A truly sadistic choice

[Nepycros]

Would it really be wise to choose no suffering on earth? That might just make this god deaden every living person's nerves so they can't feel a thing! :|

[OldTrees]

Would it really be wise to choose no suffering on earth? That might just make this god deaden every living person's nerves so they can't feel a thing! :|

Suffering usually includes mental suffering from reality not matching one's preferences. Incorporating this into your train of though necessitates the entity manipulating the preferences of everyone as well.

Then we can consider that free will enables people to choose what they want to do. Your train of thought would necessitate the entity removing or restricting the ability of free will to affect one's preferences or desires. Rendering the Will a trapped tiebreaker of preferences the entity imposed.

However this all assumes that the entity's offer can be credible (it can't).

[Tymalous]

Would it really be wise to choose no suffering on earth? That might just make this god deaden every living person's nerves so they can't feel a thing! :|

Suffering usually includes mental suffering from reality not matching one's preferences. Incorporating this into your train of though necessitates the entity manipulating the preferences of everyone as well.

Then we can consider that free will enables people to choose what they want to do. Your train of thought would necessitate the entity removing or restricting the ability of free will to affect one's preferences or desires. Rendering the Will a trapped tiebreaker of preferences the entity imposed.

However this all assumes that the entity's offer can be credible (it can't).

Yep, you shouldn't even try to imagine this in reality. The only entity that could possibly do such a thing, if it exists, wouldn't make such offers to you...

[OldTrees]

Would it really be wise to choose no suffering on earth? That might just make this god deaden every living person's nerves so they can't feel a thing! :|

Suffering usually includes mental suffering from reality not matching one's preferences. Incorporating this into your train of though necessitates the entity manipulating the preferences of everyone as well.

Then we can consider that free will enables people to choose what they want to do. Your train of thought would necessitate the entity removing or restricting the ability of free will to affect one's preferences or desires. Rendering the Will a trapped tiebreaker of preferences the entity imposed.

However this all assumes that the entity's offer can be credible (it can't).

Yep, you shouldn't even try to imagine this in reality. The only entity that could possibly do such a thing, if it exists, wouldn't make such offers to you...

There is no evidence that there does not exist an entity willing and able to make the offer.
The thought experiments assumes such an entity does exist.
All responses to the thought experiment should assume the entity is willing and able to fulfill its offer.

[Feuerhose]

Would it really be wise to choose no suffering on earth? That might just make this god deaden every living person's nerves so they can't feel a thing! :|

Suffering usually includes mental suffering from reality not matching one's preferences. Incorporating this into your train of though necessitates the entity manipulating the preferences of everyone as well.

Then we can consider that free will enables people to choose what they want to do. Your train of thought would necessitate the entity removing or restricting the ability of free will to affect one's preferences or desires. Rendering the Will a trapped tiebreaker of preferences the entity imposed.

However this all assumes that the entity's offer can be credible (it can't).

Yep, you shouldn't even try to imagine this in reality. The only entity that could possibly do such a thing, if it exists, wouldn't make such offers to you...

There is no evidence that there does not exist an entity willing and able to make the offer.
The thought experiments assumes such an entity does exist.
All responses to the thought experiment should assume the entity is willing and able to fulfill its offer.

Just wanted to say the exact same thing. Though probably in a less elegant way
Thought experiments are kinda virtual environments where certain laws are installed...

There was a really nice work at the Bienale in Venice 2003. This remainds me a bit of this.
"Alea Iacta Est" by Stanislaw Drozdz.
It was the polish pavillion.
You entered a room were the walls were covered with dices. In the middle of the room a pool table with 6 dices. At the pool table was the advise to begin the game by throwing  the six dices. Then you should line them up and begin to search this combination of numbers on the walls.
You have to do it to fully understand it i guess. I searched for half an hour. Me and my pride. The gambler in me didn´t want to let go. I had a headake afterwards

here two fotos:



Gute Nacht,

Feuerhose





 

[Bloodshadow]

I'm not even following this thread anymore since it had gotten tl;dr quite a while ago. But no, you can't outsmart the evil god. It is absolutely omnipotent, logic be damned. Whatever you try to outsmart it, it automatically fails. The god can freeze time, make you immortal, and imprison you, until you make your decision.

[Naesala]

I'm not even following this thread anymore since it had gotten tl;dr quite a while ago. But no, you can't outsmart the evil god. It is absolutely omnipotent, logic be damned. Whatever you try to outsmart it, it automatically fails. The god can freeze time, make you immortal, and imprison you, until you make your decision.

