with suffering.

It seems to me you are ad hocing this. Everyone has both fulfilled and unfulfilled desires. When you see a happy person, you invoke some fulfilled desire and say that it caused the happiness, and when you see someone unhappy, you invoke an unfulfilled desire and say that caused the unhappiness, regardless of what the real cause is.

People like to go to sad movies. That in itself shows that people don't have a desire not to experience those emotions.




I don't see the big difference


A desire is a formed thought. Since this is after the invention of psychiatry, you can say that we have desires we don't know of. But you can't say, for instance, that little babies sit around with either conscious or unconscious desires not to get ear infections.

Preferences are what you would do if given a choice. You don't have to have formed the thought, "I would rather eat a taco than an albino warhog that has been lying three weeks in the sun," to be said to have the preference.

But preferences won't work for what you need either, because people often choose that which makes them unhappy; and they do so knowingly.

crc

[Xeno]

wiploc, I'm going to try to explain your position on happiness and unhappiness, mainly for myself, and if there's anything below you disagree with please let me know and correct me.

It seems from your last post that what you really mean to do is to reject the logical form of happiness and unhappiness. That is, happiness does not follow any logically enumerable steps (ie. desire fulfillment), one can be happy "for no reason" (like when you wake up in the morning). Same for unhappiness. There is no logical form of unhappiness (ie. desire frustration), people can be unhappy for "no reason" some times too.

But I'm afraid if you reject any possible logical form of happiness/unhappiness, your argument reduces to a purely chemical argument. I have learned a bit about neuro-pyschology, and pardon me if you know the following, but happiness can be at least partially explained by the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine along certain key neuro-pathways. Cocaine, for example, is a drug that floods pathways with dopamine to simulate the high you get from happiness. While dopamine is only one, not completely understood, neurotransmitter, I contend that all instances of happiness are obviously reducible to the release and control of neurotransmitters.

Similar results for unhappiness can be explained by the levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin.

My conclusion is that if you wish to reject the logical forms of happiness and unhappiness, as desire fulfillment and unfulfillment, you are left with a purely chemical explaination for unhappiness and happiness, and then your argument becomes:

1. If God existed, the configuration of neurotransmitters which causes unhappiness would not exist.
2. The configuration of neurotransmitters which causes unhappiness exists.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

One interesting consequence of this argument is that even if someone were being raped, or tortured, as long as that person maintained a happy state of mind via the configuration of neurotransmitters, this would not pose a problem for your ideal world.

If I made any errors, or if there is actually another formulation of your argument, please correct where I went wrong.

[wiploc]

wiploc, I'm going to try to explain your position on happiness and unhappiness, mainly for myself, and if there's anything below you disagree with please let me know and correct me.

It seems from your last post that what you really mean to do is to reject the logical form of happiness and unhappiness. That is, happiness does not follow any logically enumerable steps

I suppose there's always a reason, even if we don't know the reason.



(ie. desire fulfillment),

But we do know that desire fulfillment is not always the reason.



one can be happy "for no reason" (like when you wake up in the morning). Same for unhappiness. There is no logical form of unhappiness (ie. desire frustration),

People can certainly be unhappy as a result of having their desires frustrated. It just doesn't follow that all unhappiness is a result of frustrated desires.



people can be unhappy for "no reason" some times too.

If we leave the "no reason" in scare quotes, meaning we don't know any reason, then I'm cool with this.




But I'm afraid if you reject any possible logical form of happiness/unhappiness, your argument reduces to a purely chemical argument. I have learned a bit about neuro-pyschology, and pardon me if you know the following, but happiness can be at least partially explained by the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine along certain key neuro-pathways. Cocaine, for example, is a drug that floods pathways with dopamine to simulate the high you get from happiness. While dopamine is only one, not completely understood, neurotransmitter, I contend that all instances of happiness are obviously reducible to the release and control of neurotransmitters.

Your argument seems to me to this: "Every happy person was wanting more dopapmine, and that desire has been fulfilled, so the person is happy." That's only a half-step away from defining happiness as the gratification of a desire for happiness. All explanitory power is lost if you go that route.




Similar results for unhappiness can be explained by the levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin.

My conclusion is that if you wish to reject the logical forms of happiness and unhappiness, as desire fulfillment and unfulfillment, you are left with a purely chemical explaination for unhappiness and happiness,

You are skipping the step between "happiness has a logical cause" and "that cause is desire fulfillment." Those are not equivalent statements.



and then your argument becomes:

1. If God existed, the configuration of neurotransmitters which causes unhappiness would not exist.
2. The configuration of neurotransmitters which causes unhappiness exists.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

An omnipotent god would have a lot more choices than just dicking around with brain chemistry.




