Are Atheist parents ‘Mini Gods’?

[proffesb]

From your first post

"on what basis do Atheists consider the creation of an (eventually) conscious being to be ethical/ fair/ just?"
your response just blows me off and said I didn't answer the question. I will restate it as a complete stand alone idea.

It is ethical to bring children into this world because life can be filled with joy.

How does that not answer the question?

Originally Posted by Wombat
Is not consciously/deliberately bringing a life into being a Godlike 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.

Apparently I have missed your point here or something isn't clear, it seems you are contradicting yourself.

you say the capacities of humanity and god are not relevent but the question was "are human parents god like?"
Originally Posted by Wombat

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


edit: (I thought about what you may have meant by this question the term "Godlike" is confusing because of the many different meanings for that word depending on the listener. Would you please reword the question in a clearer manner )

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”.

By blind faith I mean following something without sufficient evidence. Most of the suffering in the world is caused by man killing each other, often claiming divine right. An all loving all powerful god would put an end to the blood baths in his name by giving actual proof of his existence.

I know I cut out a lot of your post but i tried to keep the context and you were repeating yourself a lot in it. If anything was out of context or I failed to respond please let me know

 

[Wombat]

I will gladly willingly return to the rest when this is resolved-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat

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”.

By blind faith I mean following something without sufficient evidence. Most of the suffering in the world is caused by man killing each other, often claiming divine right. An all loving all powerful god would put an end to the blood baths in his name by giving actual proof of his existence.

I will take that as one “specific” “suffering God would not allow”= “suffering in the world - caused by man killing each other”....and am now left obliged to repeat myself and the questions-
what (if any) “sufferings” would remain?

What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering?

To repeat the point/question/issue 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.
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 know I cut out a lot of your post but i tried to keep the context and you were repeating yourself a lot in it. If anything was out of context or I failed to respond please let me know.

Funny that....I complain I have been obliged to repeat myself because the question is not being answered, you cut and answer half the question and invite me to let you know if you failed to respond

Dear proffesb
Please excuse the repertition.

You have identified the specific “suffering” of “man killing each other”/ “blood baths in his name”.

Let us imagine these bloodbaths have been eliminate. We are now one suffering down. What next and how far do you go? You’re not being asked to list all the sufferings to be eliminated...just to say if >all suffering< would need to be eliminated or-
What (if any) “sufferings” would remain?

What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering?

 

[Wombat]

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

with all due respect, that is an impossible question to answer..

It is only "an impossible question to answer" because the question reveals that it is impossible to conceptualise a satisfactory point of reduction in evil, pain, suffering that does not leave and expose the next layer of evil, pain, suffering and so on.

The only alternative is the blanket appeal for ZERO evil, pain, suffering "perfection" and that too cannot be described, elaborated, conceptualized or defined by the proponents.

Athiests employing the "problem of evil" as an arguement against the existance of God cannot describe a satisfactory reduction in evil or elimination of evil...and thereby the arguement falls.

"there is the element of chaos (from the microcosm to the cosmos)
there is the element of selfishness which is inherent in us all..

And?
This impacts on the question in what way?

 

[proffesb]

I will gladly willingly return to the rest when this is resolved-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat

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”.


I will take that as one “specific” “suffering God would not allow”= “suffering in the world - caused by man killing each other”....and am now left obliged to repeat myself and the questions-
what (if any) “sufferings” would remain?

What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering?

To repeat the point/question/issue 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.
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).



Funny that....I complain I have been obliged to repeat myself because the question is not being answered, you cut and answer half the question and invite me to let you know if you failed to respond

Dear proffesb
Please excuse the repertition.

You have identified the specific “suffering” of “man killing each other”/ “blood baths in his name”.

Let us imagine these bloodbaths have been eliminate. We are now one suffering down. What next and how far do you go? You’re not being asked to list all the sufferings to be eliminated...just to say if >all suffering< would need to be eliminated or-
What (if any) “sufferings” would remain?

What, if any, is the cut off point in the elimination of suffering?

For me and mind you this is for my opinion, I would be satisfied with suffering caused by the lack of clear evidence for gods existence and the desires he has for and from us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Well, no. I don't have to. I'm not the one suggesting that a perfect God created the universe.

Personally, I think that perfection is an invalid concept. Perfection assumes a maximal level of greatness, but I don't think such a thing is even possible.

However, the problem of evil is a response to a claim that assumes otherwise: "if God is perfect, why is his creation imperfect?" I have no personal investment whatsoever in the "God is perfect" part of this dilemma.

