Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
lol lol lol...you're such a nerd
(not that there is anything wrong with that...it takes one to know one eh?)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
SimWorld without suffering
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
lol lol lol...you're such a nerd
(not that there is anything wrong with that...it takes one to know one eh?)
Sorry but whether you realize it or not you've been playing with semantics throughout your argument; last post you used one definition of 'negative", ie., "unpleasant", interchangeably with another definition, ie., "wrong" or "evil". My whole point is that no one has come up with a viable explanation for approaching the PoE on those terms that isn't completely circular.
Supposedly, the PoE isn't a tenant of belief, it's a logical argument. For the purposes of this discussion, what you or I believe is a moot point.
In the LOTR trilogy, Sauron's malevolence is determined by his alliance with Darkeness (Fear) in opposition to Light (Hope) (Gandalf even pointed this out and to some extent explained it in the first book).
Suffering served both sides.
In order to establish the fact of suffering as evidence against God's moral perfection, you would still have to explain why suffering is "evil" rather than merely unpleasant.
Why exactly?
Still operating under the assumption that suffering is, in and of itself, evil or evidence thereof, and that still needs to be explained in non-circular terms.
Still operating under the assumption that suffering is, in and of itself, evil or evidence thereof, and that still needs to be explained in non-circular terms.
And again: what you or I believe personally in regards to the nature of God is a moot point for the sake of this discussion. We're discussing the relevancy of the PoE and the claims it's making.
No argument there.
Explain why He should have chosen something else.
Ya know, you just keep trying to explain what the PoE is saying, over and over. You don't have to do that, I already understand what it's saying. I'm waiting for you to address my objections to the PoE in non-circular terms.
Whether or not there's justification or "some other purpose" is beyond us. And even if you accept for the sake of argument that there is some purpose, and wind up pointing at suffering and asking "Why suffering? Why didn't/couldn't He have used some other method", the obvious next question (and the one I'm still waiting for an answer for) is "Why not suffering" (other than the fact that it hurts)?
Doesn't matter: still sounds like you're talking about indulgence to me.
No it isn't. Without the establishment of malicious intent, causing unpleasantness, pain, and suffering is merely unpleasant and painful.
Malevolence Definition
Look Up Malevolence Now It's Easy w/Free Dictionary Toolbar
Dictionary.alot.com
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.
- The quality or state of being malevolent.
- Malicious behavior.
Again: whether or not there's justification or a higher purpose is beyond us. Claiming Justification or purpose would be inappropriate for the sake of this argument, but then so would discounting it. If we're going to approach this logically both sides would have to leave that door shut.
Hm. I disagree, but no matter.
Then what is it if not an emotional response?
The PoE is based on the Epicurean perspective that "Pleasure = good, pain =bad".
wiki said:
This is a philosophy, a belief system. It isn't an exclusively Epicurean outlook of course: it's also a natural on-the-spot diagnosis of circumstances shared by most creatures capable of feeling.
At the moment of crisis it's an instinctual response.
Afterward, or speaking about it in the abstract (as we're doing here) it's an emotional response.
If someone has adopted the Epicurean philosphical perspective (either knowingly or not) than it's a philosphical response.
But it's yet to be established (in this thread or anywhere else that I've seen) as a logical response.
In order for the Epicurean take on things to qualify as logical to anyone other than a proponent of Epicurean philosophy, someone would have to demonstrate the premisis it's based on: that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is the highest purpose of life.
This can't be done. Therefore the whole premise is a belief, not a logical conclusion.
Since most people aren't professed "Epicureans" (although most of us are at least part time disciples), ie., since the adoption of this perspective isn't based on philosophical reflection (and I would go as far as to say that even when it is, emotion has played it's role), obviously it's an emotional response. It's based solely on personal preference.
An aesthetic evaluation. What looks right is right.
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
Considering that the Bible states there won't be any suffering in Heaven and since Heaven is supposed to be perfect. It would only make sense that suffering isn't good. Hell itself is enough to scare some people into believing in God just based on the thought of suffering for an eternity.
I would ask how isn't suffering bad? I can list multiple circumstances where suffering is negative. Can anyone list a circumstance where suffering is good?
Of course it is very possible that I don't understand the argument.
I would ask how isn't suffering bad? I can list multiple circumstances where suffering is negative. Can anyone list a circumstance where suffering is good?