This kind of relates to what I wanted to say wayyyy back when I strated reading this thread (but decided to read all the way through first instead...ugh XD)
What is the Pantheon in which this god resides and how do Gods work in this Pantheon? If you were to make this into a pantheon similar to that of D&D where alignments are not a subjective and arguable but rather almost strict codes, the alignment of the god (Lawful Evil, Neutral evil, or chaotic evil) will affect decisions.
Also: Does the god require anything to continue existance? If the god needs believers to exist, then select option B and seek out and kill believers. If the god require suffering/sadism to exist, again option B because it is unlikely that the god would hold up his end of the bargain if it removed the only source of it's godliness. If all there is is that the god is omnipotent and sadistic, then I dont know what I would choose because as an all powerful god, would he not control the afterlife and, being such, would it not be essentially hell anyways? I may choose A on that understanding if all people are destined to an afterlife of constant suffering.

Also: some more terms of agreement are unknown. How is suffering removed? How long is suffering removed?

Based on my knowledge I select option B for the credibility reasons OT listed, and I would not harshly judge someone selecting that response.

[Bloodshadow]

What is the Pantheon in which this god resides and how do Gods work in this Pantheon? If you were to make this into a pantheon similar to that of D&D where alignments are not a subjective and arguable but rather almost strict codes, the alignment of the god (Lawful Evil, Neutral evil, or chaotic evil) will affect decisions.
Also: Does the god require anything to continue existance?

The god is absolutely omnipotent. It can divide by zero and make four-sided triangles despite such things being clearly impossible. It belongs to no pantheon, and needs no alignment.

Also: some more terms of agreement are unknown. How is suffering removed? How long is suffering removed?

The god isn't going to tell you.

[Naesala]

What is the Pantheon in which this god resides and how do Gods work in this Pantheon? If you were to make this into a pantheon similar to that of D&D where alignments are not a subjective and arguable but rather almost strict codes, the alignment of the god (Lawful Evil, Neutral evil, or chaotic evil) will affect decisions.
Also: Does the god require anything to continue existance?

The god is absolutely omnipotent. It can divide by zero and make four-sided triangles despite such things being clearly impossible. It belongs to no pantheon, and needs no alignment.

Also: some more terms of agreement are unknown. How is suffering removed? How long is suffering removed?

The god isn't going to tell you.

1.As it has no alignment and it is the one true god, can we assume it controls the afterlife or know what it entails? That and only that could push me to option A
2.Ah, so even less credibility pushing option B.

[OldTrees]

What is the Pantheon in which this god resides and how do Gods work in this Pantheon? If you were to make this into a pantheon similar to that of D&D where alignments are not a subjective and arguable but rather almost strict codes, the alignment of the god (Lawful Evil, Neutral evil, or chaotic evil) will affect decisions.
Also: Does the god require anything to continue existance?

The god is absolutely omnipotent. It can divide by zero and make four-sided triangles despite such things being clearly impossible. It belongs to no pantheon, and needs no alignment.

Also: some more terms of agreement are unknown. How is suffering removed? How long is suffering removed?

The god isn't going to tell you.

1.As it has no alignment and it is the one true god, can we assume it controls the afterlife or know what it entails? That and only that could push me to option A
2.Ah, so even less credibility pushing option B.

1. Even if it could control the afterlife:
There is no evidence it does. (BS made the claim not the entity. Therefore it is knowledge you would not have while making the decision.)
There is no evidence about how the afterlife is structured. (It does not tell you and the sadistic nature of the choice might have resulted from a misunderstanding of a non sadistic entity.)
There is still no credible evidence that your choice will result in the outcome the entity claims.
2. Even if the entity gave you a marvelously detailed description of their claim, it would not improve their credibility. It could destroy it if they made a contradiction and if the entity were bound to logic. (Which BS threw out the window for some unknown reason)

[Naesala]

2. Even if the entity gave you a marvelously detailed description of their claim, it would not improve their credibility.

True. What I was thinking was I'm slightly more able to believe the god (ever so slightly though it be) if he will explain the intricacies of the deal. That doesnt make him more credible, it just makes me slightly more likely to believe him.

[OldTrees]

2. Even if the entity gave you a marvelously detailed description of their claim, it would not improve their credibility.

True. What I was thinking was I'm slightly more able to believe the god (ever so slightly though it be) if he will explain the intricacies of the deal. That doesnt make him more credible, it just makes me slightly more likely to believe him.

Oh.
Yes, if you are unable to believe a claim is possible then having the claim be made more concrete with causality exposed can remove the incredulity. As such the extra detail can restore the entity to 0 credibility rather than negative credibility.

I had forgotten that the entity should have inspired incredulity without metagame knowledge of the thought experiment.