Are Atheist parents ‘Mini Gods’?

[Alceste]

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"?



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.



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.



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.



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.

That's not a very direct answer, to be honest. You think God created a world full of suffering so we wouldn't be unhappy in heaven? That implies that if he had just stuck us in heaven in the first place and skipped the world altogether we would have suffered there exactly as much. But then, if that is the case, why create a race of implacable complainers? Why not create beings who know a good thing when they see it?

So, just to be perfectly clear, you believe that a baptized infant who knows nothing of the world and died painlessly in the loving arms of his mother will be exactly unhappy and suffer exactly as much in heaven as she would have on earth if he had lived? I would say that is a terribly unorthodox view.

 

[Alceste]

BTW, Wombat, you can't get where you're trying to go by stripping away evils one by one until they're all gone. This world is fundamentally, structurally, irremediably destructive. Death is the outcome of every life, and that entails suffering. It also provides raw material for the propagation of new life. Without death and pain in this world, nothing would live. To visualize perfection you must start from scratch: a world where life does not need to feed on other life to survive. If you were an omnipotent god who cares about suffering, that world is the one you would make, not this.

 

[Wombat]

That's not a very direct answer, to be honest.


LOL!

Point by point and question by question I met your post.

Try it-


"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."

Not one of you will answer those questions because 'the problem of evil' bites the dust therein.

I would say that is a terribly unorthodox view.

That's ok.
They are all Straw Man speculations of your own making and nothing to do with my pov.
The only thing of interest/curiosity is the general ongoing and steafast refusal to answer my straight pertinent questions...then turn arround and ask straw men of your own.

 

[proffesb]

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....

Why set it aside? Any other reason than it derails the extremely narrow argument that you have set up, any point that gets brought up that you did not already say in your initial post seems to get ignored or stonewalled by you.

I applaud you for making a good argument, but it's only a good argument against a stance that you have limited to such a degree that it cannot stand on the one leg you created for it, i will agree you have successfully pushed that one legged argument over.

Forget creating life, I say creating such a limited argument is not a moral thing to do.

The argument you are attempting to refute should be (in my logic, especially after listening to your points) " If there is a god he is either impotent, indifferent, or evil because there is so much suffering in the world", that argument should not be used on it's own to refute the existence of god. Used properly (and I'm not saying it always or even usually gets used properly) it points out that "miracles" that supposedly prove the existence of god are not supernatural occurrences because they are not miraculous. The whole god hates amputees thing. If god can do anything why doesn't he do anything that cant be faked or explained by other means.

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"!
?

Omnipotent god correct? Are you are saying that god doesn't have the ability to prove himself to everybody?

-If such a god were to reveal himself to everyone that would do it. I know that if every time I said I don't believe in god he showed up and said "WTF?!?!? read this book!" I would believe in him

-If there was a text that made sense and was not clearly a tool written by men to control others that would certainly help.

Those are a couple of ideas I came up with off the top of my head.

Again I applaud you for making me think on this, I just wish I realized how you were doing it sooner.

A little constructive criticism, the way you worded the initial post was confusing, there were several rhetorical questions in it and that can be hard to discern in type. Initially I thought your entire argument was just a small part of the post, I wasn't even concerned with that point just wanted to state the argument as I understood it, and at least address your entire post.

 

[Wombat]

BTW, Wombat, you can't get where you're trying to go by stripping away evils one by one until they're all gone..

The problem with your response is that it's not/never was "where >I'm< trying to go" but what happens when athiests >go< to 'the problem of evil' to reject the posibility of a God. When you examine the problem of evil arguement and start (stripping away evils one by one (untill you cut off or-) until they're all gone) it becomes perfectly clear that one persons "perfect" painless heaven is anothers hell.

"This world is fundamentally, structurally, irremediably destructive. Death is the outcome of every life, and that entails suffering. It also provides raw material for the propagation of new life. Without death and pain in this world, nothing would live."

Your statement above remains true WITH OR WITHOUT GOD...so how can the posibility of a good God be rejected because of what you describe while bringing children into such an "irremediably destructive" environment is an acceptable gamble?

To visualize perfection you must start from scratch: .

"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."

Build it up from scratch or reduce it from what is...no matter to me...just let me know if/when you are prepared to answer the questions that relate to this "perfect scratch built" world- 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?

