SimWorld without suffering

[PolyHedral]

What is the point, then? I'm terribly confused.

 

[Quagmire]

What is the point, then? I'm terribly confused.

IMO, at this point, the point of the argument seems to be to win the argument by any means possible. :yes:

 

[Meow Mix]

:grill:

I hereby declare that the point is to grill turkeyburgers on rhye with swiss and mushrooms.

 

[Walkntune]

Thank you, Walkntune. That's basically what was I trying to say (and I'm going to get out of the way and let you handle this part of the argument if you don't mind. You seem to have more patience than I do).

It is very circular and all boils down to walking in good or evil, love or hate and pain and suffering is a requirement for both as you can't have love without sacrifice.(true love is selfless)
Some will take pain and suffering as a reason to not believe in God or love and for others it will be the very source that drives them into the arms of love.It is our own resistance to pain and suffering that actually causes the most harm and gets in the way and only when one becomes aware or enlightened enough to recognise this does he/she learn to walk in harmony and truth.
Logic tries to argue that because evil exists, God does not.
If God does not exist, then how can evil?
Everything then just falls under natural laws so how can they therefore be good or evil?
Therefore how can logic take a stance with evil trying to use it to disprove God?

This is a no win argument especially when dealing with logic and truth.I think reality is the only thing that keeps logic from becoming circular.
I just saw the use of pain and suffering being used as a source of evil when in and of itself its just a measuring stick.
I do not think too many religions deny the use of pain and suffering as a tool for growth as dying to the flesh and selfish desires one grows more in love and selfless to others.
The number three argument which stated" unless there was a reason for pain and suffering" would therefore have most theists and followers of religion bowing out, if not all of them.

 

[PolyHedral]

Therefore how can logic take a stance with evil trying to use it to disprove God?

Because one of the premises, accepted for the sake of argument, is that God exists, and is good.

 

[Blackdog22]

Is this still going? Can we just take one argument and say if one case of suffering is evil then on some level suffering is then evil? It may not ALL be evil, but there is suffering that would be considered evil by all people?

I hate to "capitalize", but can we all agree that the people burning to death in the 9/11 building wasn't a good thing? Can we agree it was indeed unnecessary torture for these people to go through?

Since we are arguing Biblically, lets go back to the story of Shadrack, Mishak, and Obindigo. Why do the people who think suffering isn't a bad thing, think that Jesus came and saved them from that pain? Why do you think he saved them from something that wasn't terrible?

As a matter of fact I can agree that suffering may not be evil, but it is unnecessary punishment, torture, pain. Can we agree that this is all pain, and that pain isn't good? In the Bible it says God doesn't want us to stump our toe on a single stone. Why is that? Because God doesn't consider pain a fantastic thing. Can we agree based on the Bible itself that pain is indeed, by the Bibles own words, not a good thing at all and something God obviously would like to avoid, thus the reason why he tried to save us from Hell, according to the Bible?

If the Bible disagrees with the stance that suffering is good/neutral, then the argument of why God allows this to go on is still a valid argument.

Also, note when I say pain I mean physical pain. Pain you can feel. Can we all agree that dying in our sleep is better than being burned alive?

 

[Quagmire]

Is this still going? Can we just take one argument and say if one case of suffering is evil then on some level suffering is then evil? It may not ALL be evil, but there is suffering that would be considered evil by all people?

I hate to "capitalize", but can we all agree that the people burning to death in the 9/11 building wasn't a good thing? Can we agree it was indeed unnecessary torture for these people to go through?

Since we are arguing Biblically, lets go back to the story of Shadrack, Mishak, and Obindigo. Why do the people who think suffering isn't a bad thing, think that Jesus came and saved them from that pain? Why do you think he saved them from something that wasn't terrible?

As a matter of fact I can agree that suffering may not be evil, but it is unnecessary punishment, torture, pain. Can we agree that this is all pain, and that pain isn't good? In the Bible it says God doesn't want us to stump our toe on a single stone. Why is that? Because God doesn't consider pain a fantastic thing. Can we agree based on the Bible itself that pain is indeed, by the Bibles own words, not a good thing at all and something God obviously would like to avoid, thus the reason why he tried to save us from Hell, according to the Bible?

If the Bible disagrees with the stance that suffering is good/neutral, then the argument of why God allows this to go on is still a valid argument.

Also, note when I say pain I mean physical pain. Pain you can feel. Can we all agree that dying in our sleep is better than being burned alive?

Sorry man, if you're not going to pay any attention to the answers you get, why answer you?

