SimWorld without suffering

[Quagmire]

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.

No need, but go ahead.

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

How is this 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.

I actually do believe 3.

That's it, that's all she wrote: if you ask "Well why wouldn't God cause unpleasantness, why the heck not?"

Not what I said.

then you simply disagree with premise (3) and therefore the whole shebang doesn't even apply to you.

Nope, I'm OK with 3.

"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.

No, I'm asking "if God has some purpose to accomplish, and suffering is one method of accomplishing it, why not use it?" (other than the fact that it we don't like it).

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.

No need to, I'm OK with 3.

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.

And I pointed out a contradiction in your contradiction that you haven't resolved yet.

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.

Never said suffering wasn't real. Just asked you to demonstrate how suffering, in and of itself, is etc., etc, etc .....

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.

That's not a contradiction, just an unvalidated assertion.

(This goes back to (3) again). Just a different way of saying it. Sorry for all the negatives.

That's OK, I'm having the negatives developed as we speak.

 

[dance-above]

There's nothing clever about leukemia, melanoma, breast cancer, tornadoes, testicular cancer, frostbite, lymes disease, malaria, toxoplsmosis, trichinosis, mental retardation, schizophrenia, alzheimer's, toxic shock syndrome, volcanoes, thyroid disease, dismemberment, paralysis, tetanus, cholera, influenza, diabetes, earthquakes, tsunamis, ovarian cysts, cystic fibrosis, parkinson's disease, SARS, blindness, deafness, muteness, hemophilia, hurricanes, bronchitis, bulimia, anorexia, bunions, cold sores, impotence, ingrown nails, sudden infant death syndrome, menstrual cramps, melanoma, human papilloma virus, syphillis, mumps, malasia, myopia, scabies, scars, sleepwalking, allergies, osteoperosis, ear infections, nausea, obesity, meteor impacts, famine...

One could literally go on for pages... pages and pages and pages.

Now.. how much of that is reallynecessary for God's "game" even in this short life span when it's possible to have NONE of it and still have free will and complete happiness?

Have to say for myself, it's hard to fathom the scope of it but when a list is made like that... and with the realization that such a list is woefully inadequate to really even BEGIN to describe the suffering God allows in this world...

It really begins to look like God is an ********** without explanation.

We are sown in corruption. If a seed dosnt fall to the ground,how can it grow? Even Gods foolishness is wiser than the wisest man.

 

[Quagmire]

No, because "omnipotence" isn't the capacity to do "anything." It's the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs.

I disagree but I'll accept your definition for the sake of not having to hear about semantics anymore.

Ok, so we're back to "show me how suffering in and of itself, .........

 

[Blackdog22]

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.

I think there are levels of unpleasantness that I wouldn't call suffering. For example working out is self inflicted and it is pleasant for some people. The people who do see working out as suffering usually avoid it, or in other words consider it bad.

With alcohol it is self inflicted also. My question here would be why is the restraint from alcohol suffering? Why was that law put in place? Going back to working out if the person working out does consider it suffering then why do we feel that way when working out?

Before I say anything else, are you asking how suffering is bad? If so I would still have to ask how it is good. I see from this post how good things could be accomplished after suffering, but no reason why that suffering was necessary or good. If you aren't trying to say it is good then where would you say suffering stood? Neutral?

Another question I would ask is If someone is burned alive then why do they feel that pain? What purpose does it serve? Most people watching and the persons perspective would be that this was a bad thing. This was about as bad and evil as it could get to watch a life being in complete and utter pain. Unless of course your Dexter (Showtime show =) fantastic show also).

Also, just so my idea of suffering is completely understood. I wouldn't consider most self inflicted things suffering. My look into suffering would be the kid born with downs syndrome or the man who spontaneously combusted. In other words unnecessary suffering is my issue. The show Jack ***(people beat themselves up, throw each other off roofs, etc) doesn't equate to suffering for me. At least not the kind I am bothered by.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

So, if I took one of your children and slapped the everloving life out of them and then gave them a lifetime supply of candy bars, am I benevolent?

Do they not enjoy my "amusing game" of "let's torture you and then give you a reward afterwards?"

I don't get how people can believe that a God that allows leukemia kids and cystic fibrosis is "benevolent" just because he "makes up for it" afterwards with heaven. That's crazy if you ask me!

suffering is caused by us, because most of us do not care for the poor, nor we help people to remove thier suffering.

