SimWorld without suffering

[strikeviperMKII]

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 question, right?

"If we can program a world that doesn't have physical suffering or innocent victims then why couldn't God have made reality that way?"

I think the simplest, and most logical, answer is that he could have. If we can do it, at least in computer code, then we can reasonably assume that God could invent a world that is suffering-free.
If we assume this is true, we have to then ask ourselves why God didn't do such a thing.
I prefer to ask the question why would you make such a world? How would you even know how to make such a place, had you not been in suffering in the first place? How would you know that you'd need to take away inertia or collision detection if you didn't know that would actually kill someone?

 

[naikaidiver]

"If God exists, he's a mean kid with a magnifying glass and we're the ants!"
Jim Carrey, Bruce Almighty

While when I was younger, and a bit more, shall we say, "cynical" I used to make statements similar to this for the very same reason you are describing. As a child going to church, I just could not understand why every Sunday, I would listen to sermons that said God punishes the wicked, yet is forgiving and blesses the lives of the righteous while I watched good, devout Christians die of cancer.

Obviously, I didn't like the answers I got.

I did enjoy your parallels with game development though.

 

[Blackdog22]

"If God exists, he's a mean kid with a magnifying glass and we're the ants!"
Jim Carrey, Bruce Almighty

While when I was younger, and a bit more, shall we say, "cynical" I used to make statements similar to this for the very same reason you are describing. As a child going to church, I just could not understand why every Sunday, I would listen to sermons that said God punishes the wicked, yet is forgiving and blesses the lives of the righteous while I watched good, devout Christians die of cancer.

Obviously, I didn't like the answers I got.

I did enjoy your parallels with game development though.

I also always wondered why Jesus(God) seemed to love the wicked when he was on earth, but God(Jesus) wants to destroy them entirely, with an iron fist made of lava, and put spears through there bellies to ensure they never see the light of day with Satan(Lucifer) and all his demons eating away at the flesh of these miserable wicked beings, but at the same time Jesus(God) just loves them to peaches!

Yeah, hes the same person alright.:sarcastic

 

[Blackdog22]

This question, right?

"If we can program a world that doesn't have physical suffering or innocent victims then why couldn't God have made reality that way?"

I think the simplest, and most logical, answer is that he could have. If we can do it, at least in computer code, then we can reasonably assume that God could invent a world that is suffering-free.
If we assume this is true, we have to then ask ourselves why God didn't do such a thing.
I prefer to ask the question why would you make such a world? How would you even know how to make such a place, had you not been in suffering in the first place? How would you know that you'd need to take away inertia or collision detection if you didn't know that would actually kill someone?

Why would I make a perfect world? Well, why do you think Heaven is called paradise?

As for the rest, I think God has got that part on lockdown, he did think the laws up in the first place and is omniscient right?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Why would I make a perfect world? Well, why do you think Heaven is called paradise?

Why can't Heaven have suffering?

As for the rest, I think God has got that part on lockdown, he did think the laws up in the first place and is omniscient right?

That God knows isn't the point. How would you know? How would we know what is good and what is bad without having both?

 

[Blackdog22]

Why can't Heaven have suffering?

You would have to ask the people who wrote the Bible, have had visions of Heaven, and who believe in Heaven that question. I would assume though it is because God is good and God quite clearly lays out that he isn't a fan of suffering. Think about someone suffering with cancer in Heaven and God is just sitting there watching them, smirking(I mean why else would he not help them?)..... That sounds like Heaven to you? Here is a definition:

heav·en (h

v

n)n.1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.
2. Christianity a. often Heaven The abode of God, the angels, and the souls of those who are granted salvation.
b. An eternal state of communion with God; everlasting bliss.

3. Any of the places in or beyond the sky conceived of as domains of divine beings in various religions.
4. a. Heaven God: Heaven help you!
b. heavens Used in various phrases to express surprise: Good heavens!

5. The celestial powers; the gods. Often used in the plural: The heavens favored the young prince.
6. A condition or place of great happiness, delight, or pleasure


Okay, so focusing on the bolded parts. Have you ever seen a guy in suffering, torture, pain, or hurt laughing with great delight or pleasure? Do you ever walk into a hospital and see cancer patients in an eternal state of bliss? Was Jesus sent to send us to the torture and suffering of Hell? If you answered yes to any of these questions I know a guy, he can help.