If you were an omnipotent god who cares about suffering, that world is the one you would make, not this. .

No. Don't bother trying to presume that you know what I would do and projecting it upon me. Your presumption is inaccurate...just more unfounded straw man speculation.

 

[Alceste]

I made one single point, Wombat, and you totally failed to address it: if god were truly benevolent and omnipotent, and a creator of worlds, he would have skipped the "vale of tears" and stuck us directly in paradise as immortal, joyful spirits. Why allow us to suffer at all?

Even a fallible human parent with limited power and benevolence will not allow her children to starve to death or perpetrate violence against other children, and will take concrete, observable steps to reduce the possibility of injury and pain. Otherwise she risks losing her children to the state for neglect.

Do parents argue that they must allow their children to starve in order to better appreciate a meal? They must allow their children to stab one another to better appreciate physical security? That they must create a child-rearing environment full of mortal peril so their children can better appreciate safe places? Not in court, they don't, and for good reason: it's ludicrous.

 

[Alceste]

Also, your claim that "nobody can describe a perfect world" is also ridiculous. The very word "paradise" is shorthand for a concept everybody - theist and non-theist alike - understands: a perfect world of immutable, eternal happiness. The mere fact that the viking paradise has more mead and brawling in it than the Puritan paradise is meaningless. Nobody pretends your god sent the vikings to sing hymns to Jesus, or that Thor sends Christians to a rowdy bar. If your deity is omnipotent, benevolent, and a creator of worlds there is no reason a world of perpetual happiness couldn't be independently created for each and every one of us, with an infinite number of "spares".

Face it, the PoE is a genuine conundrum for the monotheistic world view, a death knell for one of your god's alleged characteristics: either he is not omnipotent, he is not benevolent, or he did not create this world. Take your pick.

BTW, I don't believe in an interventionist god because there is no evidence of one. It has nothing to do with the PoE, and I have never used it to argue god/s don't exist. Only that three alleged characteristics of one particular god can not simultaneously be true, whether or not gods and / or goddesses exist. I have never believed in the monotheistic god. The PoE is for theists to wrestle with, not atheists.

 

[Penumbra]

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

It's clear that your OP was misleading, so there's nothing more to clarify. You asked about bringing children into this world, when really you want to discuss the Problem of Evil.

It's silly to get frustrated when people don't answer your questions when your thread topic is all over the place.

That being said, I'm going to cut out a lot of the clutter of your last reply to me and focus on a primary topic.

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".
.................................

The cutoff point is debatable, so it's not really an answerable question. I don't see why you're so focused on that question, as it's basically a straw man.

The cutoff point does not need to be identified in order for the Problem of Evil to be valid. Only one improvement needs to be identified in order for it to be a valid argument.

Here are several improvements:
-Don't utilize a sadistic system involving lifeforms needing to kill and eat other lifeforms to survive.
-Tone down the maximum level of agony that can be possibly experienced.
-Don't add harmful body parasites, like worms that can get in intestines or eyes or the brain and whatnot.
-Make the teeth made out of a material that cannot decay from bacteria.
-Don't include the existence of gravely disabling genetic defects.
-Eliminate viruses. They're basically just elaborate torture/murder devices.

Really, that's only the tip of the iceberg. The entire way this universe operates is chaotic and messy, and indifferent towards life, and would likely need to be completely overhauled if the purpose of it was to provide maximum flourishing and well-being of life.

 

[Wombat]

I'm going to cut out a lot of the clutter of your last reply to me and focus on a primary topic. .

What is truely amazing is that your “focus” does not include >any attempt< to actually answer the question-

Quote:
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”.
Quote:
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".
.................................

The cutoff point is debatable,.

No. The cut off point is >IMPOSSIBLE< that’s why no one will answer, discuss or “debate” it.

so it's not really an answerable question..

It is “not an answerable question” because it is perfectly clear that each and every elimination of suffering only succeeds in bringing the ones beneath to the fore.

I don't see why you're so focused on that question, .

Because when you are eventually compelled to try to confront it there is no alternative to the recognition that no satisfactory reduction of suffering resolves the problem of evil nor is instant gratification perfect paradise devoid of prior experience a good or better thing.

as it's basically a straw man. .

