Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[dybmh]

Why? What about angels and heaven?

They're immaterial. And I'm not sure they have free-will or even experience pleasure. God speaks, they do. Let there be light, and there was light. Thats it. Divine fiat. Even if a person denies that we, humans, have free-will, what an angel has would be less than that.

The description in Isaiah says they all proclaim aloud and in unison ... Says nothing about pleasure, and denies free-will.

The challenge is going from only-immaterial-god >>>> immaterial-god & material multiplicity. That requires a binary choice.

 

[Koldo]

Yes.



Only if you never experienced any other pain ever.

I am not sure I follow. Assume you believe your child is immortal, in some sense, with absolute certainty. Do you, personally, let them touch a hot stove?

Seems like it proves my point. Constant assitance is not always good but it IS possible to do it.



OK.

Quite the contrary. The problem is that an attempt at constant assistance might bring about bad consequences because of our limitations (such as the increased likelihood of accidents and the delayed development of children).

It's all negative reinforcement. The reason not to use violence is because it teaches violence.

Exactly. Which is why no one should use suffering to teach anything. Not even God.

 

[dybmh]

Well, we are debating God, evil as in regards to that and all other words around that. I know nothing about that in regards to God. I know it as me, but I am not God as far as I can tell.

Beautiful. You said, "I am not" That's it! Its as simple as that. You know you. So, you can automatically identify "not".

 

[ratiocinator]

They're immaterial. And I'm not sure they have free-will or even experience pleasure. God speaks, they do. Let there be light, and there was light. Thats it. Divine fiat. Even if a person denies that we, humans, have free-will, what an angel has would be less than that.

Well okay, but don't forget that (some) humans are promised a suffering-free existence in the future, why couldn't god have simply gone straight to that?

The challenge is going from only-immaterial-god >>>> immaterial-god & material multiplicity. That requires a binary choice.

But why does it necessitate suffering?

 

[dybmh]

I am not sure I follow. Assume you believe your child is immortal, in some sense, with absolute certainty. Do you, personally, let them touch a hot stove?

If there body would heal, and they would live forever, and experience all manner of pain? Sure. It would just be a natural consequence.

Again, please, do you have any children? Natural consequences is a known thing. It is in opposition to "hellcopter parenting"

See here: google search results

Quite the contrary. The problem is that an attempt at constant assistance might bring about bad consequences because of our limitations (such as the increased likelihood of accidents and the delayed development of children).

Nope. We are not limited at ALL as parents to continously help the child learn to walk. That's the point.

Exactly. Which is why no one should use suffering to teach anything. Not even God.

So no negative consequences? No threats of punishments. Aren't you a pro-justice personality?

Everytime the killer kills, we ignore it. But when the wave and smile, we offer oodles of love to encourage it.

Suffering is a negative consequence. It doesn't mean that the individual who is experiencing it, certainly not do to what most would call "natural causes", deserves to be punished. It's not necessarily teaching the person who is suffering. It is teaching everyone else.

I think I mentioned it, but to emphasize: each example of suffering needs to be considered on a case-by-cae basis.

 

[Koldo]

Nope. They did not contribute. Everything could turn out fine. Or even better than fine. Just because someone gives informed consent, you can still sue the Dr. for malpractice or negligence. At least that's what happens here in America. If there isn't informed consent, that is much higher crime.



That's a special case because the individual is interacting in the game and they are part responsible for their success or failure.

I am not sure I follow. If there is informed consent to the possibility of suffering but not to the actualization of any given instance of suffering (which is what I interpret you to be saying), how does the consent here justifies any given instance of suffering that has been actualized?

OK. Although, I don't want evil. And evil needs to be defined. But we can keep using that word. I accept evil. And so does God, in theory. Acceptance isn't bad. The world could use a lot more acceptance, do you disagree? Acceptance and containment what's wrong with that? Or maybe give evil a job to do? If evil did something good, that would be a miracle! Poof, a real miracle. I bet it happens everyday, right under our noses.