One interesting consequence of this argument is that even if someone were being raped, or tortured, as long as that person maintained a happy state of mind via the configuration of neurotransmitters, this would not pose a problem for your ideal world.


I can go this far with you: If women liked being raped, there might not be anything wrong with rape.

crc

[Xeno]

But we do know that desire fulfillment is not always the reason.

Alright, I think I'll have to go back to reducing all your examples to examples of desire fulfillment then, if you reject the brain chemistry argument.

People can certainly be unhappy as a result of having their desires frustrated. It just doesn't follow that all unhappiness is a result of frustrated desires.

Back we go to examples.

Your argument seems to me to this: "Every happy person was wanting more dopapmine, and that desire has been fulfilled, so the person is happy." That's only a half-step away from defining happiness as the gratification of a desire for happiness. All explanitory power is lost if you go that route.

Note quite, the argument is "every happy person is in a state where dopamine is released along neuro-pathways", the cause is completely explained by the chemistry.

You are skipping the step between "happiness has a logical cause" and "that cause is desire fulfillment." Those are not equivalent statements.

I again assert that either happiness is a wholly chemical phenomenon, or happiness has the logical form of desire fulfillment, and I'll deal with specific counter-examples. If you want to just mention some above that you don't think I adequately dealt with I'll try again, so you don't have to repeat yourself.

An omnipotent god would have a lot more choices than just dicking around with brain chemistry.

Well that's not really the issue, the issue is "is current brain chemistry incompatible with God's existence".

I can go this far with you: If women liked being raped, there might not be anything wrong with rape.

crc

If everyone was in a "happy state of mind", then it would be pretty hard to tell what people liked and didn't like.

[wiploc]

Your argument seems to me to this: "Every happy person was wanting more dopapmine, and that desire has been fulfilled, so the person is happy." That's only a half-step away from defining happiness as the gratification of a desire for happiness. All explanitory power is lost if you go that route.

Note quite, the argument is "every happy person is in a state where dopamine is released along neuro-pathways", the cause is completely explained by the chemistry.

No, that's just true, but it doesn't involve desire frustration, so it isn't your argument. Your argument is that any happiness is the result of desire fulfillment, so it follows that a happy baby has formed the desire, "Dopamine! I want Dopamine!"




You are skipping the step between "happiness has a logical cause" and "that cause is desire fulfillment." Those are not equivalent statements.

I again assert that either happiness is a wholly chemical phenomenon, or happiness has the logical form of desire fulfillment, and I'll deal with specific counter-examples. If you want to just mention some above that you don't think I adequately dealt with I'll try again, so you don't have to repeat yourself.

You haven't explained any of them to my satisfaction. But I'll pick the example of a baby before its first earache: According to your theory, unhappiness is desire frustration, which requires babies who have never had earaches to form, consciously or unconsciously, the desire, "Golly, I hope I never have an earache." If they didn't form that desire, they couldn't have the desire frustrated, in which case they couldn't be made unhappy by the earache.



An omnipotent god would have a lot more choices than just dicking around with brain chemistry.

Well that's not really the issue, the issue is "is current brain chemistry incompatible with God's existence".

Why do you think that's the issue? An omnipotent god could do anything that didn't involve contradiction. He could give us happiness with no brain chemistry at all, with no brain at all. He could make us into floating disembodied locuses of joy.

Unhappiness is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god.

crc

[Xeno]

No, that's just true, but it doesn't involve desire frustration, so it isn't your argument. Your argument is that any happiness is the result of desire fulfillment, so it follows that a happy baby has formed the desire, "Dopamine! I want Dopamine!"

Actually I was trying to probe you for your definitions, and I was trying to get your argument. Your definitions of happiness and my definitions of happiness arn't really compatible. Your definition seems to led to a chemical explanation of happiness versus my definition which explains happiness by a logical form.

My definition of happiness has nothing to do with dopamine. Your definition, however, does.

You haven't explained any of them to my satisfaction. But I'll pick the example of a baby before its first earache: According to your theory, unhappiness is desire frustration, which requires babies who have never had earaches to form, consciously or unconsciously, the desire, "Golly, I hope I never have an earache." If they didn't form that desire, they couldn't have the desire frustrated, in which case they couldn't be made unhappy by the earache.