If you are claiming that we're the product of a perfect creator-god, then it's up to you to define what you mean by "perfect". If you're not claiming this, then the problem of evil doesn't apply: if you're not arguing that God is perfect, then there's no dilemma, but also no reason for us to assume that God is perfect.

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.

Join the club. I stopped seeing a point in continuing this a few pages back.

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.

I see no problem in jumping over the irrelevant parts and getting to the meat of the matter to let the discussion continue.

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".

So this world is the best of all possible worlds? Is that your claim?

It's hard to figure out what you mean, because on the one hand, you say that this world is perfect, but you also say that we're working toward perfection, which implies things aren't perfect yet; which is it?

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.

If you're not happy with what I've given you, then so be it. You've given a lot of irrelevant points that show a misunderstanding of the issues involved; I'd rather not be drawn off-track into that quagmire.

 

[Wombat]

Ok folks.

The question has been asked at least a dozen times and clearly no one is even going to try to answer it or respond to the point being made-

It is impossible to describe or define a "perfect" suffering and pain free existence that will satisfy all atheists let alone all humanity.

It is impossible to describe or define a mere reduction in suffering and pain that does not simply expose and bring to the fore the suffering and pain remaining.

On these grounds the "problem of evil" so frequently put forward by atheists fails and falls....and they are left with the contradiction that the world is too evil for a good God to have created it but not evil enough for good prospective parents to create life in it.

Given repeated oportunity to describe a satisfactory evil reduced/evil free world they cannot identify the degree of reduction necessary, what evils would remain nor describe the desired alternative "perfection"- zero pain, suffering, evil.

Looks like we're done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok folks.

The question has been asked at least a dozen times and clearly no one is even going to try to answer it or respond to the point being made-

It is impossible to describe or define a "perfect" suffering and pain free existence that will satisfy all atheists let alone all humanity.

And that doesn't matter. The mere fact that we can't specify what "perfection" is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now... as I mentioned, I don't think perfection exists at all. However, I'm not running around claiming that a perfect God exists. If you want to say that God is perfect, then we can use your definition of "perfection". If you don't want to say this, then there's no conflict and no problem of evil, but you also can't say that God is perfect.

It is impossible to describe or define a mere reduction in suffering and pain that does not simply expose and bring to the fore the suffering and pain remaining.

Baloney. I already gave one: separate tubes for breathing and eating. Instead of a combined esophagus, we could have one tube going from the nose to the lungs and another going from the mouth to the stomach. Ta da - choking on food could never cut off your oxygen supply. Less needless death, less brain damage due to oxygen deprivation, less suffering.

On these grounds the "problem of evil" so frequently put forward by atheists fails and falls....and they are left with the contradiction that the world is too evil for a good God to have created it but not evil enough for good prospective parents to create life in it.

Again, this isn't a contradiction.

The world's a pretty good place overall. I see no problem in bringing a child into it.

OTOH, while it's pretty good, it has its flaws and can be made better. This implies that the creator of this world (if it was a deliberate creation at all) has flaws as well.

Given repeated oportunity to describe a satisfactory evil reduced/evil free world they cannot identify the degree of reduction necessary, what evils would remain nor describe the desired alternative "perfection"- zero pain, suffering, evil.

If things are perfect, then no evil would remain, no?

Do you think it's unreasonable to surmise that a perfect creator would only create perfect creations?

 

[proffesb]

Ok folks.

The question has been asked at least a dozen times and clearly no one is even going to try to answer it or respond to the point being made-

It is impossible to describe or define a "perfect" suffering and pain free existence that will satisfy all atheists let alone all humanity.

It is impossible to describe or define a mere reduction in suffering and pain that does not simply expose and bring to the fore the suffering and pain remaining.

On these grounds the "problem of evil" so frequently put forward by atheists fails and falls....and they are left with the contradiction that the world is too evil for a good God to have created it but not evil enough for good prospective parents to create life in it.

Given repeated oportunity to describe a satisfactory evil reduced/evil free world they cannot identify the degree of reduction necessary, what evils would remain nor describe the desired alternative "perfection"- zero pain, suffering, evil.

Looks like we're done.

What about my post that you just ignored?

A sufficient reduction of evil would be the elimination of evil caused by not having clear evidence of god and what he wants, expects of us.

edit: I do agree you will never satisfy everyone.

 

[Alceste]

I agree with the Penguin: In a perfect world, whales wouldn't have hip bones.