If evil did something good that justified itself then it wouldn't be evil, it would be good.

 

[dybmh]

Well okay, but don't forget that (some) humans are promised a suffering-free existence in the future, why couldn't god have simply gone straight to that?

No suffering means no creation could occur.

But why does it necessitate suffering?

Because creation requires something OTHER than God. Are we good to here? This is very important. In theory God is so many things. Most people agree, God is order, structure, constant. If so, other MUST be: chaos, random, change. From this comes illness, and disease, and genetic mutation. But also beauty and diversity and so many other wonderful things. Anyway...

 

[dybmh]

I am not sure I follow. If there is informed consent to the possibility of suffering but not to the actualization of any given instance of suffering (which is what I interpret you to be saying), how does the consent here justifies any given instance of suffering that has been actualized?

Because the individual has accepted the risk.

If evil did something good that justified itself then it wouldn't be evil, it would be good.

Sure it is. If evil is given a job to do, and it does good while doing it, Great! If the job ceases, then it reverts back to doing evil. Good is always good, from beginning, middle, to end. Evil has potential. And it's up to us humans to identify it, accept it for what it is, eliminate it if we can, or contain it when we can't, and if possible, give it a job to do.

 

[Koldo]

If there body would heal, and they would live forever, and experience all manner of pain? Sure. It would just be a natural consequence.

Again, please, do you have any children? Natural consequences is a known thing. It is in opposition to "hellcopter parenting"

See here: google search results

There is absolutely nothing significant to be gained by touching a hot stove, it is pointless to touch a hot stove. How many adults do you know to have willingly touched a hot stove, as adults? Don't you think it makes much more sense to teach children about hot stoves than freely letting them experience the pain related to touching it?

Nope. We are not limited at ALL as parents to continously help the child learn to walk. That's the point.

Are you going to closely watch the child 24 hours a day?

So no negative consequences? No threats of punishments. Aren't you a pro-justice personality?

Everytime the killer kills, we ignore it. But when the wave and smile, we offer oodles of love to encourage it.

Suffering is a negative consequence. It doesn't mean that the individual who is experiencing it, certainly not do to what most would call "natural causes", deserves to be punished. It's not necessarily teaching the person who is suffering. It is teaching everyone else.

I think I mentioned it, but to emphasize: each example of suffering needs to be considered on a case-by-cae basis.

I am very much in favor of retributive justice, but not because it teaches anything, rather because I see certain actions as deserving certain consequences.

 

[Koldo]

Because the individual has accepted the risk.

But on this case, wouldn't the individual also accept the risk of malpractice (consent to the possibility of suffering caused by someone)? If he is accepting that, how can he sue? If he is not accepting that, on what grounds would suffering caused by others be justified?

 

[dybmh]

There is absolutely nothing significant to be gained by touching a hot stove, it is pointless to touch a hot stove. How many adults do you know to have willingly touched a hot stove, as adults? Don't you think it makes much sense to teach children about hot stoves than freely letting them experience the pain related to touching it?

how many immortals have you met?

Are you going to closely watch the child 24 hours a day?

people CAN watch their child 24 hours a day. Especially before they walk. If you don't have children, then you really cannot comment accurately here. Do you have children or not? If you're not a parent, you have very little credibility with these analogies.

I am very much in favor of retributive justice, but not because it teaches anything, but because I see certain actions as deserving certain consequences.

Does the consequence on others discourage other criminals? yes or no. If yes, it is teaching whether you like it or not.

 

[Koldo]

No suffering means no creation could occur.



Because creation requires something OTHER than God. Are we good to here? This is very important. In theory God is so many things. Most people agree, God is order, structure, constant. If so, other MUST be: chaos, random, change. From this comes illness, and disease, and genetic mutation. But also beauty and diversity and so many other wonderful things. Anyway...

1) Random, chaos and change doesn't entail suffering necessarily.