Not quite. In my theory the desire "to never have an earache" can be predicated on the baby depending upon the reaction the baby has to an earache.

I am now much more interested in your definitions of unhappiness and happiness, and if indeed you do support the chemical argument.

To go back to an earlier example, you said

If a chemical imbalance or an electrical stimulation to the brain made someone happy, according to your theory, that someone must have wanted a chemical imbalance or a brain stimulation. She didn't have to consciously know she wanted it, but she had do have formed that desire, however secretly from herself.

Now I will present you with two approaches to this situation, and you will inevitably have to pick one, or, of course, offer another option that I don't mention, although I really think you will have to choose between the following:

Option 1: Happiness has a logical form

If you agree with option 1, then whether or not the person is "truly" happy is dependent upon the logical form of what happiness consists of.

In my example, happiness consists of desire fulfillment, and thus there are two possible conclusions to the above:

1. The person had a desire to have a chemical imbalance causing happiness.
2. The person had a desire not to have a chemical imbalance causing happiness.

Now, let's consider that whatever desire the person has, one of the above is the only desire the person has in our example.

Then, by my logical form of happiness, the person is suffering if and only if they have desire 2, and they are happy if and only if they have desire 1.

If you agree that happiness has a logical form, then please explain what you believe the logical form to be, and explain how the above example fits into your theory.

Option 2: Happiness has a purely chemical explanation

If you hold that happiness has a purely chemical explanation, then clearly the only option you have is that the above person is happy. But also, the only thing that could possibly contradict God's existence, if you go this route, is that there exists a chemical configuration that represents unhappiness too. If an omnimax God existed, there would be no chemical configuration that caused unhappiness.

So am I dealing with a chemical happiness argument or a logical happiness argument?

Why do you think that's the issue? An omnipotent god could do anything that didn't involve contradiction. He could give us happiness with no brain chemistry at all, with no brain at all. He could make us into floating disembodied locuses of joy.

Because the issue is whether the existence of mental states that are responsible for "unhappiness" is compatible with an omnimax God's existence. Indeed, he could make us into anything, but the logical problem of evil, as being suggested by you, is reducible to the simple chemical state of unhappiness possible in our brains, and such a state contradicts an omnimax God's existence.

And I want to be perfectly clear on this, in your ideal world, it doesn't matter which actions or what happens in it (including rape, murder, torture), as long as everyone maintains the "happy state of mind"?

Unhappiness is incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god.

crc

That is the position you will be affirming, of course, and I will be denying. I just hope we can be perfectly clear on what exactly we mean by "unhappiness".

[wiploc]

Actually I was trying to probe you for your definitions,

Happiness is the emotional state of pleasure, joy, an agreeable feeling, contentment, cheerfulness, lightheartedness, being in good spirits, gladness, gayness, exhilaration, delight, or ecstasy.


and I was trying to get your argument. Your definitions of happiness and my definitions of happiness arn't really compatible.

I think we both know what happiness is. I think everybody does.



Your definition seems to led to a chemical explanation of happiness

You said that all happiness depends on dopamine. I don't know anything about brain chemistry, so I'm trusting you on that.



versus my definition which explains happiness by a logical form.

I don't know what that means. If it means that happiness is an effect, I agree: happiness has causes. It has different causes at different times. One time, it could be that you got something you desired. Other times it could have nothing to do with desires, like if you got something you didn't want but found good, or if a brain malfunction produced too much dopamine.




My definition of happiness has nothing to do with dopamine. Your definition, however, does.

Happiness is the emotional state of pleasure, joy, an agreeable feeling, contentment, cheerfulness, lightheartedness, being in good spirits, gladness, gayness, exhilaration, delight, or ecstasy.

Dopamine is no part of the definition of happiness. An omnipotent god could give us happiness with no dopamine, with no brains at all. For that matter, he could give us happiness with no free will.




Not quite. In my theory the desire "to never have an earache" can be predicated on the baby depending upon the reaction the baby has to an earache.

You impute a desire to the baby, but the baby doesn't actually have the desire.




I am now much more interested in your definitions of unhappiness and happiness,

Happiness is the emotional state of pleasure, joy, an agreeable feeling, contentment, cheerfulness, lightheartedness, being in good spirits, gladness, gayness, exhilaration, delight, or ecstasy.



and if indeed you do support the chemical argument.

You said all happiness involves dopamine. I'm just taking your word for that.