Allah words explain such an argument:

Qura'an (89:15-20) The dawn

15. Now, as for man,
When his Lord trieth him,
Giving him honour and gifts,
Then saith he, (puffed up),
"My Lord hath honoured me"

16. But when he trieth him,
Restricting his subsistence
For him, then saith he
(In despair), "My Lord
Hath humiliated me I."

17. Nay, nay! But ye
Honour not the orphans!

18. Nor do ye encourage
One another
To feed the poor!—

19. And ye devour Inheritance—
All with greed,

20. And ye love wealth
With inordinate love!

If we are all live in waelth and Good health, would any one help another?

Allah like to see us helping each other loving each other.

Anyway, the the wealth and any other properties that might any one have is not an indicator for God's love, it might be that "money" is direct reaon for commiting a sin.
so we can't judge

 

[Wombat]

(Couldn’t find the original post to quote from)

Originally Posted by Meow Mix
“There's nothing clever about leukemia, melanoma, breast cancer, tornadoes, testicular cancer, frostbite, lymes disease, malaria, toxoplsmosis, trichinosis, mental retardation, schizophrenia, alzheimer's, toxic shock syndrome, volcanoes, thyroid disease, dismemberment, paralysis, tetanus, cholera, influenza, diabetes, earthquakes, tsunamis, ovarian cysts, cystic fibrosis, parkinson's disease, SARS, blindness, deafness, muteness, hemophilia, hurricanes, bronchitis, bulimia, anorexia, bunions, cold sores, impotence, ingrown nails, sudden infant death syndrome, menstrual cramps, melanoma, human papilloma virus, syphillis, mumps, malasia, myopia, scabies, scars, sleepwalking, allergies, osteoperosis, ear infections, nausea, obesity, meteor impacts, famine...”



Ok, so, hypothetically, your born into a world in which the ills and sufferings listed >don&#8217;t exist< are unknown and not experienced. That leaves you knowing (without greater/worse comparison) the pain and suffering of-
period pain, pimples, teasing about pimples, ingrown toe nail, splinters, paper cuts, ant bites, bee stings, sunburn, sand rash, bad hair day, teenage children, hangovers, flat feet, hay fever, hunger, loneliness, arachnophobia, vertigo, ear ache, lost car keys, low self esteem, chronic flatulence and unrequited love....

1/ What is the cut off point in the quest to eliminate pain and suffering sufficiently to a degree that &#8216;God&#8217; might be possible? (or at least not a ******* for creating circumstances of suffering?)

2/ If everything on your list and my list was eliminated (and all other pains/sufferings unspecified) would we be happy? How would we know? What would we be comparing our pain&suffering free existence to?

3/ If we are born into a state of total pain&suffering free bliss....is growth, learning and change possible? Or are growth, learning and change in and of themselves often pain and suffering inducing events that also would have to be eliminated?

Originally Posted by Meow Mix
&#8220;with the realization that such a list is woefully inadequate to really even BEGIN to describe the suffering God allows in this world...
It really begins to look like God is an ********** without explanation.&#8221;

Please identify the >suffering cut off point< that you believe would be acceptable....If it is anything above >zero< then someone is going to curse God for allowing it in this world ;-)

 

[Meow Mix]

No, I'm asking "if God has some purpose to accomplish, and suffering is one method of accomplishing it, why not use it?" (other than the fact that it we don't like it).

Because causing unpleasantness is malevolent unless there is a purpose for the unpleasantness.

If you say there is a purpose for suffering, it's up to you to justify that assertion otherwise you're arguing with special pleading -- and fallacies aren't "responses" to anything; they're fallacies.

Never said suffering wasn't real. Just asked you to demonstrate how suffering, in and of itself, is etc., etc, etc .....

I don't have to as I explained before. If one of the premises is that God would not cause suffering unnecessarily, and suffering exists, and there is no justification for there being any purpose for that suffering (and claiming there might be an inexplicable purpose is special pleading), then there is a contradiction.

 

[Meow Mix]

I disagree but I'll accept your definition for the sake of not having to hear about semantics anymore.

Ok, so we're back to "show me how suffering in and of itself, .........

Disagreeing self-refutes demonstrably.

That is, if you're asserting that God can operate outside of logical possibility then you're self-contradicting.

It's the same as saying "Identity is possibly false," and since identity is incorrigible it instantly self-refutes.

 

[Meow Mix]

If we are all live in waelth and Good health, would any one help another?

Allah like to see us helping each other loving each other.