That God knows isn't the point. How would you know? How would we know what is good and what is bad without having both?

Why would I want to know? I don't know what doo doo tastes like, but I still enjoy steak. If me seeing someone else in misery is necessary so that I can feel "peachy" about my own life, then that is one sick idea.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You would have to ask the people who wrote the Bible, have had visions of Heaven, and who believe in Heaven that question. I would assume though it is because God is good and God quite clearly lays out that he isn't a fan of suffering. Think about someone suffering with cancer in Heaven and God is just sitting there watching them, smirking(I mean why else would he not help them?)..... That sounds like Heaven to you? Here is a definition:

heav·en (h

v

n)n.1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.
2. Christianity a. often Heaven The abode of God, the angels, and the souls of those who are granted salvation.
b. An eternal state of communion with God; everlasting bliss.

3. Any of the places in or beyond the sky conceived of as domains of divine beings in various religions.
4. a. Heaven God: Heaven help you!
b. heavens Used in various phrases to express surprise: Good heavens!

5. The celestial powers; the gods. Often used in the plural: The heavens favored the young prince.
6. A condition or place of great happiness, delight, or pleasure

None of this says why Heaven can't have suffering.

Okay, so focusing on the bolded parts. Have you ever seen a guy in suffering, torture, pain, or hurt laughing with great delight or pleasure?

Yes, I have.

Do you ever walk into a hospital and see cancer patients in an eternal state of bliss?

A state of eternal bliss does not exclude suffering. Being in any state infinitely is destructive. It dilutes the state that you are in, effectively destroying its power.

Was Jesus sent to send us to the torture and suffering of Hell? If you answered yes to any of these questions I know a guy, he can help.

We subject ourselves to hell. Physical pain is a fact of life, whether its a skinned knee or something worse. Greater physical pain does not mean greater suffering. Suffering is independent of physical pain.

Why would I want to know? I don't know what doo doo tastes like, but I still enjoy steak. If me seeing someone else in misery is necessary so that I can feel "peachy" about my own life, then that is one sick idea.

I think we all have plenty of suffering for ourselves for one. You don't need to take on anyone else's pain as well.
You know what steak tastes like in reference to something else. If all you had was steak and a candy bar, the steak tastes worse than the candy bar. But then you get a cup of black coffee. Now the candy bar tastes even better. The steak too.

 

[Blackdog22]

So you think Heaven is going to be a slightly better version of Hell? Although suffering isn't exclusive to pain, pain is in fact a part of suffering. When someone says: "End the animals suffering." Why do you think they say that? Is it because pain isn't suffering in anyway at all? So if pain isn't ever suffering then when the Bible describes Hell as a place of great suffering it means.......... I will let you answer that.

Overall though the point you are trying to make is one of semantics. Whether we call it suffering or pain the original question still exists. Just change suffering to pain if you want to get all semantical with it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So you think Heaven is going to be a slightly better version of Hell?

I don't think I said that.

Although suffering isn't exclusive to pain, pain is in fact a part of suffering.

Pain is only suffering when you make it suffering.

When someone says: "End the animals suffering." Why do you think they say that? Is it because pain isn't suffering in anyway at all?

They see pain, and because they themselves have equated pain with suffering, see animals in pain as animals suffering. So in ending, or trying to end, the suffering of animals, they believe that they will relieve some suffering of their own.

So if pain isn't ever suffering then when the Bible describes Hell as a place of great suffering it means.......... I will let you answer that.

Heaven is something we chose. Hell is also something we chose. But the simple fact of life is that life is easier than death. Ever hear of the law of entropy? Life is order. Death is disorder. We will naturally tend towards disorder. We have to consciously chose life rather than death.

Overall though the point you are trying to make is one of semantics. Whether we call it suffering or pain the original question still exists. Just change suffering to pain if you want to get all semantical with it.

You have equated pain and suffering. There is a difference. Pain does not cause suffering, but if you are suffering, you are most likely in pain, be it physical, emotional or mental.