2) Let's assume that God is absence of suffering too, along with order, structure, and constant. The degree of suffering we experience would still required an explanation, for it could be more or less.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? The god character still decided that we should all suffer because of the actions of two people. It's a blatant, cruel and vindictive injustice.

No, we do not suffer because of the actions of two people. We suffer because we live in a material world that engenders suffering.
God decided that we will all suffer when He created a material world which is fraught with suffering.

“In this world we are influenced by two sentiments, Joy and Pain…...​

​

There is no human being untouched by these two influences; but all the sorrow and the grief that exist come from the world of matter—the spiritual world bestows only the joy!​

​

If we suffer it is the outcome of material things, and all the trials and troubles come from this world of illusion.​

​

For instance, a merchant may lose his trade and depression ensues. A workman is dismissed and starvation stares him in the face. A farmer has a bad harvest, anxiety fills his mind. A man builds a house which is burnt to the ground and he is straightway homeless, ruined, and in despair.​

​

All these examples are to show you that the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene.”​

​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, pp. 109-110​

 

[Koldo]

how many immortals have you met?

Don't you believe we are all immortals?

people CAN watch their child 24 hours a day. Especially before they walk. If you don't have children, then you really cannot comment accurately here. Do you have children or not? If you're not a parent, you have very little credibility with these analogies.

I don't, however I have watched/taken care of children before and nope, we just don't keep our eyes glued to the children all time, which is exactly why walkers posit a higher risk of accidents to children.

Does the consequence on others discourage other criminals? yes or no. If yes, it is teaching whether you like it or not.

Sure, but it is one thing to do something with the purpose of teaching and yet another to do something that as a by-product teaches.

 

[ratiocinator]

No suffering means no creation could occur.

You didn't address the point and this is just a bare assertion.

Because creation requires something OTHER than God. Are we good to here? This is very important. In theory God is so many things. Most people agree, God is order, structure, constant. If so, other MUST be: chaos, random, change. From this comes illness, and disease, and genetic mutation.

Non sequitur. Other doesn't mean opposite.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, we do not suffer because of the actions of two people.

That's what the Adam and Eve myth says.

We suffer because we live in a material world that engenders suffering.
God decided that we will all suffer when He created a material world which is fraught with suffering.

Then god is a monster.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well okay, but don't forget that (some) humans are promised a suffering-free existence in the future, why couldn't god have simply gone straight to that?

God did not go straight to the suffering-free world because He chose not to.
Instead God set it up such that suffering would be necessary in order to get to the suffering-free existence in heaven.

 

[ratiocinator]

God did not go straight to the suffering-free world because He chose not to.
Instead God set it up such that suffering would be necessary in order to get to the suffering-free existence in heaven.

So you really do believe in a monstrous, evil god.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what the Adam and Eve myth says.

I do not believe in that myth. As a Baha'i I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, not literal.

30: ADAM AND EVE

Then god is a monster.

No not necessarily, since suffering can be beneficial for humans.

 

[Koldo]

No, we do not suffer because of the actions of two people. We suffer because we live in a material world that engenders suffering.
God decided that we will all suffer when He created a material world which is fraught with suffering.

“In this world we are influenced by two sentiments, Joy and Pain…...​

​

There is no human being untouched by these two influences; but all the sorrow and the grief that exist come from the world of matter—the spiritual world bestows only the joy!​

​

If we suffer it is the outcome of material things, and all the trials and troubles come from this world of illusion.​

​

For instance, a merchant may lose his trade and depression ensues. A workman is dismissed and starvation stares him in the face. A farmer has a bad harvest, anxiety fills his mind. A man builds a house which is burnt to the ground and he is straightway homeless, ruined, and in despair.​

​

All these examples are to show you that the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene.”​

​

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, pp. 109-110​

It is important to note that there is a multitude of ways the material world could exist. A very simple example, which doesn't even require much imagination: There is absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution that prevents the existence of a self-aware, intelligent, species that experiences no suffering.