The point is, I can easily conceive of a world with far less pain and suffering. I can even conceive of a "perfect" world with no pain and suffering (and I'm not alone: isn't that what Christians think heaven is supposed to be?) If I'd created the world and was benevolent, life would not need to consume and destroy other life to survive. For example, we'd all be able to photosynthesize sunlight instead of murdering animals and plants for food. In fact, if I had created the world I would have made all the sentient beings out of pure, immortal spirit - not bound them in fragile prison of meat and bone, doomed in all cases to suffer pain, decay and death, locked in a brutal, murderous competition for resources with all other life forms, and with each other.

Anyone who chooses to differentiate between good and bad can picture a world with nothing bad in it. Even the uneducated, bronze age goat herders that dreamed up the monotheist's afterlife could do it.

Your reasoning is quite specious. If you believe in heaven, do you expect to suffer there as much as you do on earth? If not, your argument has no legs.

 

[Alceste]

BTW, Wombat, have you ever read Candide? If not, you should.

 

[Wombat]

Personally, I think that perfection is an invalid concept..

#33
What, if any, is the cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate &#8220;the problem of evil&#8221;? Wombat

"The cut-off point is perfection." 9-10ths_Penguin

The cut off point in the reduction of pain/suffering to resolve or eliminate &#8220;the problem of evil is "perfection" and "perfection is an invalid concept"

However, the problem of evil is a response to a claim that assumes otherwise: "if God is perfect, why is his creation imperfect?" ..

It is yet to be established that this "creation is imperfect" nor that it is not perfectly suited to its purpose.

If you are claiming that we're the product of a perfect creator-god, then it's up to you to define what you mean by "perfect"...

Nope...I introduced no such "claim", I made no such "claim", I hold any such "claim" to be an irrelivant diversion to the quetion at hand. >You< introduced the notion of "perfection" as the necessary "cut off point" "to resolve or eliminate &#8220;the problem of evil" and now "claim"- "perfection is an invalid concept".

"If you're not claiming this, then the problem of evil doesn't apply:

Not at all....I can conceptualise and rationalise a "perfect creator-gods" attributes without making any "claim" regarding such a being.

I can conceptualise such a being creating this world and this world being perfectly suited to its creators intent....What I cannot conceptualise is the elimination of pain/suffering to the point at which it can be said the "problem of evil doesn't apply"...and clearly neither can you nor any other contributor thus far.

The "problem of evil" can only >be< a problem if it can be argued that the existing evil can be reduced to a satisfactory level or eliminated. When you are asked to identify the satisfactory level/cut off point you would only be satisfied with "perfection"="an invalid concept". In your arguement "the problem of evil" can only be resolved by "an invalid concept".

I see no problem in jumping over the irrelevant parts and getting to the meat of the matter to let the discussion continue...

When someone puts the same question to you over and over again it just might be that you fail to see the relivance unless and untill you attempt to answer it and or attempt to explain its irrelevance. Otherwise it is simply rude obfiscation that debars the discussion continuing.

So this world is the best of all possible worlds? Is that your claim?"...

No .....>that answer< was your unearned "freebie"-
"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."

It's hard to figure out what you mean, because on the one hand, you say that this world is perfect,

Desperate misrepresentation of what was actualy said. Try quoting me and lets see how that pans out.

If you're not happy with what I've given you, then so be it.,

Straight pertinent answers to straight pertinent questions usually satisfy people....try it and see.

You've given a lot of irrelevant points that show a misunderstanding of the issues involved; I'd rather not be drawn off-track into that quagmire.

Yea...yea...right....keep saying "irrelevant points" and "jumping over the irrelevant parts" as if that somehow explains or justifies ignoring the pertinent questions put to you.

In the end you cannot describe or articulate a world of reduced evil or eliminated evil that would resolve the supposed "problem of evil"...and wild horses wont induce you to even try...not after "The cut-off point is perfection"- "perfection is an invalid concept".
With that clanger the "problem of evil" ceased to exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope...I introduced no such "claim", I made no such "claim", I hold any such "claim" to be an irrelivant diversion to the quetion at hand. >You< introduced the notion of "perfection" as the necessary "cut off point" "to resolve or eliminate &#8220;the problem of evil" and now "claim"- "perfection is an invalid concept".

"If you're not claiming this, then the problem of evil doesn't apply:"

Not at all....I can conceptualise and rationalise a "perfect creator-gods" attributes without making any "claim" regarding such a being.