Now I will present you with two approaches to this situation, and you will inevitably have to pick one, or, of course, offer another option that I don't mention, although I really think you will have to choose between the following:

Option 1: Happiness has a logical form

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that happiness has causes, then I agree. And I agree that sometimes the causes involve desire gratification.




If you agree with option 1, then whether or not the person is "truly" happy is dependent upon the logical form of what happiness consists of.

Happiness is the emotional state of pleasure, joy, an agreeable feeling, contentment, cheerfulness, lightheartedness, being in good spirits, gladness, gayness, exhilaration, delight, or ecstasy.

A person is "truely" happy if the person experiences the emotional state of pleasure, joy, an agreeable feeling, contentment, cheerfulness, lightheartedness, being in good spirits, gladness, gayness, exhilaration, delight, or ecstasy.

When you start talking about "'truely' happy," I suspect you of wanting to talk about something else altogether. I don't think there's any way you can not know what happiness is, and true happiness is no different from regular happiness.




In my example, happiness consists of desire fulfillment,

It consists of desire fulfillment? It doesn't have something to do with how you feel? If you want to say it is caused by desire fulfillment, then you can be right some of the time, but not if you say it consists of desire fulfillment.




and thus there are two possible conclusions to the above:

1. The person had a desire to have a chemical imbalance causing happiness.
2. The person had a desire not to have a chemical imbalance causing happiness.

Now, let's consider that whatever desire the person has, one of the above is the only desire the person has in our example.

Then, by my logical form of happiness, the person is suffering if and only if they have desire 2, and they are happy if and only if they have desire 1.

If you agree that happiness has a logical form, then please explain what you believe the logical form to be, and explain how the above example fits into your theory.

Not sure what you mean by a logical form.




Option 2: Happiness has a purely chemical explanation

If you hold that happiness has a purely chemical explanation, then clearly the only option you have is that the above person is happy. But also, the only thing that could possibly contradict God's existence, if you go this route, is that there exists a chemical configuration that represents unhappiness too. If an omnimax God existed, there would be no chemical configuration that caused unhappiness.

Are you saying that if all happiness is correlated with brain chemistry, then even a miracle-throwing omnipotent god couldn't change that?




So am I dealing with a chemical happiness argument or a logical happiness argument?


Regardless of what causes happiness, if god were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there would be no unhappiness. You are dealing with a regardless-of-what-causes-happiness argument.




Because the issue is whether the existence of mental states that are responsible for "unhappiness" is compatible with an omnimax God's existence.

"Responsible for"? The issue is whether anyone would be unhappy in a world in which someone omnipotent wanted everybody happy.




Indeed, he could make us into anything, but the logical problem of evil, as being suggested by you, is reducible to the simple chemical state of unhappiness possible in our brains,

You said that people want whatever makes them happy. I said not. One of the examples I gave in support of my position was that of someone who was happy because of brain chemistry alone, not because of any desire fulfillment but just because of an extra squirt of something in the brain. This proves that happiness is not perfectly correlated with desire fulfillment, and that happiness therefore cannot be defined as "that which occurs when desires are fulfilled."

It is simply wrong to say, "If happiness could on one occasion result from a stray squirt of brain chemical, then it follows that all happiness 'reduces to" brain states, with no other causes."




and such a state contradicts an omnimax God's existence.

And I want to be perfectly clear on this, in your ideal world, it doesn't matter which actions or what happens in it (including rape, murder, torture), as long as everyone maintains the "happy state of mind"?

Be perfectly clear on this: If an omnipotent god didn't want anyone to be unhappy, nobody would be unhappy. Therefore, if people are unhappy, there is no omnipotent god who doesn't want anyone to be unhappy. That god does not exist.




That is the position you will be affirming, of course, and I will be denying. I just hope we can be perfectly clear on what exactly we mean by "unhappiness".


Unhappiness is the opposite of happiness; it is sadness, sorrowfulness, being down in the dumps, in a brown study, misery, low spirits, suffering, emotional distress.

crc

[Xeno]

The only conclusion I can derive from your responses is that:

1. If the world was exactly the same as it is today, except
2. If the levels of dopamine and serotonin in our brains always maintained the "happy state of mind", then
3. There would be no logical problem of evil.

Of course this would be only one way to solve the problem of evil, but in your opinion (from what I gather) it is an entirely valid way. To be honest I don't really have a response to this argument, as I'm used to people positing logical forms of happiness via desires.

I could defend your argument against Plantinga's free will defense however.