Are Atheist parents ‘Mini Gods’?

[Wombat]

A human parent is incapable of preventing suffering in the world and thus has to ensure a child knows how to survive.

Kinda skips the question...>If< the world is so full of suffering, as many atheists on these boards have portrayed, that a Creator/God would be ‘evil’ or simply could not exist in the basis of the pain and suffering...then logically a prospective parent taking such an atheistic line “is capable of preventing (further) suffering in the world” by declining to bring children into it.

An omnipotent God doesn't have this problem as anything harmful can be altered.

“An omnipotent God doesn't have this problem as anything harmful” is negated (turned into a skun knee) in the context of eternity. “Harm”, pain, suffering become by degree and transitory conditions of no lasting significance if there is an “omnipotent God” as described in Abramaic tradition.

To give you an analogy, if I have the resources to bring up my child in a good environment, I'm not going to instead bring them up in a ghetto so they learn how to survive a world they needn't be subjected to in the first place.

The analogy fails a/ To demonstrate that the world/universe is not the very best possible environment for raising human beings from primordial soup to the stars. b/ Fails to identify the “ghetto” aspects of the world/universe that, if removed from the list of ills, would not be immediately supplanted by the remaining ills. ie- remove >all< pain and suffering and, having nothing to compare it to, discomfort and disappointment become pain and suffering.


Again, I personally have no problem with there being challenges to overcome, it's the needless suffering that I don't understand an omnimax God allowing.

This would require/need the identification of “needless suffering”. No doubt the Black Plague was experienced as needless/pointless until we worked out how to prevent it. Subsequently we recognized it was 'needed' to identify hygenic living in large groups.

I also don't understand why a God that offers us eternal life after death also provides us with this seemingly arbitrary one.


Personally I find this “seemingly arbitrary” to be only “seemingly” arbitrary ;-)
It has all the elements of the greatest Comedy, Mystery, Romance, Adventure, Thriller, Sic Fi, Horror and Sword and Sandal Spaghetti Western classics anyone could ever wish for...and the cast of billions?...superb actors in this Divine Drama.
Can’t wait to sit back with passed friends and family, watch the ‘Rushes’, and laugh at how seriously we took the whole episode ;-)

Now an experimenter God would perhaps make sense (let's see how these creatures do in this environment), but that would rule out it being all loving an omniscient.

Ah Huh...And what about a non “experimenter God” who knew every outcome before anything was set in motion for an experimenter humanity to discover and work through?

As far as there being no god/afterlife etc and the ethics of brining up children is concerned here, I think you're maybe misunderstanding the point being raised. Few people would claim the world is entirely Hellish,

No. Sorry. Quite a few atheist people are indeed claiming the world is “Hellish” to such a degree that it either disproves the possibility of God or indicates that God must be evil. No “misunderstanding the point being raised” there. A significant number of atheists on these and other forums have made that point crystal clear...pain and suffering mean either no God or malevolent God...I’m simply asking that the point be thought/discussed through.

...It's the fact that there is needless suffering at all that brings the omnimax God concept into question. The world could be very nearly perfect, yet any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God.

I have asked previously in the thread for the advocates of removing “needless suffering” for a “world that could be very nearly perfect” to identify what they would have removed and consider what they would have remaining.
So I repeat the question...What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering at which people/atheists might say- “Ok, There is no physical pain and suffering whatsoever...God might exist”...and >NOT< have some person/atheist cry- “But I am suffering jealousy and unrequited love!...God >CANNOT< exist”.
Please identify the pain/suffering elimination cut off point that would satisfy >everyone< when "any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God".

You see...some people (my boss is one of them) are pained, agrivated and insulted by 'disagreement'...the world is imperfect because others just can't see how right they always are and they must suffer our collective stupidity...how can we remove such "imperfections" to make my boss happy?



“I would also say that life is indeed less than perfect (out of interest, what are your thoughts on that?) and therefore if an omnimax God exists, it is inadequate."

Like most human beings I continue to suffer the delusion that if/when I get that thing, achieve that end, overcome that obstacle, satisfy that significant other and acquire the time to do as I please, unless and until then- “life is indeed less than perfect”. Invariably the achievement/resolution has not provided “perfect life”...far from it.
Moments of “perfection”? Satori/contentment? Birth of children/playing with children, ‘timelessness” absorption in Art/Music, sex, watering the garden, extreme physical exertion/exhaustion, service to others...all, to varying degrees, involve forgetfulness of ‘self’.

As for the rest, I'm not convinced you're stretching your imagination as far as omnipotence is concerned. Removing all suffering would lead to jealousy? Why? Remove jealousy too. If you're omnipotent you aren't limited.

Ok...Now we have removed “all (physical) suffering” and “jealousy”...That leaves- anger, disappointment, boredom, frustration, aggravation, unrequited love...and hell...requited love can be just as painful, desire, longing, and wanting....cos, if I can’t have >everything< I imagine/want immediately...I’m in pain and suffering....please let me know at what point you believe we ceased to be >human< and became cotton wool enclosed consciousness- instantly gratified- and nowhere to go/nothing to achieve...because I believe we passed that point back at the elimination of “all suffering”.

Now like I mentioned, I would personally still want some form of challenge,

Please identify what you have in mind/would require...because your “challenge” may well be my suffering ;-)

 

[Wombat]

just not insurmountable challenges.

What are we currently up against that is “insurmountable”?