Which is it? Are you saying that God is perfect or not?

If you're not saying this, fine - the problem of evil does not apply to your God. But don't then say that your God is perfect.

If you are, then we've got a working definition of the term "perfect" already, because you just used it.

Either way, there's no need for me to define the term.

 

[Alceste]

I articulated a perfect world, Wombat: the monotheist's "heaven". Care to address my post? Is there pain, disease, violence and suffering in the Christian afterlife? Are people exactly as dissatisfied in heaven as they are on earth, as your argument insists they must be?

 

[Wombat]

I agree with the Penguin: In a perfect world, whales wouldn't have hip bones..

Um...Eliminate evolution and/or the evidence of evolution and we would be in a "perfect world"?

Hell no...I love the fact that whales evolved from little land based mamals...how does scrapping that make the world even better let alone "perfect"?

The point is, I can easily conceive of a world with far less pain and suffering...

Yea...me too...but for the twelth time in this thread- "conceive of a world with far less pain and suffering" and THEN TELL ME WHAT IS LEFT....If pain and suffering in any form remain then the 'problem of evil' must be said to remain.

I can even conceive of a "perfect" world with no pain and suffering

Great! Because that's what I have been asking for over and over. Please desribe it to me. Is there "no pain and suffering" of unrequited love? "no pain and suffering" of unfulfilled desire? "no pain and suffering" at all of any kind?
Please. Tease it out. Think about it. Describe and explore it. No one else is prepared to do so.

Anyone who chooses to differentiate between good and bad can picture a world with nothing bad in it.

Of course they can! PROBLEM IS (and it goes to the core of 'the problem of evil') that when you strip away the big bad (Cancer, Genocide) and get to the remaining bad/evils >your< perception of what is good and bad and >mine< diverge. What gives pleasure to you may be a pain to others. When >you< "chooses to differentiate between good and bad can picture a world with nothing bad in it" you inevitably infringe upon >my< "picture a world with nothing bad in it".

We cannot even define a "perfect person/partner" that satisfies all people let alone a "perfect world"....make it simple and define a "perfect meal"....half the world just went "yuck".
And this is >exactly< what happens to the concept of "the problem of evil"...it runs headfirst into the divergance in perception of what is good and what is bad and no cut off point in reduction of evil can ever be agreed upon.

Your reasoning is quite specious. If you believe in heaven, do you expect to suffer there as much as you do on earth? If not, your argument has no legs.

Ah huh....And if you come into being, directly into a "perfect world"/"heaven" how is your experience of that realm affected by having >nothing< bad to compare it to?

Is heaven enhanced or diminished by having no prior experience?

Think back...when you were a toddler you put everthing you could get your hands on into your mouth...quite a few "bad" and yucky things...and it was on the basis of this experience that 'sweets' had perfect meaning.

I believe that if I get to a realm such as heaven it will have such sweet meaning and significance in comparison to the pain and suffering experienced here and in light of
the pain and suffering experienced here. Factor in I wouldn't have missed the journey that was living this life nor would I have missed the striving, working towards such a heavenly destination.

In fact if I was just plonked in it with no prior comparative experience that would be a bad/evil thing because I would not be able to fully appreciate its value. "Anyone who chooses to differentiate between good and bad can picture a world with nothing bad in it"- just as long as they have some experience of 'bad' to know what 'good' is.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

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?

Are you asking whether deciding to reproduce is immoral?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um...Eliminate evolution and/or the evidence of evolution and we would be in a "perfect world"?

Evolution creates compromises of design. Many of our aspects aren't the way they are because they're best for what we do, but because evolution doesn't allow a pathway from our ancestor species to what would be best for us.

Yea...me too...but for the twelth time in this thread- "conceive of a world with far less pain and suffering" and THEN TELL ME WHAT IS LEFT....If pain and suffering in any form remain then the 'problem of evil' must be said to remain.

Just so we're clear, can you tell us what you think the problem of evil says? Because all through this thread, the way you've been using the term makes me think that you define it differently than the rest of us.

Of course they can! PROBLEM IS (and it goes to the core of 'the problem of evil') that when you strip away the big bad (Cancer, Genocide) and get to the remaining bad/evils >your< perception of what is good and bad and >mine< diverge. What gives pleasure to you may be a pain to others. When >you< "chooses to differentiate between good and bad can picture a world with nothing bad in it" you inevitably infringe upon >my< "picture a world with nothing bad in it".