No. A “straw man” would require a fabricated pov being projected onto you then argued against.
That has not occurred.

The cutoff point does not need to be identified in order for the Problem of Evil to be valid. Only one improvement needs to be identified in order for it to be a valid argument. .

That assertion >could only be true< if the “one improvement” eliminated all Evil...if >any< evil remains then the “Problem of Evil” logically remains.

Here are several improvements:.

Great...all those ills, evils and sufferings are now conceptually eliminated.
Care to “focus” on the remaining evils you still steadfastly ignore- “But I am suffering jealousy and unrequited love!...God >CANNOT< exist”.

Really, that's only the tip of the iceberg..

Hey! That’s >my< argument! Cut off “only the tip of the Evil iceberg” and the previously unoticed evils below pop to the surface...keep cutting the tip of the Evil iceberg and more evil is exposed.
The >only< way to resolve the problem of evil icebergs is to cut/melt >the entire thing away”.
And if that is done >prior< to your coming into existence you have no way of knowing/appreciating the suffering of cold, hot, dangerous, frightening....you name it...if it was a potential source of pain/evil or even discomfort...you didn’t get to experience or know about it.

The entire way this universe operates is chaotic and messy, and indifferent towards life, and would likely need to be completely overhauled if the purpose of it was to provide maximum flourishing and well-being of life.

The entire way this universe operates is a theatre of chaos and order, messy and precision neatness, indifferent towards life and life enhancing, and our view of it would likely need to be completely overhauled if we are to develop a BALLANCED perspective and understand the purpose of it was to provide maximum flourishing and well-being of life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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;.
Quote:
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're asking two different questions there.

What is the cutoff point of suffering where we would conclude that God cannot exist? There isn't one.

You can construct a theology that's consistent with any level of suffering. It's just that whatever the level of suffering, it reflects on the character (or maybe the abilities) of God.

What is the cutoff point where "any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God"? You just said it yourself: any slight imperfection.

If God is a perfect creator, then any imperfection in his creation, no matter how slight, is impossible. Maybe this means that God doesn't exist at all, or maybe it means that God is less than perfect, but it does mean that a perfect God does not exist.

Hey! That&#8217;s >my< argument! Cut off &#8220;only the tip of the Evil iceberg&#8221; and the previously unoticed evils below pop to the surface...keep cutting the tip of the Evil iceberg and more evil is exposed.

The >only< way to resolve the problem of evil icebergs is to cut/melt >the entire thing away&#8221;.

You're probably right.

So is an all-powerful God capable of "melting the entire iceberg"?

 

[Alceste]

Wombat, given that the PoE is not used to disprove the existence of God, but to demonstrate that one of his alleged characteristics (omnipotence, benevolence or being responsible for creation) must be untrue, your question is a bit of a straw man. Since atheists don't maintain that the PoE disproves gods without those alleged characteristics, asking them to "draw the line" at where god becomes possible or likely is futile. For a god with those three alleged properties, nothing short of total perfection will do. I suspect that's why people who believe in this particular god make up an afterlife in paradise. There must be a perfect existence lined up for us for all three of these claims to be true.

As a non-believer in your god, I have a fundamentally different perspective. Not believing in a perfect creator, I don't struggle to accept that a certain amount of ugliness is inevitable, given the way life on earth perseveres (cannibalism, basically). Not being preoccupied with the threat earthly ugliness poses to the theistic world view, I am free to make this world as blissful a place as I can imagine. I am free to be happy here, and to live in this world in abject wonder and amazement until it's my turn to be cannibalized. This is my paradise, warts and all. Having already "received my reward", in the form of consciousness, I have no need to imagine an afterlife.

 

[Wombat]

Why set it aside? Any other reason than it derails the extremely narrow argument that you have set up,.

I have already answered “Why set it aside”- “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....”

It has already been put that the ‘problem of evil’ in the world may be said to exist >irrespective< of the existence (or not) of God...this point has not been challenged or refuted. An argument that requires evidence/proof of God towards the end of establishing if a good God might exist is a logical absurdity.
( PS. The argument presented is precise and to the point...if you wish to argue that it is too “narrow” you need to substantiate the assertion by providing example of relevant broadened parameters)

any point that gets brought up that you did not already say in your initial post seems to get ignored or stonewalled by you..