I'm not going to reel off a list as I'd be writing for weeks and still not cover everything with this in mind I'll present just one choice phenomenon that would seem to contradict the notion of an omnimax god simply presenting us with challenges.
Harlequin ichthyosis is something which we have only recently been able to treat.

That- “The disease has been known since 1750” Wiki, strongly suggests a comparatively recent phenomena/condition and no known cause is identified in the literature I have looked at. Given that Medical Records and Literature goes back thousands of years and this condition is first documented in 1750 it suggests something has occurred in and since that time.

It serves as a poor/fruitless example of needless/pointless suffering. Unless and until a cause is identified it may well be that the condition serves to warn humanity that it is doing something wrong (eg Plague-pest control/sanitation) or is being subject to some new challenge threat.

In short, at this point in Medical knowledge, the example of Harlequin ichthyosis does not have sufficient understanding to know wether it is pointless suffering or an important (possibly urgent) warning symptom.


Now I'm going to assume an answer from you here, so I apologise if it wasn't what you were going to say. Some people who believe in your concept of God will claim that this isn't a challenge for the individual, but for humanity as a collective. Fair enough. However, it does mean that the infant in question was born to be a sacrifice in a time where there is currently nothing that can be done to help them (something an omniscient God would be aware of). I fail to see how a loving God would then allow this to happen, it creates an individual with no chance of help in a world in which nobody knows what to do about the condition. Rather than allow the child to have the condition so that humanity can learn how to overcome it, why not get rid of the condition altogether or at the very least provide the means to treat it.

I believe the “why not” answer resides in the same reason it hurts when you have a splinter...it is notifying the body of injury requiring treatment (and I would remind that millions died from such small wounds/splinters until we learned to control infection)...In like manner Harlequin ichthyosis may well be notifying the body of humanity of injury requiring treatment...we don’t know yet.

But we do know that innumerable ailments we have set out to conquer we have beaten...and if Harlequin ichthyosis is “associated with a mutation in the gene for the protein ABCA12.” Then with the advent of genetic engineering...its days are numbered.

“There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its remedy.”
Ahadith, Bukhari 7.582

I'm sure a quick google search can provide a host of similar examples, but for the sake of simplicity I'll just stick with that one for now.

As previously stated...make that one vanish, make “a host of similar examples” vanish...and people will be born into a world complaining of the >next/lesser< pain/suffering and demanding the world be made perfect by the elimination of hemaroids, hangovers and gangster rap.

There just aint no cut off point at which everyone could/would say- “That’s just the right amount of pain/suffering to consider God might reasonably exist”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But we do know that innumerable ailments we have set out to conquer we have beaten...and if Harlequin ichthyosis is “associated with a mutation in the gene for the protein ABCA12.” Then with the advent of genetic engineering...its days are numbered.

“There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its remedy.”
Ahadith, Bukhari 7.582

Do you think that creating the cure for a disease justifies creating the disease in the first place?

 

[waitasec]

If, for the sake of arguement, God does not exist and hell does not exist...we are still left with a significant number of atheists frequently arguing that the very reason God could not exist is that the world is such a suffering hell......and then creating new life to experience the suffering hell.

suffering is experienced by natures indifference...and because of the indifference humans display to each other as well... however, we are also empathetic creatures... there in lies the dilemma. creating life is an innate quality to ensure the survival of our species...

suffering is an ultimatum for belief in god.

 

[Wombat]

suffering is experienced by natures indifference...and because of the indifference humans display to each other as well... however, we are also empathetic creatures... there in lies the dilemma. creating life is an innate quality to ensure the survival of our species....

" Creating life is an innate quality to ensure the survival of our species" unless and untill conditions (of nature/man made) are so bad that it is said that no good/loving God could create or permit such conditions and/or that such a God would be evil for doing so...to create new life into such conditions would render the creator parents ethically and morally reprehensible (evil) "there in lies the dilemma" for those atheists who claim such conditions prevail.

Atheists holding such views of the world could decline to act as Mini God creators (on the same moral/ethical principles they hold God to) and rest assured in the "survival of our species" as loopy theists continue to procreate like rabbits.

suffering is an ultimatum for belief in god.

Care to elaborate?

 

[waitasec]

to create new life into such conditions would render the creator parents ethically and morally reprehensible (evil) "there in lies the dilemma" for those atheists who claim such conditions prevail.

but are these conditions unchangeable?

Atheists holding such views of the world could decline to act as Mini God creators (on the same moral/ethical principles they hold God to) and rest assured in the "survival of our species" as loopy theists continue to procreate like rabbits.

the problem with this is, you're seemingly equating pessimism to atheism.

Care to elaborate?

i was insinuating how believers think they are not subjected to suffering as unbelievers. for believers there is a lesson to learn or a purpose. for unbelievers they are not protected and left to the elements.
that, and the idea of hell.

 

[Wombat]

but are these conditions unchangeable?.

One would have to ask the individual atheists (or as I am doing, atheists in general) which “conditions” they have in mind and which conditions could or should be changed before God becomes a tenable proposition and new life would be justifiably created.
the problem with this is, you're seemingly equating pessimism to atheism.

Um.No. I’m pointing out that the argument frequently put by many atheists in regard the non existence of God because of ‘the problem of suffering’ is directly parallel and applicable to those same atheists when considering prospective parenting.