I mean:
disagree with them? fine.
ask for clarification? No problem.
try and refute them? Sure, that's what a debate is for.

but ignore them? Whats the point of posting them then.

 

[Gloone]

:grill:

I hereby declare that the point is to grill turkeyburgers on rhye with swiss and mushrooms.

HAAA! In your case for PoE that poor turkey did not deserve to be put on the grill. You are evil for all of the above.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Because one of the premises, accepted for the sake of argument, is that God exists, and is good.

If you define 'good' as the opposite of suffering, you've won your argument before you've even started arguing.

Good is a ambiguous term. Good for the Aztecs was to kill their captives by ripping their still-beating heart out and sacrificing it to the sun god.
Good is based on socio-cultural norms. Why is God attached to those?

 

[Blackdog22]

Sorry man, if you're not going to pay any attention to the answers you get, why answer you?

I mean:
disagree with them? fine.
ask for clarification? No problem.
try and refute them? Sure, that's what a debate is for.

but ignore them? Whats the point of posting them then.

I just rejoined this argument. I am posting from a different stance than I was earlier. Also none of the points addressed before convinced me, so in that case couldn't I say the same thing to you for ignoring my points? No, you can't, because my points didn't convince you either. My point being I am trying to change my stance to ensure that you mean what it sounds like you mean. It doesn't make sense to quite a few people and I am trying to clarify by adding things to the argument like the Bible. If the Bible is wrong about suffering being bad and we are arguing from a Biblical perspective then this stance that your taking doesn't make sense to a lot of people, at least the people I regularly talk to.

New points, new position, new rebuttals, right?

 

[Meow Mix]

If you define 'good' as the opposite of suffering, you've won your argument before you've even started arguing.

Good is a ambiguous term. Good for the Aztecs was to kill their captives by ripping their still-beating heart out and sacrificing it to the sun god.
Good is based on socio-cultural norms. Why is God attached to those?

Because the PoE is indeed based on theologians' definitions of omnibenevolence.

If you don't think causing suffering is evil then the PoE doesn't apply to you.

Several people aren't getting this at all, it's not the PoE arguer's job to defend what "omnibenevolence" is, they're just taking a notion that was used by theologians and showing how it contradicts.

 

[Quagmire]

I just rejoined this argument. I am posting from a different stance than I was earlier.

I've read all your posts since the last time I replied to you and it sounds like the same old stance: ie., that suffering itself is evil.

Also none of the points addressed before convinced me,

Which is no excuse for ignoring them, If you disagreed and felt you had some logical reason for doing so, you should have tried to rebut them. How is anybody supposed to debate with someone who responds to other people's points with what basically amounts to: "*shrug* whatever"?

so in that case couldn't I say the same thing to you for ignoring my points?

Sure, you could say the same thing. For that matter, since you don't seem to feel obligated to substantiate you points or address any rebuttals to those points, you could get away with saying anything you like.

No, you can't, because my points didn't convince you either.

You haven't made any points, you made the one point we've been discussing, ie., "suffering is evil". The only other thing you've been doing is giving examples of suffering. There's nothing there to agree or disagree with.

Your point is: suffering =evil. My rebuttal (as well as Walkntune's) was and is: no, suffering isn't evil. Suffering is not an entity, it's a condition. Therefore, suffering doesn't have consciousness, and therefore, suffering doesn't have intent. Without intent, there is no evil.

Saying "suffering is evil" is the same as saying "sharp objects are pain".

My point being I am trying to change my stance to ensure that you mean what it sounds like you mean.

Which is ridiculous since you keep demonstrating over and over that you don't understand my meaning.

This:

My point being I am trying to change my stance to ensure that you mean what it sounds like you mean.

..is like saying "I'm going to make sure you mean what I think you mean rather than put any effort into trying to understand what you actually mean.

If you do that, you can take anything I say and make it mean whatever you want it to.

 

[Walkntune]

I

hate to "capitalize", but can we all agree that the people burning to death in the 9/11 building wasn't a good thing? Can we agree it was indeed unnecessary torture for these people to go through?

I am sure the ones who flew the plane didn't feel a thing? No suffering or pain so therefore no evil???

 

[Walkntune]

If you don't think causing suffering is evil then the PoE doesn't apply to you.

Sure the intent to cause pain and suffering can be used as evil but so can money.In and of itself money is not bad but the love of money can be the root of all evil.

 

[Thief]

So....if we redirect back to God....