When I make such a complaint I provide cite/quote/evidence example of the question/issue that is being ignored. Simply claiming something “>seems< to get ignored or stonewalled” without providing substantiation must be seen as no more than an attempt to muddy the waters without justification.

I applaud you for making a good argument, but it's only a good argument against a stance that you have limited to such a degree that it cannot stand on the one leg you created for it, i will agree you have successfully pushed that one legged argument over..

Thank you for the encouragement...I wish I could say the same for the responses. Are you familiar with the sporting term- ‘A Hat Trick’? Three of the same in a row?...With your unsubstantiated assertion re “a stanc..... limited to such a degree that it cannot stand on the one leg” you have achieved a Hat Trick...Three such assertions in a row all devoid of >any< substantiating argument or evidence.

Forget creating life, I say creating such a limited argument is not a moral thing to do .

I don’t know what follows a Hat Trick...but that was four in a row. If you can ever cite, show, explain or justify how and why it is “such a limited argument” I will be most interested. Until then,
Repertition of an assertion unaccompanied by evidence, example or substantiation does not lend the assertion extra weight.

The argument you are attempting to refute should be (in my logic, especially after listening to your points) " If there is a god he is either impotent, indifferent, or evil because there is so much suffering in the world",.

Um....>THAT IS< the argument I am “attempting to refute” (In fact the success of the refutation resides in the ongoing refusal to answer the points/questions in prior post ;-)

that argument should not be used on it's own to refute the existence of god..

That argument cannot be used at all “to refute the existence of god”.
It was refuted and lay in indefensible ruin at the point at which atheists could not identify a cut off point for the elimination of pain/suffering/evil nor articulate a “perfect” world.

Used properly (and I'm not saying it always or even usually gets used properly) it points out that "miracles" that supposedly prove the existence of god are not supernatural occurrences because they are not miraculous. .

Oh Please.....>Anyone< who claims that “ "miracles"... supposedly prove the existence of god” is a fruitloop religious nutter with no conception of ‘evidence’ let alone “proof”.

How, why and to what end do you wish to broaden >the arguement< and/or suggest >my arguement< (“argument you are attempting to refute should be...”) better served by the inclusion of nonsense about “miracles”?
If this is an example of a non “limited argument”....then No Thanks.

The whole god hates amputees thing. If god can do anything why doesn't he do anything that cant be faked or explained by other means..

With respect....What on earth does this have to do with the atheist argument re ‘the problem of evil” in general or anything I have said specific? Not attempting to “stonewall”...just cannot see the relivance/connection.

Omnipotent god correct? Are you are saying that god doesn't have the ability to prove himself to everybody?.

Certainly not. But you, as the proponent of proof of God as the solution to the problem of evil need to identify >how God< should prove himself, >why God< should prove himself, the >ramifications to free will< of God proving himself and finally but most importantly how (if at all) such proof resolves the problem of evil?

-If such a god were to reveal himself to everyone that would do it..

“that would do it”? “Do” what? Eliminate any sense of free will/choice through the >certain knowledge< that God exists and there is >no chance< of getting away with anything without God knowing about it. For atheists, agnostics and many theists such as myself your solution would create a WORLD OF SUFFERING/RESTRAINT on free will.

I know that if every time I said I don't believe in god he showed up and said "WTF?!?!? read this book!" I would believe in him..

You’re seriously advocating such HAUNTING by God “every time” you said something oppositional to God?...... Seriously?
What a freaking painful suffering nightmare that would be........>NO THANKS<

 

[Wombat]

I made one single point, Wombat, and you totally failed to address it: if god were truly benevolent and omnipotent, and a creator of worlds, he would have skipped the "vale of tears" and stuck us directly in paradise as immortal, joyful spirits. Why allow us to suffer at all?.

Your question was and remains answered in #54 beginning with- “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?”

In #61 you blow the entire answer off as “not a very direct answer” but once more fail to say how or why...further...you ignore all pertinent questions that seek to do you the courtesy of exploring/understanding your pov...and finally you turn around and assert, despite the clear evidence, that I “totally failed to address” your “single point”.