Well, for some theists there is clearly a deep and significant distinction in the way they perceive and experience suffering in comparison with atheists.
The very notions of a benevolent God of a purposeful universe and the assurance of an afterlife are all going to have a profound effect if deeply held. Any Sport Psychologist will be able to elaborate on the impact of ‘belief’ and ‘visualization’ on the experience of pain and endurance.


for believers there is a lesson to learn or a purpose.

Precisely. There is often also the belief that ultimately, no matter what befalls them, they are safe and can come to no lasting harm.

for unbelievers they are not protected and left to the elements.
that, and the idea of hell.

Non believers are “not protected” psychologically by the same beliefs as theists (obviously) and thereby in many cases more exposed to the “elements” and that, in and of itself, may be a “hell” for some....

But none of this speculation touches upon or answers the original question.

 

[waitasec]

One would have to ask the individual atheists (or as I am doing, atheists in general) which “conditions” they have in mind and which conditions could or should be changed before God becomes a tenable proposition and new life would be justifiably created.

why would you do that, if you don't mind me asking...
it is pointless to ask an atheist what conditions would cause one to believe in said god...
:sorry1: i'm not following.

the problem with this is, you're seemingly equating pessimism to atheism.

Um.No. I’m pointing out that the argument frequently put by many atheists in regard the non existence of God because of ‘the problem of suffering’ is directly parallel and applicable to those same atheists when considering prospective parenting.

how i see it is, the problem of suffering is what contradicts the ideal of a benevolent god...a label most theist have applied, right? so for argument sake, the problem of suffering is used to dispute that label. i do not attribute suffering to god in any way...i see it as nature being indifferent...nature doesn't care what i do, how i live or how i treat others... chaos and indifference is what we have been living with since our species began... we have empathy in order for our species to survive, which is an innately selfish attribute for the purpose of survival.

Well, for some theists there is clearly a deep and significant distinction in the way they perceive and experience suffering in comparison with atheists.
The very notions of a benevolent God of a purposeful universe and the assurance of an afterlife are all going to have a profound effect if deeply held. Any Sport Psychologist will be able to elaborate on the impact of ‘belief’ and ‘visualization’ on the experience of pain and endurance.

i agree, the mind is a powerful tool

for believers there is a lesson to learn or a purpose.

Precisely. There is often also the belief that ultimately, no matter what befalls them, they are safe and can come to no lasting harm.

for me it's a defense mechanism to have these beliefs for everyone
some need to feel as though they are special (god has a plan for you because of your suffering)
others take it as it comes and still others do not attribute a purpose but rather how they respond... believers and unbelievers alike.

for unbelievers they are not protected and left to the elements.
that, and the idea of hell.

Non believers are “not protected” psychologically by the same beliefs as theists (obviously) and thereby in many cases more exposed to the “elements” and that, in and of itself, may be a “hell” for some....

i disagree (not surprisingly )
non believers do not approach these elements in the same way.
in other words...what psychological difference does a believer have that a non believer doesn't have...they both hope and dream and strive to be better humans... they both feel remorse.

But none of this speculation touches upon or answers the original question.

first we have to define what a mini god is...
if that is what you mean?

i'll re read the OP and get back to you...

 

[meogi]

I am wondering, if there is no God, if the harshness of the world/universe is evidence that there is no God...on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?

On your assumption: there is no reason to consider having a child as ethical, fair, or just. It would most likely be a selfish want, for the parents own amusement; or a complete accident.
I can't wait to have kids, but then again, I don't use the problem of evil as evidence against God.

Especially considering the extreme odds against this created being living a life free of pain and suffering and no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife?

You make it sound as though this life is meaningless without a counter-balance. Why wasn't creation created in the afterlife?

Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

No, it's an act of natural creation. It's only God-like if you believe God created life.

 

[Penumbra]

Considering the number of complaints/concerns that &#8220;God is 'evil'&#8221; because of the state of the world and/or God could not exist because of suffering and the state of the world, and/or that the world is not a safe, kind or just place, and/or that the universe is hostile/indifferent etc etc......

The problem of evil is pretty simple.

Some theists claim that their deity is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent. Theists and atheists alike generally observe that the universe is not the most benevolent place. Children can die of leukemia or die slowly and painfully under rubble in earthquakes. A good person can get raped and murdered, regardless of whether they call out to god or not. The entire ecosystem is based around creatures killing and consuming other creatures. Mass extinction events occur every so often.

The contradiction between the claim of a loving and personal god and the observation of an indifferent universe results in the problem of evil.

I am wondering, if there is no God, if the harshness of the world/universe is evidence that there is no God...on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?

Especially considering the extreme odds against this created being living a life free of pain and suffering and no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife?

What, if any, are the moral/ethical calculations of probability that the life created is more likely to be protracted, joyous, successful, fruitful and grateful to be alive...rather than short, painful and regretted in an indifferent and hostile universe (as so frequently described)?

Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

The world is a terrible place for some people, and a pretty good place for other people. It largely depends on the person's location in time and space, as well as a bit of luck. Some people are born only to die of starvation, while others are born, have happy childhoods, have a productive and satisfying career, fall in love, get married, have happy children and grandchildren, and then retire and eventually die.

Bringing a kid into this world is a bit of a gamble, but not unreasonable depending on where and when they live. Plus it's among the strongest of biological drives. The parent can't control all of the variables, but they can try to help the best they can. Life doesn't have to be perfect for it to be worthwhile.

