Are Atheist parents ‘Mini Gods’?

[Alceste]

Also, repeatedly saying people who don't share your opinion can't possibly have read it or thought about it is kind of tacky. Have you considered the possibility that they read it, understood it, and simply disagree because you are wrong?

 

[Wombat]

Lol, Wombat, is that your final answer? A bunch of personal insults?.

"A bunch of personal insults"?

String em up...all together or one by one...let's take a look at them.

Can't have you feeling all "lashed out" at without taking a good close look at the vitriol you have been subjected to.

I'll count that as a win,.

If it makes you feel better then go for it...do a victory dance on the solid foundation of "A bunch of personal insults" that can't be seen, can't be presented... don't exist.

Credibility will certainly thereby be restored.

 

[Alceste]

Lol, are you serious? You honestly don't think your posts are insulting? You can't be bothered to scroll up one post to check?

Wow! You're really something, Wombat.

 

[Wombat]

Lol, are you serious? You honestly don't think your posts are insulting? .

"A bunch of personal insults"?

String em up...all together or one by one...let's take a look at them.

Can't have you feeling all "lashed out" at without taking a good close look at the vitriol you have been subjected to.
...............................

You can't be bothered to scroll up one post to check?.

Sure I did. I can't find "A bunch of personal insults", you can't present "A bunch of personal insults", logical conclusion..."A bunch of personal insults" does not exist.

Wow! You're really something, Wombat.

I sure am. And your allegation regarding "A bunch of personal insults" is clearly really nothing.

 

[Alceste]

Incessant facepalms, CAPS LOCK, multiple exclamation points and question marks, >weirdly stressing every other word<, repeatedly accusing others of poor reading comprehension, evasion and thoughtlessness, all the while skimming past the very simple, clear response to your allegedly "ignored" question (the one no atheist can answer) that EVERYBODY in this thread has patiently delivered repeatedly and in many different ways, despite your apparent disinterest:

One single imperfection is one too many if this world is to have been the creation of a benevolent, omnipotent deity.

That's your answer. Deal with it, and stop trying to convince yourself we just don't understand the question.

 

[Wombat]

"A bunch of personal insults"

, CAPS LOCK,.

IS A "PERSONAL INSULT" TO YOU?

, multiple exclamation points and question marks

Is a "personal insult" to you!!!???

, >weirdly stressing every other word<

Is a "personal insult" to >you<?

, repeatedly accusing others of poor reading comprehension,

When you read the words "personal" and "insult" what do you comprehend them to mean?

Incessant facepalms ,

are "personaly insulting" to you?

One single imperfection is one too many if this world is to have been the creation of a benevolent, omnipotent deity.

[youtube]4gv5Z2yPRlw[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gv5Z2yPRlw

That's your answer. Deal with it,.

 

[proffesb]

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

So you were accusing me of selectively editing your question. I'm pretty sure I attempted to answer your entire question. If you had asked the question(s) in a clear concise manner I would not have felt the need to cut out parts of your post that seemed repetitious.

So by your standards please answer the second bulleted point below

(in reference to the question what proof of god would satisfy everyone)

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.

Also do you understand what I meant with my constructive criticism?

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)

My point is not logical absurdity, I understand why you may have thought that. I will attempt to clarify my argument.

You asked at what cutoff point of suffering would be acceptable to prove an all knowing, all loving, all powerful god (from now on in this argument I'm just using god).

I responded with stating that there is suffering caused by the lack of proof of god, This statement does make the challanged argument (suffering proves no god) moot, but it is a direct answer to your question of what level of suffering is acceptable.
God (as described in this argument) would not allow suffering caused by the lack of proof.

You ask one question, when it gets answered you say a different question wasn't answered.

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.

You have limited the argument to assume that lack of proof for god is necessary so you have called my cutoff point of suffering an unacceptable argument,

You have dismissed the answer of all suffering because it is not possible, seems an all powerful god should be able to make each of us lowly humans free of suffering.

"Must" be seen?