God is evil that He is able?...or willing?...to do evil.
Man is evil that God made him that way?

In these questions, evil is doing harm....no matter who you are....
and no regard to 'why'.

Or shall we include judgment...and 'why'...?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Because the PoE is indeed based on theologians' definitions of omnibenevolence.

If you don't think causing suffering is evil then the PoE doesn't apply to you.

But it applies to you, because you do believe suffering is evil.

If there were no suffering how would you know what this 'better world' would be?
More importantly, would you be able to see it, even if you were in it already?

I don't think the question should be about suffering in general. People suffer, sometimes horribly. We can look at that and say it's terrible. And it is. No one should argue that issue.
Suffering from a distance is just that; suffering. It's horrible and all that. And that's all it can ever be.
Until we take that suffering in ourselves and feel all that pain, it can never be anything more than pain. It can never be anything greater. We can never see the beauty of it. We can never see the transformation until we ourselves are transformed.

Several people aren't getting this at all, it's not the PoE arguer's job to defend what "omnibenevolence" is, they're just taking a notion that was used by theologians and showing how it contradicts.

Argue this if you wish, but your point is already won. It is also pointless. Taking an invalid, useless point and taking it one step further will only give you another invalid, useless point.

 

[Blackdog22]

@ QUagmire, reread my post that you most definitely didn't read. My stance has changed and I am not attributing suffering to evil since it isn't an entity. That wipes out half of the responses you made to me.

Secondly me trying to understand your point of view is because we are in a discussion forum and if I have no idea what your talking about then we can't discuss. It would actually be decent if you attempted the same instead of finding some sort of problem with someone trying to understand you. How do you even communicate in the world if no one can ask for clarification when your talking without you taking offense?

Thirdly, again the Bible says we won't stub our foot on a stone. Jesus was sent to save us from eternal suffering. Obviously suffering is bad, not evil since it can't think, but it is not compatible with God. If you think this is so provide scripture because I can provide plenty to back my stance up.

Oh and we are arguing Biblically here, thus the request for scripture.

 

[Quagmire]

@ QUagmire, reread my post that you most definitely didn't read. My stance has changed and I am not attributing suffering to evil since it isn't an entity. That wipes out half of the responses you made to me.

I'm not going to ague with you about any of this. Personally, I think you need to go back and read your posts.

Secondly me trying to understand your point of view is because we are in a discussion forum and if I have no idea what your talking about then we can't discuss.

You didn't say you were trying to understand what I said, you said you were trying to find some way to make what I said conform to what you already believed.

It would actually be decent if you attempted the same instead of finding some sort of problem with someone trying to understand you.

See above ^

How do you even communicate in the world if no one can ask for clarification when your talking without you taking offense?

I'm not offended, I just have a policy against wasting time. If someone were standing there with their fingers in their ears and their eyes slammed shut asking for "clarification, I probably wouldn't bother in that case either.

 

[Blackdog22]

I'm not going to ague with you about any of this. Personally, I think you need to go back and read your posts.

Quagmire, man.... I said I changed my position on my last post. You responded to my last post as if it were my first post which means you didn't "really" read it. If you had you wouldn't of mentioned evil and suffering being one and the same.

You didn't say you were trying to understand what I said, you said you were trying to find some way to make what I said conform to what you already believed.

No, no, no. No idea how you got that idea. I was asking whether you believed that God would send his son to die for us to save us from suffering if it wasn't compatible with him. I am asking a very direct question and I am trying to find out whether you think burning to death is something you find necessary. I still can't get a direct response. If it is not then you just answer no. There are no words being put in your mouth just a simple question that you can answer anyway you could possibly dream up.

I'm not offended, I just have a policy against wasting time. If someone were standing there with their fingers in their ears and their eyes slammed shut asking for "clarification, I probably wouldn't bother in that case either.

Well, your definitely coming off a little cross. I am asking questions that bring the idea of suffering into a definitive "not good" position. It seems you ignore these proofs of suffering not being a good thing, thus being incompatible with an all good God.

Whether we call suffering evil or bad doesn't change the argument of why. This is why the original question still stands whether we call it evil or bad or not good or suffering or torture or....... Just seems like a waste of time when in the end the problem of the original question still remains.

 

[Meow Mix]

Whether we call suffering evil or bad doesn't change the argument of why. This is why the original question still stands whether we call it evil or bad or not good or suffering or torture or....... Just seems like a waste of time when in the end the problem of the original question still remains.

This is exactly the point. The PoE possesses full force if even one person experiences suffering as negative anywhere.