 

[Wombat]

The problem of evil is pretty simple.

Some theists claim that their deity is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent. Theists and atheists alike generally observe that the universe is not the most benevolent place. Children can die of leukemia or die slowly and painfully under rubble in earthquakes. A good person can get raped and murdered, regardless of whether they call out to god or not. The entire ecosystem is based around creatures killing and consuming other creatures. Mass extinction events occur every so often.

The contradiction between the claim of a loving and personal god and the observation of an indifferent universe results in the problem of evil. .

To all

With respect guys and gals...the above is an eloquent restatement (somewhat toned down) of the original atheist proposition that prompted the thread- ie that the &#8216;problem of evil&#8217; in the world is such that either God could not exist and/or God is malevolent/&#8221;evil&#8221; for creating such a world.
To resolve this seeming &#8220;contradiction between the claim of a loving and personal god and the observation of an indifferent universe results in the problem of evil&#8221; I have made the same point and asked the same question several times to no avail/answer-

#21-&#8220;Ok...Now we have removed &#8220;all (physical) suffering&#8221; and &#8220;jealousy&#8221;...That leaves- anger, disappointment, boredom, frustration, aggravation, unrequited love...and hell...requited love can be just as painful, desire, longing, and wanting....cos, if I can&#8217;t have >everything< I imagine/want immediately...I&#8217;m in pain and suffering....please let me know at what point you believe we ceased to be >human< and became cotton wool enclosed consciousness- instantly gratified- and nowhere to go/nothing to achieve...because I believe we passed that point back at the elimination of &#8220;all suffering&#8221;.

#22-As previously stated...make that one vanish, make &#8220;a host of similar examples&#8221; vanish...and people will be born into a world complaining of the >next/lesser< pain/suffering and demanding the world be made perfect by the elimination of hemaroids, hangovers and gangster rap.

#21-I have asked previously in the thread for the advocates of removing &#8220;needless suffering&#8221; for a &#8220;world that could be very nearly perfect&#8221; to identify what they would have removed and consider what they would have remaining.
So I repeat the question...What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering at which people/atheists might say- &#8220;Ok, There is no physical pain and suffering whatsoever...God might exist&#8221;...and >NOT< have some person/atheist cry- &#8220;But I am suffering jealousy and unrequited love!...God >CANNOT< exist&#8221;.
Please identify the pain/suffering elimination cut off point that would satisfy >everyone< when "any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God".
.................................


I have and will continue to do my utmost to answer your points/questions guys...but at this point I&#8217;m asking for a little reciprocity.

If there is a &#8220;contradiction&#8221; between the notion of a good/loving creator God and &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221; in the world &#8211; What >specific< reduction in evil is required to resolve said &#8220;contradiction&#8221; and what, if any, evils would remain or is the complete eradication of all ills and evils required to negate &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221;?
What, if any, is the cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221;?
(In the absence of any answer/response to this question the discussion is becoming circular and I am being obliged to repeat myself:thud

 

[waitasec]

"what specific reduction in evil is required to resolve said contradiction..."

with all due respect, that is an impossible question to answer.
there is the element of chaos (from the microcosm to the cosmos)
there is the element of selfishness which is inherent in us all

the only thing to do is to take away the label of a "good/loving creator God" and accept
we are equally responsible for each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is a &#8220;contradiction&#8221; between the notion of a good/loving creator God and &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221; in the world &#8211; What >specific< reduction in evil is required to resolve said &#8220;contradiction&#8221; and what, if any, evils would remain or is the complete eradication of all ills and evils required to negate &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221;?
What, if any, is the cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221;?

The cut-off point is perfection. If the creation is less than perfect, then it implies that its creator is less than perfect.

If any evil exists in the universe at all, then God is something less than all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.

Of course, if you don't believe in a perfect god, then the problem of evil isn't a problem for your god at all.

 

[Wombat]

The cut-off point is perfection. If the creation is less than perfect, then it implies that its creator is less than perfect.

If any evil exists in the universe at all, then God is something less than all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.

Of course, if you don't believe in a perfect god, then the problem of evil isn't a problem for your god at all.

Ok 9-10ths, let&#8217;s explore the eradication of all evil, all pain and suffering, and the establishment of &#8220;perfection&#8221;. Because it&#8217;s becoming very clear no one wants to respond to or think through the ramifications and consequences of removing all pain/suffering.
First up your either going to have to be a disembodied consciousness or an embodied consciousness that feels no pain, never becomes ill and never dies. Either way you loose some vital human experiences that I for one would prefer not to miss out on in the name of &#8220;perfection&#8221;. Endurance sports are gone/out, no point, the experience of struggling through pain and exhaustion is gone...it&#8217;s just a painless going through the motions. Likewise Mountain Climbing, Bungi Jumping and Boxing/Martial Arts...no pain, no danger, no risk, no competition.....no point.

Sex? Often involves pain/discomfort (for some a great deal)...then there is the pain/anguish of adolescent boys not getting sex... so either the drive has to go or it&#8217;s instant gratification sex on demand...Kinda takes the thrill and interest out of the picture.
There&#8217;s no nursing the ill nor the development of compassion, no one can get ill, injured or be in need (those suffering evils have all gone) no learning compassion is necessary or possible.