If we took this principle to its natural conclusion, then I would be benevolent for letting a basket of venomous snakes out in a day care because otherwise they would be living in good health and wouldn't have any reason to help one another, right? So I'm a good person for dumping venomous snakes in the room so they have a real purpose and a real reason to help each other, right?

 

[Meow Mix]

1/ What is the cut off point in the quest to eliminate pain and suffering sufficiently to a degree that ‘God’ might be possible? (or at least not a ******* for creating circumstances of suffering?)

The cut off point is the elimination of all suffering that is possible to prevent while still having a being with free will.

For instance, you mentioned unrequited love -- there's no immediately obvious way in which to prevent that if you have sentient beings. Unrequited love may well be a necessary evil to create in order to have sentient beings and therefore isn't malevolent (because it's necessary).

However, it's entirely logically possible to eliminate leukemia, for instance. There is no forthcoming reason to say that it's necessary; it's quite possible to imagine a world without it that still has sentient beings.

2/ If everything on your list and my list was eliminated (and all other pains/sufferings unspecified) would we be happy? How would we know? What would we be comparing our pain&suffering free existence to?

Would we need a word for happy? Probably not, but even if we didn't have a word for it wouldn't mean that we aren't what you or I (in this world) would call "happy." For instance, let's say that being devoured by the Jabberwocky in some world is called the state of being Jabberwocked... and the state of not being devoured by the Jabberwocky is called being bumpfizzited.

Right now we're all bumpfizzited -- the word never existed before now, but weren't we completely satisfied with NOT being jabberwocked? The existence of the word "happiness" only means that there is something to compare it to in order to make a word (a distinction), but it doesn't mean we wouldn't be satisfied or happy just because we may never have bothered to create a word for that state.

3/ If we are born into a state of total pain&suffering free bliss....is growth, learning and change possible? Or are growth, learning and change in and of themselves often pain and suffering inducing events that also would have to be eliminated?

Yes, why wouldn't they be? For instance you could become a chess champion in a suffering free world.

 

[Thief]

[/font][/size



Yes, why wouldn't they be? For instance you could become a chess champion in a suffering free world.

And this thread is not a denial of God?

So you don't have the answers...and what appears to be pain and suffering ....without cause....is cause for denial?

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes. Denial of that specific idea of God, anyway.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes. Denial of that specific idea of God, anyway.

What are you responding to?

 

[PolyHedral]

What are you responding to?

Thief's post. Is it bad form not to quote the past immediately above yours?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thief's post.

Oh, I didn't see it until now. My bad

 

[Quagmire]

Disagreeing self-refutes demonstrably.

You're taking one definition of Omnipotent and presenting it as if it were the only definition.

Now, I already agreed to proceed according to yours for the sake of the argument. if you're not willing to settle for that, I don't know what you want me to do.

That is, if you're asserting that God can operate outside of logical possibility then you're self-contradicting.

No: if we were operating according to another, perfectly acceptable, definition of Omnipotent, ie., "the unlimited ability to do anything", then it wouldn't be a contradiction.

Since I already agreed we'd use yours, I don't know what you're worrying about.

 

[Meow Mix]

Since I already agreed we'd use yours, I don't know what you're worrying about.

I'm just exceedingly pedantic... sometimes I don't know when to let sleeping dogs lie.

There is still a contradiction, but we'll drop it. See, I couldn't even not type "There's still a contradiction." I suck

 

[PolyHedral]

No: if we were operating according to another, perfectly acceptable, definition of Omnipotent, ie., "the unlimited ability to do anything", then it wouldn't be a contradiction.

But it would be, since you're implying that either identity or the excluded middle is wrong. Neither of these can possibly be wrong. Starting with the premise that they are wrong, you can deduce that they are right.

 

[Meow Mix]

But it would be, since you're implying that either identity or the excluded middle is wrong. Neither of these can possibly be wrong. Starting with the premise that they are wrong, you can deduce that they are right.

Don't feed my pedant...ism? Pedantry?

Er...

Don't feed my tendancy to be pedantic! :cover:

(But yes, this is exactly what I was getting at)

 

[Quagmire]

But it would be, since you're implying that either identity or the excluded middle is wrong. Neither of these can possibly be wrong. Starting with the premise that they are wrong, you can deduce that they are right.

Like I told Meow mix in my last post, I've already agreed to use her definition, so this is a moot point for this thread.

If you want to discuss this for it's own sake, you can always start another thread.