Please observe...I will continue to answer your points/questions even as you continually ignore mine-

Even a fallible human parent with limited power and benevolence will not allow her children to starve to death or perpetrate violence against other children, and will take concrete, observable steps to reduce the possibility of injury and pain. Otherwise she risks losing her children to the state for neglect..

Goes straight back to the problem of suffering evil...>IF< God omnipotent exists and there is an eternal afterlife then any and all temporal suffering pales into the insignificance of a skun knee. Ultimately >no enduring harm< can befall a human being if such a God exists. If such a God does not exist then the very real possibility that a child will “starve to death or perpetrate violence against other children” >remains< and atheist are (logically) obliged to explain the morality/ethicality of the “gamble” of bringing children into a suffering world that no good God could have created.

Do parents argue that they must allow their children to starve in order to better appreciate a meal?.

No. Good parents do not give in to immature child demands for the “perfection” of instant gratification and food on demand. Children cry and scream their suffering “But I’m STARVING!”...good parents respond “Wait until dinner time” and provide the heavenly supper when chores are done and hands are washed.

Also, your claim that "nobody can describe a perfect world" is also ridiculous. The very word "paradise" is shorthand for a concept everybody - theist and non-theist alike - understands: a perfect world of immutable, eternal happiness..

Yes. They also understand it is something that by appreciative necessity comes at >the end< of an experiential journey. Screaming for “Paradise Now Daddy!...I’m starving” is an immature expectation..

 

[Wombat]

You're asking two different questions there.

No....I&#8217;m asking the >same< question >twice< rephrased

What is the cutoff point of suffering where we would conclude that God cannot exist? There isn't one.

No. Now you are rephrasing the question flipped 180degrees inaccurately...try- What is the cutoff point of suffering where we would conclude that God can/posibly exist?

There isn't one.There can't be one. And That recognition eliminates the 'problem of evil' arguement.

You can construct a theology that's consistent with any level of suffering. It's just that whatever the level of suffering, it reflects on the character (or maybe the abilities) of God.

And &#8220;whatever the level of suffering, it reflects on the character&#8221; of >WHOEVER< brings life into being to experience such suffering. It cuts both ways...and you cant have your 'problem of evil' cake against God and not eat it too.

What is the cutoff point where "any slight imperfection would cause problems for belief in a perfect God"? You just said it yourself: any slight imperfection.

No. I didn&#8217;t &#8220;just say it myself&#8221; I was quoting the person who >did< say it (that&#8217;s what quotation marks are for 9-10ths). I quoted it to emphasise the point that there can be no cut off in the reduction of suffering that will eliminate the &#8216;problem of evil&#8217;

If God is a perfect creator, then any imperfection in his creation, no matter how slight, is impossible.

Now you are obliged to establish that there >IS< any &#8220;imperfection in his creation&#8221;.
And to do so you must start from the perspective of a created being that is not omnipotent, not all seeing and not all wise and comes seeking &#8220;perfection&#8221; from the perspective of individual taste and proclivities. (As >we all are<).

>Your< &#8216;perfect&#8217; partner may be repulsive to me.
The &#8220;imperfection&#8221; you perceive I might call a &#8216;Beauty Spot&#8217;.
A &#8216;perfect&#8217; white China plate can be purchased for less than a dollar...Raku pottery that celebrates the &#8220;imperfections&#8217; can fetch tens of thousands of dollars.
Atheists bemoan a world of imperfection pain and suffering...I think the world is the perfect experiential school/theatre/training ground >because of the imperfections&#8221; and because the imperfections are so eloquently juxtaposed and balanced by the perfections and the opportunities.

Maybe this means that God doesn't exist at all, or maybe it means that God is less than perfect, but it does mean that a perfect God does not exist.

"Maybe,maybe"...They are all interesting unverifiable speculations that can be carried through to- Maybe a perfect God has created a world that seems perfect to some, imperfect to others and intolerable to others still and maybe that&#8217;s the perfect way for the world to be. All these &#8220;maybes&#8221; cannot be determined and/or resolved.
What can be know is that it is not logically reasonable to deem the world so intolerable that a creator God could not exist and then turn around and argue that it&#8217;s tolerable enough and an acceptable gamble to bring children into it. >That< constitutes a rational/logical and moral/ethical contradiction.

So is an all-powerful God capable of "melting the entire iceberg"?