There&#8217;s nothing to invent or develop because if there is any &#8216;lack&#8217; or &#8216;absence&#8217; then things aren&#8217;t &#8220;perfect&#8221; and we shouldn&#8217;t have to struggle against any imperfection...because that&#8217;s hard and painful. Work is out, what&#8217;s to work on? What is to be acquired?
Then you have to decide if there are going to be &#8216;others&#8217; and what their qualities will be...because &#8216;others&#8217; (even disembodied consciousness others) can be a profound source of pain and suffering. They will have to all like and agree with you...there cannot be the evil of being disliked and disagreed with. And &#8216;Love&#8217;? One of the most joyous and painful human experiences of all? What will you do with love? You cannot have unrequited love, that&#8217;s not &#8220;perfect&#8221;...way too much pain and suffering. Love fulfilled? Can be just as painful. Does a &#8220;perfect&#8221; world come with ironclad guarantee of fidelity? Or do you retain the possibility of falling in love with someone else (breaking your partners heart?) and moving on to another &#8220;perfect&#8221; relationship?

Kids? &#8220;I used to think that I knew the parameters of my emotions, the degree of my joy the depth of my fear and anguish,..............until I had kids&#8221;. A whole world of joy, pain, suffering and anguish in having kids (beginning with childbirth)....Either your &#8220;perfect&#8221; world eliminates these pains and sufferings by not having children or resolves the pain and suffering in some other way.
Bottom line- remove a layer or line of &#8216;evil/pain and suffering&#8217; and anyone subsequently created is oblivious to what is no longer there and confronted with the pain and suffering that >is<.

To say &#8220;The cut-off point is perfection&#8221; requires that you explore, delineate and specify the nature of that &#8220;perfection&#8221;....because without the painful &#8216;imperfections&#8217; described above your &#8220;perfect&#8221; world would be my Hell.

&#8220;If any evil exists in the universe at all, then God is something less than all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.&#8221;

Then, once again and to all, can some one, any one, answer the points above and articulate and specify what ills/pains/sufferings/evils you would remove....and describe how the world would be &#8220;perfect&#8221; without them?

 

[Penumbra]

To all

With respect guys and gals...the above is an eloquent restatement (somewhat toned down) of the original atheist proposition that prompted the thread- ie that the ‘problem of evil’ in the world is such that either God could not exist and/or God is malevolent/”evil” for creating such a world.
To resolve this seeming “contradiction between the claim of a loving and personal god and the observation of an indifferent universe results in the problem of evil” I have made the same point and asked the same question several times to no avail/answer-

Your thread point is rather unclear, so your tone isn't particularly warranted.

Your OP touched on the PoE, but mostly focused on the ramifications of a parent bringing a child into this world. Later posts of yours targeted the PoE directly. They're two rather different topics. And you've been answered rather clearly (although I don't agree with all of the answers.)

#21-“Ok...Now we have removed “all (physical) suffering” and “jealousy”...That leaves- anger, disappointment, boredom, frustration, aggravation, unrequited love...and hell...requited love can be just as painful, desire, longing, and wanting....cos, if I can’t have >everything< I imagine/want immediately...I’m in pain and suffering....please let me know at what point you believe we ceased to be >human< and became cotton wool enclosed consciousness- instantly gratified- and nowhere to go/nothing to achieve...because I believe we passed that point back at the elimination of “all suffering”.

#22-As previously stated...make that one vanish, make “a host of similar examples” vanish...and people will be born into a world complaining of the >next/lesser< pain/suffering and demanding the world be made perfect by the elimination of hemaroids, hangovers and gangster rap.

#21-I have asked previously in the thread for the advocates of removing “needless suffering” for a “world that could be very nearly perfect” to identify what they would have removed and consider what they would have remaining.
So I repeat the question...What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering at which people/atheists might say- “Ok, There is no physical pain and suffering whatsoever...God might exist”...and >NOT< have some person/atheist cry- “But I am suffering jealousy and unrequited love!...God >CANNOT< exist”.
Please identify the pain/suffering elimination cut off point that would satisfy >everyone< when "any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God".
.................................


I have and will continue to do my utmost to answer your points/questions guys...but at this point I’m asking for a little reciprocity.

If there is a “contradiction” between the notion of a good/loving creator God and “the problem of evil” in the world – What >specific< reduction in evil is required to resolve said “contradiction” and what, if any, evils would remain or is the complete eradication of all ills and evils required to negate “the problem of evil”?
What, if any, is the cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate “the problem of evil”?
(In the absence of any answer/response to this question the discussion is becoming circular and I am being obliged to repeat myself:thud

I gave frubals to a post I saw the other day, so maybe it's worth pasting it here:

I've got a question for you. Imagine if I took every possible way the world could work, and every possible sequence of actions. Then, I chop out all the ones that don't achieve my mysterious unknown goal X. Out of the remaining, I then pick the one that maximizes the happiness of everyone in the universe.

If I do that, do I end up with "this" reality? If not, why not?

That's basically the best way to put it, in my opinion. Can anyone seriously say this is the best possible world they can think of?

What qualities of this universe lead one to conclude that a powerful, benevolent deity is involved? What would a universe look like if it existed without any powerful, benevolent deities involved?

