Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
I brought up victimization because it was a concept you introduced into the hypothetical asking whether the person was a victim. But this has gone far beyond what the initial point was, which was that there are still infinite amounts of actions one can take even if there is no evil. You contend "less good" would become evil in such a system, I don't agree. Regardless free will could be expressed, with a still infinite number of choices. None of this has to do with a moral test. But, if we grant your presupposition that a moral test is necessary (already a huge concession in this debate) again, why do some face much lesser moral tests than others? Why should we not all face the same tests and given that it's a test, why are we not facing the maximum test we should?
I feel as if we're arguing passed each other. I'm coming at it from an angle of how can we understand the nature of the world, and how we can really know whether it is ideal - this involves trying to conceive of completely different systems of reality, existence of a whole different nature than the one we have here, which I have tried to break down. You seem to be coming at it with the presupposition that the way things are IS the ideal, and trying to reason about ways to make that conclusion fit. And though I accept many of the conditions necessary to make such a presupposition for this debate, then we have to spend time in the weeds. To disregard a logical conclusion of an idea means to discard the principle core of the idea, and to do so when we're talking in theory really undercuts our capacity to understand each other's points. I don't see how we can find further common ground this way
Hmm…
I think we both agree, life doesn’t appear pointless, right? So we seek the “point” of life. I don’t think you’d be engaging in this discussion if that wasn’t something you were seeking, as we all are (correct me if I’m wrong about any of that). That’s where I’m coming from with the “tests”/“classroom” notion of life, but even putting that aside for now, since that’s basically just me saying “this is my best guess but it could be wrong”:
We come to the “facts of life”. It appears to me that (constrained) free will is a fact of life. It appears to me that for “good” to exist, by the principle of duality, so too must “not good” exist. You just can’t have one without the other. Regardless of how many “options” or places to fall on the spectrum exist. You can’t have a “choice” of just one option. So I reconcile the apparent fact of free will to choose, with the logical fact that every choice must fall on this spectrum of good/not good. Even a choice as benign as “chocolate or vanilla?” resides within this spectrum, even if it’s right in the middle, True Neutral as the DnD’ers say.
So to tie it back together… what I said about staying in the realm of human comprehension, you could convince me of your position through the follow action:
Describe in tangible terms, without saying “God could just do X”, a potential universe wherein the richness of existence we have, all of our various capacities for experience, are somehow preserved, but “evil” doesn’t exist. I understand how daunting such a request is, and that’s basically my point - it’s easy to say “God could just …” but that doesn’t get us anywhere - we have to deal with the reality we exist in. I feel like, when you really dig into things, the gist of what im saying becomes self-evident. Did you watch that video of South Park with Butters talking to the goth kids i linked a couple comments ago? I refer back to that, because I really think the “naivety” of the character saying it allows the purity of the words to come through. With Light, comes Dark. Inherently. Inextricably. Unavoidably.
And with that established, I cant think of a better set up…can you?
Answering your question will be impossible because there is no objective criteria, any answers simply will not give us the same "richness" because it's arbitrary.
We see duality as necessary because this is the system we're in, that doesn't mean that if the entire universe were being created from nothing a different choice could be made unless there are immutable laws regarding existence that cannot be changed by any being. In any case, I continue to contend there should be more capacity for even more evil (which I guess means life would be just as "rich" since evil and duality are both necessary by the previously stated position) if the point of this life is we are being tested.
I would contend that it is an immutable law that for “existence” to, well, exist, duality is a prerequisite. An existence without duality is effectively the Monad, or the Tao, or the undifferentiated potential of God “before” the creation of existence. It is effectively “the Godhead”.
From the 42nd verse of the Tao Te Ching:
Regarding your other point:
To be honest, I don’t follow. Let me propose a hypothetical based on your contention:
Is it not self-evident that a universe wherein a billion souls can be killed with nothing more than a whim would be counter productive to the notion of “existence is a classroom”? If you’re the teacher and your class goes from 1,000,000,000 souls on day one to 1 single psychopath on graduation day, haven’t you blatantly failed in the design of your class room?
One could contend it's an immutable law for existence how we experience it now, but that is with a perception shackled only with an understanding of a reality with all systems that keep it functioning in place. It's possible existence could never take another form, but that means there is some kind of universal limitation on how conscious beings could be created.
Ok so now let's get back into classroom metaphors. First, numerous times I have posited that each person could be within their own universe. This universe could split off from the "main" one every time a person is born and everyone can act exactly as they would otherwise, the only difference would be the main person's actions Now this person can be completely tested, as can all people, plus you still get the same "richness" since everything else is the same.
Though the fact that the supposition that if we're being tested we should have an even greater capacity for evil was taken to the extreme of, one should be able to wipe out all of humanity on a whim, without considering the already numerous times proposed Individual-focused realities, I'm not sure how much consideration this idea is being given.
Regardless, I would like to dig into your classroom analogy. It seems you consider dying to be going "out of the classroom". We live in a reality where billions have been aborted, millions of babies die prematurely or shortly after birth, and millions can be (and have been) vaporized in an instant using technology we already have. Is this materially different the "self-evidence" of counter-productivity to the "classroom"? Since you have considered death to be no longer being "in class" (by your own analogy), clearly the deaths of all these who have yet to live, or the vaporization of millions who had no idea what was coming should be considered a catastrophic failure. Again, by your own criteria. As an aside, the person who is wiping out a billion people with a thought may decide only to wipe out those over retirement age, surely given the dynamics of your classroom analogy that would actually be quite preferable to the situation in real life. They have all had the chance to learn. Yet you insist this is the most ideal form of reality that is possible out of all forms