Of course it is very possible that I don't understand the argument.
Last edited:
Personally, I've always thought we humans were much better qualified to determine between Beauty and Ugliness then we ever were between Good and Evil.
But I still think these determinations are primarily emotional.
Even so, why would it have no place in logics? (Besides Star Trek bias.Personally, I've always thought we humans were much better qualified to determine between Beauty and Ugliness then we ever were between Good and Evil.
But I still think these determinations are primarily emotional.
)
Only from the Judeo/Christian perspective. If you aren't Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, the idea that suffering, in and of itself, is evil needs to be explained and defended.
again: the PoE claims to be a logical formula, not a religious one.
I suppose that first it would have to scare them into believing in hell.
It depends on what you're asking, Blackdog: if you're asking for examples of instances where suffering isn't unpleasant, I doubt there are any. If it were pleasant it wouldn't be suffering.
On the other hand, if you're asking for examples of suffering that eventually leads to something "good", the list is endless:
A drunk goes through the DTs (suffering) and winds up achieving sobriety (good)
Hitting the weights at the gym (suffering) leads to a stronger, healthier, more injury resistant body (good).
They say an artist has to suffer in order to create. I would agree that creating any work of art---painting, music, film, literature---almost always involves the suffering of either the artist, the subject, or both.
Nelson Mandela sacrificed his freedom, his health, his family, basically his life (suffering) to put an end to apartheid (good good).
Any sacrifice (suffering) that any human being has ever made for any worthy cause or another human being (good).
Not all suffering is the same of course, there's a lot of pointless suffering in the world, but I think that instances where suffering doesn't come with the potential for at least some good are rare.
Ironically, from what I've seen some of the worst and most pointless suffering often comes from our attempts to avoid suffering: a drunk doesn't want to go through the DTs so he keeps on drinking, causing a world of pointless suffering for himself and anyone who crosses his path.
Don't worry too much about that, man; most of the people proposing the argument don't really understand it either.
Even so, why would it have no place in logics? (Besides Star Trek bias.
Because emotions aren't logical, Doctor (puts on pointy ears anyway, since it's Halloween).
Snipped everything else because it still just falls back to semantics.
The reason the PoE works is because omnibenevolence is already believed by the people it's targeted at.
If YOU object to the concept of omnibenevolence as not causing suffering, then PoE doesn't apply to you. That's all. That's seriously it. I don't know why you keep objecting to it. There's no contradiction if you don't assume that God wouldn't cause suffering if He had the choice.
If you don't assume that, then you're right: PoE doesn't apply.
Again I wouldn't understand why someone would believe and worship in a deity that was knowingly and willfully malevolent though.
I never said that. My personal beliefs (weak and malable as they are) are that there is a God, He is Omnipotent, and He (crosses fingers) has our best interests in mind.
The PoE doesn't sway any of that because it's a flawed argument (and it remains a flawed argument unless or until someone explains why suffering, in and of itself, outside of personal preference, is "bad")
If I'm objecting to anything I'm objecting to the fact that you started a thread, made a proposition in your OP, and haven't started defending it yet.
Oye, Look: I'm not trying to be a jerk here, really, but that statement is a triple negative
. I can only guess what you're trying to say here.Still waiting.
OK, lets try the quick, easy approach:
The PoE starts out with: "If God is Omnipotent..." which is obviously meant to declare the intention of allowing, for the sake of the argument, at least the possibility that God is in fact Omnipotent.
Problem is, it doesn't live up to it's declaration. Obviously if the point of the PoE is to show that---omnipotent or not---there's something God can't do, ie., He can't be both Omnipotent and Beneficent given the fact that there's suffering in the world, then it isn't actually allowing for even the potential for the omnipotence of God.
To cut to the chase: If God is Omnipotent, He can do anything. That's what Omnipotence means: all-powerful, capable of anything.
Obviously that would have to include the ability to be both Omnipotent and Omni-beneficent in a world that includes suffering.
This isn't a theological perspective of the nature of God, it's merely a logical application of the qualities of Omnipotence.
Even without trying to establish the inherent "evil" of suffering, The PoE falls apart right there.
The PoE starts out with: "If God is Omnipotent..." which is obviously meant to declare the intention of allowing, for the sake of the argument, at least the possibility that God is in fact Omnipotent.