Certainly...there can be no limits on &#8220;an all-powerful God&#8221;...and &#8216;death&#8217; quite possibly the "melting the entire iceberg&#8221;. (If theists are right in this they will find out...but if atheists are right no one will ever know ;-)

But the question is would &#8220;perfection&#8221; be achieved by being created into a realm completely devoid of any and all pain, suffering and discomfort?

What would you >be<? What could you >do<? What would be the nature and quality of your existence if just born into a completely suffering free existence with no prior experience of pain, frustration, longing, uncertainty, fear....?

If complete &#8220;"melting the entire (evil) iceberg&#8221; &#8220;perfect&#8221; perpetual bliss/heaven/paradise is your demand/expectation/desire then is it >ACHIEVABLE< or >MEANINGFUL< or even >WORH HAVING< if it is devoid of any prior negative experience to compare it to?

 

[Penumbra]

What is truely amazing is that your “focus” does not include >any attempt< to actually answer the question-

Because the question is not important, and I explained why.

More importantly, it's bait. Your OP was bait: you wanted to discuss the PoE rather than what you presented in the OP. And this question is bait, because it attempts to discredit the PoE but misses the point. Whether it is answered or not, the PoE stands.

A cut-off point is debatable because perfection is a subjective concept and rather nonsensical when applied to something as complex as a universe. A better way of going about it is to debate if this is the best of all possible worlds, and if it is not, then there does not likely exist a powerful and benevolent deity.

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”.
Quote:
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".
.................................

No. The cut off point is >IMPOSSIBLE< that’s why no one will answer, discuss or “debate” it.

You've been answered; you just didn't like the answer.

It is “not an answerable question” because it is perfectly clear that each and every elimination of suffering only succeeds in bringing the ones beneath to the fore.

Not really. There are different levels of suffering. And some suffering is constructive in some ways, while other types of suffering are purely destructive. I don't think something like jealousy can truly be compared to starving to death or being raped and murdered or being eaten by a bear as just different kinds of suffering.

Because when you are eventually compelled to try to confront it there is no alternative to the recognition that no satisfactory reduction of suffering resolves the problem of evil nor is instant gratification perfect paradise devoid of prior experience a good or better thing.

I never argued that instant gratification is perfect paradise. Please do not substitute others answers for my own.

No. A “straw man” would require a fabricated pov being projected onto you then argued against.

That assertion >could only be true< if the “one improvement” eliminated all Evil...if >any< evil remains then the “Problem of Evil” logically remains.

That's where the debate begins. It's debatable because different people have different views of perfection, as it's a multi-faceted concept.

But most agree that, say, something like harmful flesh-eating bacteria is not an aspect of a perfect universe. Or terrible genetic defects that cannot be cured.

The point is, if simply one improvement can be provided, the universe is demonstrated to be flawed. And the number of possible improvements is nearly limitless.

Great...all those ills, evils and sufferings are now conceptually eliminated.

Care to “focus” on the remaining evils you still steadfastly ignore- “But I am suffering jealousy and unrequited love!...God >CANNOT< exist”.

Hey! That’s >my< argument! Cut off “only the tip of the Evil iceberg” and the previously unoticed evils below pop to the surface...keep cutting the tip of the Evil iceberg and more evil is exposed.
The >only< way to resolve the problem of evil icebergs is to cut/melt >the entire thing away”.
And if that is done >prior< to your coming into existence you have no way of knowing/appreciating the suffering of cold, hot, dangerous, frightening....you name it...if it was a potential source of pain/evil or even discomfort...you didn’t get to experience or know about it.

One could still appreciate cold, hot, dangerous, frightening without having the universe be in its current form.

Plus you'd have to explain why experiencing those things is worthwhile anyway.

Why would a benevolent and powerful deity allow these things to exist in its system:
-Lifeforms needing to kill and eat other lifeforms to survive.
-Extreme agony.
-Harmful body parasites, like worms that can get in intestines or eyes or the brain and whatnot.
-Bodily decay and damage that does not fully heal.
-The existence of gravely disabling genetic defects.
-Viruses. They're basically just elaborate torture/murder devices.

The entire way this universe operates is a theatre of chaos and order, messy and precision neatness, indifferent towards life and life enhancing, and our view of it would likely need to be completely overhauled if we are to develop a BALLANCED perspective and understand the purpose of it was to provide maximum flourishing and well-being of life.