Ok 9-10ths, let’s explore the eradication of all evil, all pain and suffering, and the establishment of “perfection”. Because it’s becoming very clear no one wants to respond to or think through the ramifications and consequences of removing all pain/suffering.
First up your either going to have to be a disembodied consciousness or an embodied consciousness that feels no pain, never becomes ill and never dies. Either way you loose some vital human experiences that I for one would prefer not to miss out on in the name of “perfection”. Endurance sports are gone/out, no point, the experience of struggling through pain and exhaustion is gone...it’s just a painless going through the motions. Likewise Mountain Climbing, Bungi Jumping and Boxing/Martial Arts...no pain, no danger, no risk, no competition.....no point.

Sex? Often involves pain/discomfort (for some a great deal)...then there is the pain/anguish of adolescent boys not getting sex... so either the drive has to go or it’s instant gratification sex on demand...Kinda takes the thrill and interest out of the picture.
There’s no nursing the ill nor the development of compassion, no one can get ill, injured or be in need (those suffering evils have all gone) no learning compassion is necessary or possible.

There’s nothing to invent or develop because if there is any ‘lack’ or ‘absence’ then things aren’t “perfect” and we shouldn’t have to struggle against any imperfection...because that’s hard and painful. Work is out, what’s to work on? What is to be acquired?
Then you have to decide if there are going to be ‘others’ and what their qualities will be...because ‘others’ (even disembodied consciousness others) can be a profound source of pain and suffering. They will have to all like and agree with you...there cannot be the evil of being disliked and disagreed with. And ‘Love’? One of the most joyous and painful human experiences of all? What will you do with love? You cannot have unrequited love, that’s not “perfect”...way too much pain and suffering. Love fulfilled? Can be just as painful. Does a “perfect” world come with ironclad guarantee of fidelity? Or do you retain the possibility of falling in love with someone else (breaking your partners heart?) and moving on to another “perfect” relationship?

Kids? “I used to think that I knew the parameters of my emotions, the degree of my joy the depth of my fear and anguish,..............until I had kids”. A whole world of joy, pain, suffering and anguish in having kids (beginning with childbirth)....Either your “perfect” world eliminates these pains and sufferings by not having children or resolves the pain and suffering in some other way.
Bottom line- remove a layer or line of ‘evil/pain and suffering’ and anyone subsequently created is oblivious to what is no longer there and confronted with the pain and suffering that >is<.

To say “The cut-off point is perfection” requires that you explore, delineate and specify the nature of that “perfection”....because without the painful ‘imperfections’ described above your “perfect” world would be my Hell.

“If any evil exists in the universe at all, then God is something less than all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.”

Then, once again and to all, can some one, any one, answer the points above and articulate and specify what ills/pains/sufferings/evils you would remove....and describe how the world would be “perfect” without them?

Generally, I differ from a lot of atheists and don't argue that a universe created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would include a complete lack of pain and suffering. I even bothered to debate it out of principle against another atheist in the one-on-one debate section.

But the quantity and quality of pain and suffering in this universe doesn't match any reasonable goal. Natural disasters, unbearable pain, horrible and grotesque disease, genetic defects, and countless helpless animals that suffer simply doesn't lead to perfection. The misfortunes and agony that some people and other animals have gone through is so horrible that it's sickening to even think about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok 9-10ths, let’s explore the eradication of all evil, all pain and suffering, and the establishment of “perfection”. Because it’s becoming very clear no one wants to respond to or think through the ramifications and consequences of removing all pain/suffering.
First up your either going to have to be a disembodied consciousness or an embodied consciousness that feels no pain, never becomes ill and never dies. Either way you loose some vital human experiences that I for one would prefer not to miss out on in the name of “perfection”. Endurance sports are gone/out, no point, the experience of struggling through pain and exhaustion is gone...it’s just a painless going through the motions. Likewise Mountain Climbing, Bungi Jumping and Boxing/Martial Arts...no pain, no danger, no risk, no competition.....no point.

You're arguing against a straw man. If you're saying that "perfection" would be imperfect or lacking in some respect, then your "perfection" is not actually perfection.

Here's the test: can things be better than they are now? If they can, then things aren't perfect. We live in an imperfect world and the creator of that world must be imperfect as well.

So... are you arguing that things can't be any better than they are now? Because if you are, you've got quite a task ahead of you.

To say “The cut-off point is perfection” requires that you explore, delineate and specify the nature of that “perfection”....because without the painful ‘imperfections’ described above your “perfect” world would be my Hell.

No, it doesn't. All it requires is that I recognize that things could be better than they are right now.

“If any evil exists in the universe at all, then God is something less than all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.”

Then, once again and to all, can some one, any one, answer the points above and articulate and specify what ills/pains/sufferings/evils you would remove....and describe how the world would be “perfect” without them?

I already gave one: if we had separate tubes for eating and breathing, then there would be less human suffering and less needless death. That would make things better, IMO. It wouldn't make the world perfect, but it would make the world better, which shows the world we have is less than perfect.

 

[proffesb]

Considering the number of complaints/concerns that “God is 'evil'” because of the state of the world and/or God could not exist because of suffering and the state of the world, and/or that the world is not a safe, kind or just place, and/or that the universe is hostile/indifferent etc etc......

I am wondering, if there is no God, if the harshness of the world/universe is evidence that there is no God...on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?

Especially considering the extreme odds against this created being living a life free of pain and suffering and no hope of a counterbalancing afterlife?