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.

Gods miracles are often used as proof of his omnipotence, the fact that their is no miracle that cannot be faked or attributed to other means is an example of how he is not all powerful. The fact that he has not once shown his omnipotence in a verifiable way shows he is not all loving or all powerfull.

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.

answered above.

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?

You have stated that all suffering cannot be eliminated and asked for a cutoff point I have given you one within the frame work you have setup and now you say I haven't addressed your question.

“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.

How would this cause restraint on free will? Theist already believe in it and they claim their faith/knowledge of god fulfills them. Athiests would thus be so fulfilled.

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<

Again how is this a nightmare? If proof of a theist beliefs would be a nightmare then theist believe in a nightmare.

This is where you selective chose not to answer my whole post, again a practice less moral than bringing kids into the world. I have cut parts of both our posts in order to remove repetative ideas, If I have removed anything changing the context of what you are saying please be specific and I will address it, these long posts are getting tiresome.

 

[Wombat]

So you were accusing me of selectively editing your question..

Yes. And I provided the evidence thereof...and you have "selectively edited" that too.

No matter.

I'm pretty sure I attempted to answer your entire question..

Well...Who could argue with your "pretty sure" belief up against the evidence I provided and you "selectively edited"?

Here's me pointing out the last time you tried to make it vanish-
.......................
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”.
.........................
Simply miraculous the way these things just appear and disappear isn’t it?

If you had asked the question(s) in a clear concise manner I would not have felt the need to cut out parts of your post that seemed repetitious...

Ah huh...My lack of "clear concise manner" obliged you to "selectively edited" your half answer....twice........?

My point is not logical absurdity, I understand why you may have thought that. I will attempt to clarify my argument.

You asked at what cutoff point of suffering would be acceptable to prove an all knowing, all loving, all powerful god .

No. I didn't ask "at what cutoff point of suffering would be acceptable to >prove<..." anything.

My question was clear and precise and >not< about prooving God.

Never mind.

God (as described in this argument) would not allow suffering caused by the lack of proof. .

No...of course not...a good kind compassionate and loving God would-
" every time you said you don't believe in god he would show up and say "WTF?!?!? read this book!" and he would do this for everyone, little kids, old ladies with Pacemakers, drunks... everytime someone said (or even thought) "I don't believe in god " he would show up- POOF!- just like that...and prove he exists...and no one would ever be freaked out by this...and it wouldn't be a freaking nightmare...it would be all cool and the end of the problem of evil........


I'm done.

Thanks for giving it a shot.

 

[proffesb]

Yes. And I provided the evidence thereof...and you have "selectively edited" that too.

No matter.



Well...Who could argue with your "pretty sure" belief up against the evidence I provided and you "selectively edited"?

Here's me pointing out the last time you tried to make it vanish-
.......................
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- &#8220;The cutoff point is debatable, so it's not really an answerable question.&#8221;
That is not an answer to the question. That is simply avoiding it by pretending it is &#8220;answerable&#8221; because it is &#8220;debatable&#8221;.
.........................
Simply miraculous the way these things just appear and disappear isn&#8217;t it?


Ah huh...My lack of "clear concise manner" obliged you to "selectively edited" your half answer....twice........?



No. I didn't ask "at what cutoff point of suffering would be acceptable to >prove<..." anything.

My question was clear and precise and >not< about prooving God.

Never mind.



No...of course not...a good kind compassionate and loving God would-
" every time you said you don't believe in god he would show up and say "WTF?!?!? read this book!" and he would do this for everyone, little kids, old ladies with Pacemakers, drunks... everytime someone said (or even thought) "I don't believe in god " he would show up- POOF!- just like that...and prove he exists...and no one would ever be freaked out by this...and it wouldn't be a freaking nightmare...it would be all cool and the end of the problem of evil........


I'm done.

Thanks for giving it a shot.

I will agree that I have selectively edited your argument and my answers to try and make both of our points more clear, I freely admit to this, brought it to your attention, and asked for your verification. I would like a clear "unmuddied" discussion.