Explain to me how a five year old child dying of disease, or a deer being painfully attacked and killed by a wolf in a forest, provides maximum flourishing and well-being of life.

 

[Alceste]

Ok, Wombat. During the Guatemalan civil war, hoardes of soldiers swept through the countryside slaughtering entire villages and absorbing all the young boys into the army. These boys would be brought to the next village, where they were made to rape and murder the women and girls horrifically. Brutally. Slowly. Sadistically. Sometimes impaling them on sharpened poles. Just as they had just seen their mothers, sisters and friends be raped and murdered. They had to do it or be killed.

Now, if I understand you, what these murdered women and girls and their sons went through is, to you and your god, "no biggie". And if the survivors were to complain, as far as you and your god are concerned, they're just being selfish, whiny and immature, like children demanding instant gratification. What they witnessed and suffered was all totally necessary so that heaven would be more fun. Is that about right? I just want to be sure I understand you correctly before I offer my verdict on the "benevolence" of your god and his fitness to care for his "children."

And btw, I feed children when they are hungry, meal time or not. Does that mean I am more "benevolent" than god?

 

[Wombat]

Quote:

No. The cut off point is >IMPOSSIBLE< that’s why no one will answer, discuss or “debate” it.

You've been answered; you just didn't like the answer. .

Why did you just cut your own supposed answer from the quoted exchange? Did you not like it or not wish others to see it?

Here it is- “The cutoff point is debatable, so it's not really an answerable question.”
That is not an answer to the question. That is simply avoiding it by pretending it is “answerable” because it is “debatable”.

No matter....the issue is concluded with your recognition of my longstanding assertion that no “cut off” point is achievable and “perfection” is “subjective”. The problem of evil can thus not apply to God or prospective parents.

Quote:
It is “not an answerable question” because it is perfectly clear that each and every elimination of suffering only succeeds in bringing the ones beneath to the fore.

Not really. There are different levels of suffering..

What!!!???........That’s >EXACTLY< what I just said!

And some suffering is constructive in some ways, while other types of suffering are purely destructive..

Yea? Name identify and specify the “purely destructive” sufferings...the ones for which >no< “constructive in some ways” argument can be made for?

I don't think something like jealousy can truly be compared to starving to death or being raped and murdered or being eaten by a bear as just different kinds of suffering..

Oh for the Luva God! 1/ There is a vital distinction between “compared” and >equated<...you can compare “starving” to ‘jealousy’ as sufferings without >equating< “starving” to ‘jealousy’.
2/Most importantly so with emphasis- YOU CANNOT COMPARE “starving to death or being raped” with >ANYTHING< if you are born into a realm in which they don’t exist and of which you have no knowledge or experience. In such a realm THE NEXT/LOWER “different levels of suffering” BECOME YOUR PRIMARY SUFFERINGS AND JEALOUSY IS NOW UP AT THE TOP BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING BIGGER (no rape no starving) TO >>>COMPARE<<<< IT TO!!!
You have dragged yourself back to the same unanswered question- “the pain/suffering elimination cut off point”!!!!
You try to tell me "the question is not important" and then you bang your pov head first into the question >again<.
'Cut off point'-There isn’t one, there can’t be one. Debating/answering the question reveals that.
Quote:
Because when you are eventually compelled to try to confront it there is no alternative to the recognition that no satisfactory reduction of suffering resolves the problem of evil nor is instant gratification perfect paradise devoid of prior experience a good or better thing.

I never argued that instant gratification is perfect paradise. Please do not substitute others answers for my own. .

I haven’t. “instant gratification perfect paradise devoid of prior experience” is the only rational ‘problem of evil’ argument alternative once “recognition that no satisfactory reduction of suffering resolves the problem of evil”. You have dragged your argument back to “debating” the “impossible”...trying to establish a cut off point in comparative/layered evils.
Quote:

That assertion >could only be true< if the “one improvement” eliminated all Evil...if >any< evil remains then the “Problem of Evil” logically remains.

But most agree that,.

argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

something like harmful flesh-eating bacteria is not an aspect of a perfect universe..