Life, despite the harshness and suffering in it, can have great joys and fulfillment

What, if any, are the moral/ethical calculations of probability that the life created is more likely to be protracted, joyous, successful, fruitful and grateful to be alive...rather than short, painful and regretted in an indifferent and hostile universe (as so frequently described)?

it's a gamble

Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

no, god (assuming jewish/christian/islamic) is omnipotent and omniscient, humans are not. Bringing a child into the earth is a natural animal-like act of creation.

You are using this argument to debunk the argument that god doesn't exist because of evil in the world correct?

That there is suffering so there is no god argument is used to prove an all powerful all loving god doesn't exist.

An all powerful all loving god

-would not allow suffering (either he's not all powerful or not all loving)

-would not require blind faith and refusal of the instincts he gave us to be spared from eternal hellfire.

 

[Wombat]

Your thread point is rather unclear, so your tone isn't particularly warranted. .

You are welcome to point out whatever you believe to be unclear and I will do my utmost to clarify.

If you are sensing “tone” perhaps it is as a consequence of the natural frustration of repeatedly asking a question/making a point that is ignored/unanswered. The question/point was repeated below, you claim it was “answered rather clearly” I invite you to quote/cite the clear answer...because all >responses< appear to avoid the question/issue.
In like manner, with neutral patient and expectant tone, I point out that you do not answer the point/question but rather pose two questions in response.
(Answering a question with a question can suffice if it is directly pertinant...otherwise it only serves to evade the original)-
Quote:
#21-“Ok...Now we have removed “all (physical) suffering” and “jealousy”...That leaves- anger, disappointment, boredom, frustration, aggravation, unrequited love...and hell...requited love can be just as painful, desire, longing, and wanting....cos, if I can’t have >everything< I imagine/want immediately...I’m in pain and suffering....please let me know at what point you believe we ceased to be >human< and became cotton wool enclosed consciousness- instantly gratified- and nowhere to go/nothing to achieve...because I believe we passed that point back at the elimination of “all suffering”.

Quote:

#22-As previously stated...make that one vanish, make “a host of similar examples” vanish...and people will be born into a world complaining of the >next/lesser< pain/suffering and demanding the world be made perfect by the elimination of hemaroids, hangovers and gangster rap.

#21-I have asked previously in the thread for the advocates of removing “needless suffering” for a “world that could be very nearly perfect” to identify what they would have removed and consider what they would have remaining.
So I repeat the question...What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering at which people/atheists might say- “Ok, There is no physical pain and suffering whatsoever...God might exist”...and >NOT< have some person/atheist cry- “But I am suffering jealousy and unrequited love!...God >CANNOT< exist”.
Please identify the pain/suffering elimination cut off point that would satisfy >everyone< when "any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God".
.................................


I have and will continue to do my utmost to answer your points/questions guys...but at this point I’m asking for a little reciprocity.

If there is a “contradiction” between the notion of a good/loving creator God and “the problem of evil” in the world – What >specific< reduction in evil is required to resolve said “contradiction” and what, if any, evils would remain or is the complete eradication of all ills and evils required to negate “the problem of evil”?
What, if any, is the cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate “the problem of evil”?
(In the absence of any answer/response to this question the discussion is becoming circular and I am being obliged to repeat myself )

I gave frubals to a post I saw the other day, so maybe it's worth pasting it here:.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyHedral
I've got a question for you. Imagine if I took every possible way the world could work, and every possible sequence of actions. Then, I chop out all the ones that don't achieve my mysterious unknown goal X. Out of the remaining, I then pick the one that maximizes the happiness of everyone in the universe.

If I do that, do I end up with "this" reality? If not, why not?

That's basically the best way to put it, in my opinion. Can anyone seriously say this is the best possible world they can think of?.

“Seriously”, honestly, to the best of my understanding >Yes< this world is “the best possible world I can think of?” and, in all fairness, I need say no more to validate and explain >why< that is so >unless and until< someone can do me the kindness of directly responding to the question/point above-
– What >specific< reduction in evil is required to resolve said “contradiction” and what, if any, evils would remain or is the complete eradication of all ills and evils required to negate “the problem of evil”?
What, if any, is the cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate “the problem of evil”?

What qualities of this universe lead one to conclude that a powerful, benevolent deity is involved?.

No...I’m sorry...just a modicum of reciprocity is required...You have attempted to answer a question with two questions that do not resolve what was originally asked...I have, none the less, answered your question and am prepared to continue doing so...but not if mine are to be ignored/avoided.

Generally, I differ from a lot of atheists and don't argue that a universe created by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would include a complete lack of pain and suffering. I even bothered to debate it out of principle against another atheist in the one-on-one debate section.

Ok. That's good/handy to know and leads me to conclude (with apreciation and respect for the forthrightness) that you are not the atheist to defend the "general/lot of atheists" pov in this matter.

But the quantity and quality of pain and suffering in this universe doesn't match any reasonable goal. Natural disasters, unbearable pain, horrible and grotesque disease, genetic defects, and countless helpless animals that suffer simply doesn't lead to perfection.

Please...With respect....I am now looped back to exactly the same unanswered question- Eliminate " Natural disasters, unbearable pain, horrible and grotesque disease, genetic defects, and countless helpless animals that suffer" and be born into a world in which they are >unknown<. (Not shouting, emphasizing in frustration ;-) >NOW WHAT?< You are now born into and still confronted with innumerable "unbearable pains" of a psychological nature and a host of other "sufferings" that, in the absence of anything >worse< are now your top dog suffering/evils.
Please!.....What is the reasonable/acceptable cut off point?