You selectively edited out points and questions I have made.

what about having a reliable text?

what about your limiting of the question?

I agree you are done.

 

[Penumbra]

Quote:

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

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. You've received answers.

The question isn't even applicable or important to me because it doesn't even have a place in my worldview. I don't use the Problem of Evil to argue that it's impossible for a powerful and benevolent deity to exist. I use the Problem of Evil to showcase how problematic it is to suggest a powerful and benevolent deity exists in this universe. The more needless and unimaginably bad suffering exists, the less likely it is that something like a benevolent and powerful deity exists.

So a "cutoff point" isn't even applicable there because it's a continuous assessment rather than a discrete one.

In a debate, you have to actually listen to the people discussing things with you rather than repeating the same point over and over again even though people have answered your question or pointed out why it isn't important.

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?

What did I cut? I quoted your post as it was, as far as I can tell, and none of my posts here have any edits.

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.

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


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

Purely destructive sufferings are like the ones I've mentioned. Things like agony and death of little children, violence and pain towards random animals in the wild, cruel diseases, and illnesses that we cannot currently cure. Some people end up killing themselves because they cannot withstand their current predicament.

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.

As I have explained above, a cutoff point isn't really applicable.

And jealousy is a personal weakness and character flaw anyway, so it can be reduced or eliminated.

You argue that removing some suffering just uncovers ones below it, but that doesn't mean that those ones below it are as bad as the ones that were removed.

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.

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."

So explain to me how harmful flesh eating bacteria fit into 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.

It's not an exciting adventure for those who have had flesh eating bacteria.

And I already put much of my time and resources towards improving things.

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.

There are things that cannot be cured at the current time. Maybe in the future they can be, but that doesn't help those who live and die in the present and past with incurable conditions.

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.

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

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”.

No, agony of children does not make for exciting challenges.

You can have all of that stuff like challenging and cooperation without childhood agony and death, and without terribly debilitating genetic defects. If you need that stuff in your world for it to be exciting to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[Penumbra]

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

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.

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.

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.

Deserves/needs a thread of its own.

Why does it deserve/need a thread of its own?

And do you combine reincarnation with Baha'i? Most Baha'i's I've run into explicitly disagree with reincarnation.

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’

Yes but in certain parts of the world, children have a pretty good chance of living a happy life. There's a bit of a risk, but the odds are in their favor.

 

[David M]

That’s right...The existence of evil “is usually presented (by atheists) as evidence against the existence of God”...- God is unlikely to exist/does not exist because of the “Problem of Evil”- How could there be a loving God when evil exists?
So...taking God out of the picture...the “Problem of Evil” remains and the question reverts to the only consciously life creating Gods/Mini Gods in view- us.
If the “Problem of Evil” is “evidence against the existence of God”...is it not also evidence against bringing other beings into existence?

No its not a problem against bringing other beings into existence. It is only a problem for claims of a loving god. If God was claimed to be indifferent or malevolent then its just the issue of evil.

Even if we accept that there is a "Problem of Evil" its not an argument that the world is all evil or that all will suffer, just that it does exist. So parents can judge whether they can protect any new life they bring into the world from evil and suffering or that any such problems will be minor and outweighed by the good times, if they can then there is no problem for the parents.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Is this you, Wombat?

[youtube]c_vlLKA6xeU[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_vlLKA6xeU

 

[Wombat]

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. You've received answers..

No. I have received >responses< that do not answer the question and/or seek to evade and obfuscate the question and then incessant claims the question has been answered.

Saying “the question is not important” is an evasive response but not an answer.
Saying “A cut-off point is debatable” and then avoiding the debate is not an answer.

The question isn't even applicable or important to me because it doesn't even have a place in my worldview..

Obviously this is the dynamic that is at play in the majority of responses- “If it’s not important to me, if it doesn’t serve my worldview or my argument, if it only serves a line of logical inquiry being pursued by the other...then I’m not going to answer or explore it”.