We cannot even define a "perfect person/partner" that satisfies all people let alone a "perfect world"....make it simple and define a "perfect meal"....half the world just went "yuck".

So if we can't have one "perfect" that suits everyone, is it possible for there to be a god who's "perfect" for everyone?

And this is >exactly< what happens to the concept of "the problem of evil"...it runs headfirst into the divergance in perception of what is good and what is bad and no cut off point in reduction of evil can ever be agreed upon.

It seems to me that your objection to the problem of evil comes from your objections to the concept of perfection.

That's fine - I object to the concept, too. However, if this is the case, this means that the concept isn't available for you to use if you want to describe your god as perfect.

Ah huh....And if you come into being, directly into a "perfect world"/"heaven" how is your experience of that realm affected by having >nothing< bad to compare it to?

Is heaven enhanced or diminished by having no prior experience?

Could a god capable of anything not be capable for compensating for your lack of experience of suffering?

Think back...when you were a toddler you put everthing you could get your hands on into your mouth...quite a few "bad" and yucky things...and it was on the basis of this experience that 'sweets' had perfect meaning.

I believe that if I get to a realm such as heaven it will have such sweet meaning and significance in comparison to the pain and suffering experienced here and in light of
the pain and suffering experienced here. Factor in I wouldn't have missed the journey that was living this life nor would I have missed the striving, working towards such a heavenly destination.

In fact if I was just plonked in it with no prior comparative experience that would be a bad/evil thing because I would not be able to fully appreciate its value. "Anyone who chooses to differentiate between good and bad can picture a world with nothing bad in it"- just as long as they have some experience of 'bad' to know what 'good' is.

So... hypothetically, if I was to torture you to the point where you experienced worse pain that you had ever felt and would ever feel, this would be a charitable act on my part? After all, everything else in your life would become that much better, relatively. Right?

 

[Wombat]

For me and mind you this is for my opinion, I would be satisfied with suffering caused by the lack of clear evidence for gods existence and the desires he has for and from us.

Let me get this straight.

The 'problem of evil' arguement is that God cannot exist or cannot be 'good' because of the pain and suffering in the world....and...
if you had clear and irrefutable evidence that God exists this would remove the "suffering caused by the lack of clear evidence for gods existence" and you would be "satisfied" with that?

Ok....Setting asside the fact that this entails establishing the proof of God so that we might eliminate the problem of evil that prevents the consideration that God might exist....

I'm going to ask what would you accept as "clear evidence for gods existence", would it "satisfy" everyone (as a proof) and would it leave the possibility of someone standing up and declairing- "That can't be God! The problem of evil still exists in the world"!
?

 

[Wombat]

Could a god capable of anything not be capable for compensating for your lack of experience of suffering?

Could an omnipotent God give you an experience of something you have not experienced? Sure...but then you have the small problem of having experienced it.:cover:

So... hypothetically, if I was to torture you to the point where you experienced worse pain that you had ever felt and would ever feel, this would be a charitable act on my part? After all, everything else in your life would become that much better, relatively. Right?

No. Nothing like what I said. But the small pain of having pertinent questions ignored and pov so blatantly misrepresented is an experience that I place in the context of greater tortures...and the comparative pleasure of actually having the points/questions made met and answered.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could an omnipotent God give you an experience of something you have not experienced? Sure...but then you have the small problem of having experienced it.:cover:

That's not what I said.

An all-powerful God can do anything, right?

So could God do something for you that makes you appreciate Heaven just as much as if you had lived a mortal life full of suffering, yet without the unpleasantness for you? If he's all-powerful, then the answer is "yes".

No. Nothing like what I said. But the small pain of having pertinent questions ignored and pov so blatantly misrepresented is an experience that I place in the context of greater tortures...and the comparative pleasure of actually having the points/questions made met and answered.

I haven't deliberately misrepresented your position. I may have misinterpreted your points a couple times (though I think I'm pretty good about asking for confirmation from people that I'm understanding them properly), but you're not exactly easy to follow.

 

[Alceste]

Are you asking whether deciding to reproduce is immoral?

I thought that too, but don't be deceived. It turns out he's asking if any atheist will agree with him that the PoE doesn't disprove the assertion that an onmipotent, benevolent god created this world, and for some inexplicable reason framing it in the context of imperfect, fundamentally powerless human parents bringing forth children in a world full of evil.

It should not have surprised him that atheists would focus on the important, practical part of the OP - whether it is moral to make new humans - rather than debate the character and power of his god, but it did.