From your “subjective” view of a “perfect universe”.
From my “subjective” view of a “perfect universe” the challenge those little suckers provide is no greater than any other challenge we have faced, overcome and gained from throughout history.
Not so long ago your ancestors were huddled in a cold damp cave bemoaning the flesh eating lions...now you’re on the Net drinking hot chocolate conversing in comfort with folk on the other side of the planet and bemoaning the flesh-eating bacteria....
Build a bridge, get over it, help find or fund a cure, your ancestors did, it’s an exciting adventure in a “perfect universe”, write a script with a happy ending.

Or terrible genetic defects that cannot be cured..

You have evidence or proof they “cannot be cured”?
Meet my friend Genetic Engineering....your “genetic defects” are just big growly cats...they don’t stand a chance and will end up on our laps.

The point is, if simply one improvement can be provided, the universe is demonstrated to be flawed..

No. “if simply one improvement can be provided, the universe is demonstrated to be” a place of challenge, learning, striving, cooperation, overcoming, excitement, danger, frustration, compassion, love, joy, trust, hope and victory.
What’s to do in a world/home/life that requires no “improvement”? If I’m not turning lions into lap cats I’m just going to be bit**ing about mowing the lawn.

And the number of possible improvements is nearly limitless..

Yea! Makes for a great exciting ongoing challenging universe don’t it!

One could still appreciate cold, hot, dangerous, frightening without having the universe be in its current form..

Sure you could...go for it...start cutting off the ice berg tip and let me know when you have reached your reduction of suffering/evil cut off point or your “subjective perfection”.

 

[Wombat]

Plus you'd have to explain why experiencing those things is worthwhile anyway.

Ok-
LIFE!
In >all< its complexity, pain, joy, suffering, exaltation and loving, lions to lap cats, wonder!

Why would a benevolent and powerful deity allow these things to exist in its system:.

Profoundly limited human presuming to guesswork/speak for the All Knowing All Mighty?
Yea I’ll play...as long as we understand I don’t claim to (or want to) know the purpose of everything.

-Lifeforms needing to kill and eat other lifeforms to survive..

Risen apes not fallen angels. We start from an animal baseline and work/evolve our way up. Wonderful journey made possible by a full range of examples and choices- savage carnivore through gentle herbivore. If you don’t know you can’t choose.

-Extreme agony. .

Have had Renal Colic...they call it “Childbirth for men”... “Extreme agony” for several hours, an alarm system to let you know something is seriously wrong...Pethidine was interesting, just being eyeballs and a brain...and I met a very nice and compassionate Nurse.
I did not enjoy the pain...but I would not have missed the whole experience nor have it removed from my life.
Need I go on? The answers are all along the same lines.

Explain to me how a five year old child dying of disease, or a deer being painfully attacked and killed by a wolf in a forest, provides maximum flourishing and well-being of life..

Deserves/needs a thread of its own.

Bottom line...Take God out of the picture and you >STILL< have death, disease, wolves and suffering and require an ethical/moral rationale for bringing children into the world if God is to be debarred by the (defunct and unsustainable) argument of ‘the problem of evil’

 

[Wombat]

Now, if I understand you, what these murdered women and girls and their sons went through is, to you and your god, "no biggie".

No. You don't "understand" me. And if you slowed down long enough to read, >think about<, and then respond to what has actually been said perhaps you would not find it necessary to resort to such blatant straw man misrepresentation of my pov.

What they witnessed and suffered was all totally necessary so that heaven would be more fun. Is that about right?".

Contemptible disingenuous extrapolation of what I have actually said that only seeks to demean the other and make further dialogue untenable.

Good luck with restoring your credibility after that lamentable and lacklustre display.

 

[Alceste]

Lol, Wombat, is that your final answer? A bunch of personal insults? I'll count that as a win, then. BTW, at least three people have answered your question, all with similar answers: as long as one single imperfection, evil or source of suffering remains, the PoE illustrates that either your god is not omnipotent, he is not benevolent, or he did not create the universe.

By the way you're rambling on and on to yourself without listening to anyone, it sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself the PoE is not a threat to your theology, not us. Don't lash out at me because you need to rethink your god concept. I didn't come up with it. I am a fairly modern rational contemplative, not an apologist for the superstitions of a bronze age tribe unfamiliar with the rules of logic.