I don't use the Problem of Evil to argue that it's impossible for a powerful and benevolent deity to exist. I use the Problem of Evil to showcase how problematic it is to suggest a powerful and benevolent deity exists in this universe. .

Either way the question stands to explore and negate “impossible” or “problematic”...only through exploring the counter arguement and addressing the questions posed can the validity of the assertions “impossible” or “problematic” be determined. “In a debate, you have to actually listen to the people discussing things” and respond to their line of arguement/inquiry other wise you travel in circles responding only to your own “worldview”.

The more needless and unimaginably bad suffering exists, the less likely it is that something like a benevolent and powerful deity exists..

>ALL< that says is to restate the ‘problem of evil’.
“In a debate, you have to actually listen to the people discussing things with you rather than repeating the same point over and over again...”
Thank you for re stating ‘the problem of evil’ over and over again.

So a "cutoff point" isn't even applicable there because it's a continuous assessment rather than a discrete one. .

Penumbra....If “The more needless and unimaginably bad suffering exists, the less likely it is that something like a benevolent and powerful deity exists.”
Then it must follow that- ““The less needless and unimaginably bad suffering exists, the more likely it is that something like a benevolent and powerful deity exists.”

So you now make your conceptual “continuous assessment” of a realm of progressively less and less “needless and unimaginably bad suffering” until you reach a point at which you can say it is possible or more “likely that something like a benevolent and powerful deity exists.”

If more suffering makes God less likely then less suffering makes God more likely.

You keep telling me “The question isn’t important” or “the question has been answered” but you can’t or wont tell me how much of the “needless and unimaginably bad suffering” would need to not exist before the problem of evil is no longer “problematic”

In a debate, you have to actually listen to the people discussing things with you rather than repeating the same point over and over again even though people have answered your question or pointed out why it isn't important..

That’s wonderful advice Penumbra...Problem is when the ‘problem of evil’ is posed as “problematic” to the “likelihood” of God and pertinent questions are posed that challenge the proposition “ you have to actually listen to the people discussing things with you rather than repeating” ‘the problem of evil’ “over and over again”.

Purely destructive sufferings are like the ones I've mentioned. Things like agony and death of little children, violence and pain towards random animals in the wild, cruel diseases, and illnesses that we cannot currently cure. Some people end up killing themselves because they cannot withstand their current predicament. .

Great! Now please follow it through to its logical conclusion...
Conceptualise/visualise....You are born into a world in which the destructive sufferings you list do not exist...there is no “agony and death of little children” (is there any pain? Does anyone die?)...there are no “cruel diseases” (any diseases at all?)...no “violence and pain towards animals” (humans included?)....
I want to understand your pov....I’m seeking to understand how you envisage a world in which the evils/sufferings you list are no longer “problematic” to the possibility/likelihood of God.

Now...Being born into the world without the sufferings you describe you do not know or experience them.

What do you experience? Does poverty remain? Do you ever go homeless? Are you ever sad, frustrated, lonely? Can you ever go hungry?....I ask because the questions >are important< if you (any atheist) wish to argue that the problem of evil is a real problem that has a logical resolution.

If the sufferings I have listed have also been eliminated from the world then do >any< sufferings, pains, or discomforts remain? Or is the conceptualised realm to be (as some here have advocated) "perfect" and without the "slightest imperfection"?

In a realm in which all the sufferings you and I have listed are eliminated and unknown then whatever remains becomes the >biggest< problem in peoples lives...and for them those biggest remaining problems are their suffering and their ‘problem of evil’.

If no >greater< problem/suffering/pain exists then having to get out of bed on a cold morning becomes your ‘problem of evil’ and having >nothing< worse to compare it to it’s hell when your feet hit that cold floor.

You argue that removing some suffering just uncovers ones below it, but that doesn't mean that those ones below it are as bad as the ones that were removed. .