The misfortunes and agony that some people and other animals have gone through is so horrible that it's sickening to even think about .

Yes, I hear you. Yes, I understand you. Yes, there are "misfortunes and agony".

Now, conceptualy remove them, what happens now? Does not watever pain/discomfort that remains not now replace the removed "misfortunes and agony"?
What is the cut off point for remouving pain, suffering,misfortunes and agony?

 

[Wombat]

You're arguing against a straw man. If you're saying that "perfection" would be imperfect or lacking in some respect, then your "perfection" is not actually perfection..

No. I'm not "arguing against a straw man".
No. I'm not "saying that "perfection" would be imperfect or lacking in some respect"

Take another look. I was, yet again, making a number of points/questions in relation to >your< expressed desire for "perfection". Once more, you did not consider or respond to those points/questions.

>You< have a conception of "perfection"? Then >you< define, defend and elaborate upon it.

If you can not/will not explore and discuss the "perfection" you desire or answer questions relating to your concept of "perfection" then I cannot see any point in continuing.

Here's the test: can things be better than they are now?.

No. Sorry. Your notion of "perfection" was being put to "the test" and you have (yet again) ignored every single testing point and question. Frankly...it's just rude/ill mannered to completely ignore what is put before you and then expect the other to answer your question/s.

Here's a freebie prompted by 'The Golden Rule'.
"can things be better than they are now"?.......>No<....This is the >perfect< training ground for working towards "perfection".

If you want, desire, expect, feel entitled to or seek further answer/explanation than that then please go back and try to respond to the questions/points I have put to you.
Or not bother seeking anything further.

 

[Wombat]

Life, despite the harshness and suffering in it, can have great joys and fulfillment .

Yes...That is what is known as ‘a given’- ie, not in question, not in doubt.

The questions remain unanswered and I put it back to you “despite” the given “great joys and fulfilment” many atheists frequently complain “that “God is 'evil'” because of the state of the world and/or God could not exist because of suffering and the state of the world, and/or that the world is not a safe, kind or just place, and/or that the universe is hostile/indifferent”
And I remain wondering “if there is no God, if the harshness of the world/universe is evidence that there is no God...on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
What, if any, are the moral/ethical calculations of probability that the life created is more likely to be protracted, joyous, successful, fruitful and grateful to be alive...rather than short, painful and regretted in an indifferent and hostile universe (as so frequently described)?

it's a gamble.

Ok...So...If God brings life into such a world He is deemed “evil” for doing so or His very existence is denied for no ‘good’ God could bring life into such an imperfect world of suffering...
But for prospective atheist parents bringing life into this same world there is no suggestion that they are “evil” there is no suggestion that they could not be ‘good’...the prospective atheist parent is simply taking “a gamble”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike act of creation?

no, god (assuming jewish/christian/islamic) is omnipotent and omniscient, humans are not. Bringing a child into the earth is a natural animal-like act of creation..

Hang on...>The nature of the world< does not change and is not dependent upon the comparative capacities of humanity and God...nor even on the existence of God.

Two possibilities-
1/God exists and many atheists argue God could not exist because of the evil/suffering in the world.
2/ God does not exist and many atheists argue God could not exist because of the evil/suffering in the world.

Either way the >constant< is the expressed atheist conviction that “God could not exist because of the evil/suffering in the world.”

i.e. The perception of the world as a place of evil/suffering remains the same- with or without God and regardless of Gods capacities.

You are using this argument to debunk the argument that god doesn't exist because of evil in the world correct?

Yes.

That there is suffering so there is no god argument is used to prove an all powerful all loving god doesn't exist.
An all powerful all loving god
-would not allow suffering (either he's not all powerful or not all loving).

Back, once more, to the repeatedly asked and as yet unanswered question-

If “An all powerful all loving god -would not allow suffering” then please >specify< the sufferings God would not allow and what (if any) “sufferings” would remain.
If “An all powerful all loving god -would not allow suffering” then An all powerful all loving god -would not allow the suffering of- Unreqited love, >failure at anything<, not getting what you desperately want, being subjected to 'bad' music/anything (now define bad)...Get the picture?...If "suffering" is to be eliminated it >must be either< ALL SUFFERING (and we must consider the ramifications) or SOME SUFFERING (and we must consider the ramifications).

i.e. Right now we are up to 40 posts...I have asked the board atheists the same question over and over again- What, if any is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering? I have one respondent who suggests all suffering must be eliminated and “perfection” established but steadfast refusal to examine/elaborate on what “perfection” would mean or look like.

So here am I- “suffering” the immense frustration of asking atheists the same straight pertinent question and not getting a straight pertinent answer.

I am thus obliged to ask is this an example of one of the “sufferings” that would have to be eliminated from the world before the existence of God might be considered possible?

-would not require blind faith and refusal of the instincts he gave us to be spared from eternal hellfire..

I reject the assertion that God requires “blind faith”, “refusal of the instincts” to be “spared from eternal hellfire.”

We have (Godgiven or not) reason and the instinct to reason...and my instinct to reason asks again-
If “An all powerful all loving god -would not allow suffering” then please >specify< the sufferings God would not allow and what (if any) “sufferings” would remain.

What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering?
If there is none, and some notion of “perfection” is required then please see prior posts (ie #34) that seek to examine/explore such assumed “perfection”.