Problem is, it doesn't live up to it's declaration. Obviously if the point of the PoE is to show that---omnipotent or not---there's something God can't do, ie., He can't be both Omnipotent and Beneficent given the fact that there's suffering in the world, then it isn't actually allowing for even the potential for the omnipotence of God.
To cut to the chase: If God is Omnipotent, He can do anything. That's what Omnipotence means: all-powerful, capable of anything.
Obviously that would have to include the ability to be both Omnipotent and Omni-beneficent in a world that includes suffering.
This isn't a theological perspective of the nature of God, it's merely a logical application of the qualities of Omnipotence.
Even without trying to establish the inherent "evil" of suffering, The PoE falls apart right there.
There's not a flaw, I get what you're saying. Let me maybe try to cut out the semantics by re-wording it for you.
The PoE, re-worded to avoid semantical disagreements:
1) God is omnipotent
2) God is omniscient
3) God would not cause unpleasantness unless there is a purpose for it
4) Unpleasantness exists
5) So, there's a contradiction
Could have gotten further into it but you get the point. This is what the PoE is. If you don't believe (3) then PoE doesn't apply. That's it, that's all she wrote: if you ask "Well why wouldn't God cause unpleasantness, why the heck not?" then you simply disagree with premise (3) and therefore the whole shebang doesn't even apply to you.
"Omnibenevolence," in the PoE, is equivalent to (3). You are as far as I can tell objecting to (3) by asking why God wouldn't cause unpleasantness. But it's not necessarily my job to defend (3), since the PoE is a response to premises already believed by its target audience. If you disagree with (3), then you're not in the target audience.
Now, if I were saying that PoE pertained to ALL possible gods then you'd better believe that I would have a duty to defend (3). But I don't. I'm just taking the premises a target audience already believes and demonstrating a contradiction that arises from them. So yes, even though the experience of unpleasantness/suffering is subjectively "bad," it's still a fully logical argument because it does pertain to a very real contradiction.
Oye, Look: I'm not trying to be a jerk here, really, but that statement is a triple negative
Hahaha, that's true! Sorry. Basically, I was saying there's a contradiction if you hold the assumption that God wouldn't cause suffering without purpose -- and then have no evidence for said purpose. (This goes back to (3) again). Just a different way of saying it. Sorry for all the negatives.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Shouldn't 5 be "So, there must be a purpose"?
No, because "omnipotence" isn't the capacity to do "anything." It's the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs.
Even an omnipotent being can't create contradictions, and trying to suggest that they can self-refutes because it's equivalent to saying that identity is possibly false (which ALWAYS self-refutes).
That wouldn't really accomplish anything because then the whole thing would then be conjecture unrelated to the real world.
Omnipotence and omniscience are pretty much granted without argument, so I can see why you might say, "So why don't we grant that there's a purpose without argument?"
You could, but it's only convincing to the choire (i.e. only those who already believe your proposed version of 5).
Suffering exists, that's a justifiable fact.
But there is no forthcoming justification for there being a purpose. Arguing that there is a purpose but that it's inexplicable is special pleading. Arguing for it axiomatically (as you propose) doesn't accomplish anything.
So, I guess I'm saying that you "could" but it wouldn't really serve a purpose as an argument. It's an axiom that anyone could just outright reject and you'd be back to the chalkboard.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
:biglaugh: Honey, we're debating THEOLOGY! :biglaugh:
I'm sorry, but how the hell is any of this anything but "conjecture unrelated to the real world?"
Who's convinced? I don't believe any of this stuff, I just think it's a satisfactory answer to an ultimately trivial puzzle.
Touché
Well, it's sort of like making an argument thusly:
1) Leprechauns exist
2) Leprechauns cause it to rain
3) All rain is caused by leprechauns
4) Rain exists, so leprechauns exist
People may grant (1) for the sake of argument, much like PoE grants omnipotence/omniscience (oh, and existence) of God for the sake of argument, but you can't build a whole argument that's "for the sake of argument" otherwise there's no real argument.
You could just make (2) and (3) into axioms but it doesn't accomplish anything because anyone can just reject those axioms outright.
The PoE accomplishes things because it takes axioms believed by people and demonstrates there's a contradiction.