It means exactly that if the “ones below” are the only sufferings encountered.
We are talking about the desired atheist world that a good God should have/could have created for the problem of evil not to exist. We are talking about the sufferings that would not exist in such a world...conceptualizing and visualizing a world without them. “the ones that were removed” are not experienced or encountered by someone coming into this realm... “ones below it” are whatever pains, discomforts, sufferings remain and >are experienced<.
The individual entering this realm does not get to compare “the ones that were removed” with “those ones below it”....those “ones below it”- those sufferings that remain- are the >only ones< they get to experience and are therefore the >worst< they know and encounter.

I will happily return to any other/remaining issues/points/arguments when this vital and central point and question is addressed.

 

[Alceste]

Saying “the question is not important” is an evasive response but not an answer.
Saying “A cut-off point is debatable” and then avoiding the debate is not an answer.

What about unambiguously stating that the cutoff point for an omnipotent, benevolent creator to be possible is complete perfection and the total absence of suffering, as numerous non-theists in this thread have done, repeatedly? Is that an answer?

Your only response has been that my perfection would be different from yours, but that would not be an obstacle for an omnipotent, benevolent creator: he could either create us with an identical picture of perfection or create a separate utopia for each of us.

 

[Wombat]

I will agree that I have selectively edited your argument and my answers to try and make both of our points more clear, I freely admit to this,.

This is my #42-
Quote:
Originally Posted by proffesb
"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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by proffesb
"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?
...............................

And in the name of “selectively edited your argument and my answers to try and make both of our points more clear” we get the sum total of your response #44-


Quote:
Originally Posted by proffesb
“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.”
...................................................

That aint “edited” to “make points more clear”...that’s just cut and dried pure and simple blowing someone off and displaying complete contempt and disregard for the legitimate and pertinent points and questions they pose.

All you did was take the ‘problem of evil’ (and questions that relate to it) and attempt turn it into a discussion on “clear evidence for gods existence” i.e- prove God.

If that isn’t muddying the waters nothing is.

I would like a clear "unmuddied" discussion..

Great...Then I invite you to return to the pertinent points and questions put to you in #42 and try addressing them.
I will be happy to continue to do likewise.

You selectively edited out points and questions I have made..

I refused to have the issue of ‘the problem of evil’ muddied and diverted to ‘prove God’ and/or show me the “reliable texts”. They are not the same issue.

what about having a reliable text?.

Same as ““clear evidence for gods existence”...start a thread to examine those issues...they are not pertinent-the same as or interchangeable as ‘the problem of evil’ and I have explained how and why they don’t relate.

what about your limiting of the question?.

To ‘the problem of evil’ and the question/s relating to its resolution? They are the pertinent questions arising from the OP....proof of god and reliable texts are not.

I agree you are done..

If you so choose...otherwise, seeking “clear "unmuddied" discussion” it is back to #42.
Up to you.

 

[Wombat]

What about unambiguously stating that the cutoff point for an omnipotent, benevolent creator to be possible is complete perfection and the total absence of suffering, as numerous non-theists in this thread have done, repeatedly? Is that an answer?.

Not one that the respondents would stand upon defend or submit to any pertinent question and scrutiny

Your only response has been that my perfection would be different from yours,

I will, with the justifying provision of evidence, call that what it is.....a lie.

Responding directly to your expectation of "complete perfection and the total absence of suffering"-

#73
"Your question was and remains answered in #54 beginning with- &#8220;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?&#8221;
(No answer from you to the pertinet question)

#73
"In #61 you blow the entire answer off as &#8220;not a very direct answer&#8221; 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 &#8220;totally failed to address&#8221; your &#8220;single point&#8221;.
(No answer from you to the fact that you had already blown off questions relating to "complete perfection")

#54 "Is heaven enhanced or diminished by having no prior experience?"
(No answer from you to the pertinet question)

#54 "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."
(No answer from you to the pertinet point)

#54 "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."
(No answer from you to the pertinet point)


And these constitute only those responses to the notion of "complete perfection" directed to you.

Your claim that my "only response has been that my perfection would be different from yours" is demonstrably false.


I will defend my pov from your falsification and misrepresentation...but your conduct does not warrent further discussion.

 

[Alceste]

Wombat, perhaps you need to do something to hilite what you want addressed. People aren't refusing to answer you, they just can't be bothered to respond to every single sentence in an incredibly lengthy post. I prefer to cut to the chase, and it seems we are getting different ideas of what you are trying to say. It will be easier if you bold the specific points you want addressed (better yet, only write the specific point you want addressed and don't bother with the rest).

OK. So. To answer the question "can we know joy with no misery with which to compare it":

Yes. Of course we can. What on earth would make you think otherwise? You think that to appreciate a loving cuddle a child must first be beaten? Of course not. The hormonal responses that generate blissful sentiment are dependent on factors like diet and social stimuli, not abuses to the central nervous system.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Sure... if anyone brings a life into existence knowing that this life will experience suffering, we know that one of two things (or maybe both) is true:

- the person/god in question is unable to prevent that suffering, or
- the person/god in question is unwilling to prevent that suffering.

The first statement is true for most human parents: we're limited, fallible, mortal human beings, so we don't have a perfect ability to protect our children from all suffering.

However, as you touched on later in your post, God is capable of anything. Therefore, that first possiblity isn't open to him. Therefore, God must be unwilling to prevent suffering.

It's possible that a human being will want to prevent suffering but be unable to do it. This is impossible for an omnipotent God.

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<).

Well... do you think that sin exists? Sin is falling short of the standard of God, right?

Is it not valid to say that by the standard that God measures the world against, the world fails to meet that standard fully?

>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.

Okay... so your argument is that objective perfection does not exist?

Fair enough, I suppose, but this means that you can't say that God is objectively perfect. Are you okay with this?

Also, something else occurs to me: if you think that the world is perfect, why do anything?

For instance, while sitting in your "perfect" world, you apparently decided that it would be made better by you writing a post to convince me to change my mind on this topic. If things really were perfect before, why did you mess with them? Do you think you can improve on perfection?

"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.

Yes, that would... but that's not what the problem of evil says.

The problem of evil doesn't say that a creator God cannot exist; it says that any creator God is either less than perfectly all-powerful or less than perfectly good.

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?

So you go with the alternative, then: that the evil we experience is actually good, and we'd appreciate this if we could see the big picture. Right?

Is there suffering in Heaven?

 

[Wombat]

Sure... if anyone brings a life into existence knowing that this life will experience suffering, we know that one of two things (or maybe both) is true:

- the person/god in question is unable to prevent that suffering, or
- the person/god in question is unwilling to prevent that suffering.

That leaves out the ‘third thing’- the God in question may know and the theist in question may believe that no matter what suffering is encountered it cannot/will not last long in this mortal coil and in the context of eternity will pale into insignificance.

Therefore, God must be unwilling to prevent suffering.

Or considering the third option- God, like all prospective parents who go ahead, does not consider the sufferings he has put in place to be prohibitive to bringing life into the world.
God, like many prospective parents, may well see the sufferings we encounter as being formative, good for us, a worthy struggle to overcome, never so crushing that all humanity losses hope (and such circumstances are conceivable to any Hollywood imagination) and of no lasting harm.

It's possible that a human being will want to prevent suffering but be unable to do it. This is impossible for an omnipotent God.

Once existing “a human being will want to prevent suffering but be unable to do it” (to a degree) in relation to the world encountered and experienced...but a human being can “prevent suffering” by declining to bring offspring into the world if ‘the problem of suffering/evil’ is perceived to be so great that it would be unethical/immoral to do so. Thus the OP..if atheists (many) hold and argue that ‘the problem of evil’ is so great as to debar the possibility of a good God existing..the question must be asked- if that is the case and the degree of evil/suffering then why bring children into it?
God, if existing, has the mitigation of being all knowing, all wise and the insight that even a lifetime of suffering pales into insignificance in the context of eternity.
What mitigates the choice to create life into a world that is (apparently) so bad that a loving God could not have created it?

Well... do you think that sin exists? Sin is falling short of the standard of God, right?

I ask you “to establish that there >IS< any “imperfection in his creation” and your first Cab off the rank is the (Judeo/Christian?) notion of “Sin”???
Are you arguing, as a Humanist/Atheist, that the “imperfection in his creation” is “falling short of the standard of God”?
My understanding of ‘Sin’ (and I may well be completely wrong) is that the word itself is an Aramaic Archery term meaning- To miss the mark...And that an ‘Evil’ is the point at which the arrow lands having missed the mark. The implication being- You are not a bad, stupid, useless archer...you just missed/sinned...keep practicing, aim careful, watch your breathing, concentrate, try again.
I don’t know how that helps in relation to any “imperfection in his creation”...people miss the mark or deliberately fire in the opposite direction or “falling short of the standard of God”...this is an “imperfection”?....I thought it was free will, freedom of choice

Is it not valid to say that by the standard that God measures the world against, the world fails to meet that standard fully?

By that do you mean- God says “Thou shalt not kill” and in response large portions of humanity take up the cry- “Die Heretic die in the name of the One True God”!...?
That kind of “world fails to meet that standard fully”...?

Okay... so your argument is that objective perfection does not exist?

Nope...my argument is that if there is an “objective perfection” God alone knows...all other perspectives are subjective and limited.

Fair enough, I suppose, but this means that you can't say that God is objectively perfect. Are you okay with this?

Nope...a perfect God can create a perfect universe that we perceive as imperfect and our imperfect subjective perception does not diminish the perfection of the universe nor the perfect God that created it

Also, something else occurs to me: if you think that the world is perfect, why do anything?

Because it’s the perfect place for doing things in!!!! It has need, opportunity, challenge, the demand for evolution, change, growth, overcoming, failure, resistance, frustration, despair, pain, suffering, resilience, learning, co operation...it’s the perfect environment for determining what needs to be done, what you want to do and how you can go about doing it.
Invert the question- What is there to do in a realm devoid of “the slightest imperfection”(challenge/suffering) as some atheists have advocated here...?

For instance, while sitting in your "perfect" world, you apparently decided that it would be made better by you writing a post to convince me to change my mind on this topic. If things really were perfect before, why did you mess with them? Do you think you can improve on perfection?

First up there is nothing I have said in regard "perfect" world that suggests or implies no change or action is required...it is in fact the requirement of and adaption to change that contributes to the perfection of the world...And that includes striving towards the elimination of disease and the establishment of justice.
Writing a post to you? Not motivated by a desire to “convince” or “change your mind on this” or any topic. I am celebrating the elimination of ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ the end of the suffering of separation and isolation. A ‘suffering’ that humankind has struggled against since crawling from the primordial soup...and now...There you are in Toronto area, Canada and here am I in Paradise Oz communicating at near light speed.

Aint it a HOOT!

Is there any intractable obstacle or suffering that we cannot overcome?

Hell Penguin....The futures so bright in this perfect world we will all have to wear ‘Shades’:beach:
Oh...sorry...except for those suffering in freezing cold Canada.

Yes, that would... but that's not what the problem of evil says.
The problem of evil doesn't say that a creator God cannot exist; it says that any creator God is either less than perfectly all-powerful or less than perfectly good.

Penguin...As soon as you apply a scenario/proposition in which God “less than perfectly all-powerful or less than perfectly good” then the scenario is stating that “God cannot exist”.

So you go with the alternative, then: that the evil we experience is actually good, and we'd appreciate this if we could see the big picture. Right?

As shorthand for what I said, yea,....With the understanding that striving to rectify and overcome problems, sufferings and injustices is an essential component of “actually good” and not doing so when the need/opportunity arises/demands is ‘actually bad/evil’.

Is there suffering in Heaven?

Don’t know. Might find out if there is...might not be let in.

If there is no God/afterlife...neither of us will ever know.