SimWorld without suffering

[Just_me_Mike]

I know what the PoE is...

...and I disagree. It's whining dressed up as a logical, philosophical argument.

The whole thing pre-supposes that suffering is bad.

This is one of those topics hat keeps coming up and a few times I've asked people to explain objectively why suffering is inherently bad. All I've ever gotten is some version of "Because it hurts".

Well duh, didn't hurt, it wouldn't be suffering.

And again: all contingent on the presumption that suffering is "bad".

Or that at least one of the variables in the equation is an unknown quantity.

Nah, moral judgments are never that cut and dry. there's always some element of subjective preference trying to pass itself off as an absolute; in this case, again, that suffering is bad.

Or that our understanding of the variables involved is faulty and incomplete (which I believe to be the closest thing we'll ever find to an absolute in a discussion like this)

Which this is a separate example of how in my earlier post, I mentioned Meow Mix is doing just fine at creating an argument with absolute parameters, thus forcing the only conclusion.
Which is quite easy to do, and then sit back and say, wiggle your way out of that one.

I believe this stems from one needing a comfort zone when addressing the subject of God, suffering, evil, good etc...
Me personally I prefer to dive head first and assume nothing. In the end if it is all fantasy, so be it, but I would feel uncomfortable building such a tight parameter as she has, to which she can't seem to see the error of this box she is building.
Oh well, I am done for now, but I'll be back if I have anything else to offer.

 

[Reptillian]

Learning can be done without someone spontaneously combusting. That is all.

My point was that without suffering there is no need to learn or gain wisdom. No incentive to become wise. How can you learn from your misakes or the mistakes of others if you or they never suffer the consequences? Human intelligence resulted from the struggle to survive in a harsh yet understandable world. Its our suffering that defines our humanity.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

My point was that without suffering there is no need to learn or gain wisdom. No incentive to become wise. How can you learn from your misakes or the mistakes of others if you or they never suffer the consequences? Human intelligence resulted from the struggle to survive in a harsh yet understandable world. Its our suffering that defines our humanity.

To show I am not just trying to beat up on Meow Mix, this type of reasoning you put forth just does not answer for babies that suffer horribly, and then die without ANY joy one can speak of.

There is nothing for the baby to gain from that experience, so we have to address the PoE differently, because if this is all we have as an answer Meow Mix wins hands down...

 

[Reptillian]

To show I am not just trying to beat up on Meow Mix, this type of reasoning you put forth just does not answer for babies that suffer horribly, and then die without ANY joy one can speak of.

There is nothing for the baby to gain from that experience, so we have to address the PoE differently, because if this is all we have as an answer Meow Mix wins hands down...

The cause of babies suffering and dying has its roots fundamentally in our biology. One can't just get rid of this single effect without changing our nature as human beings significantly. I've got to go to work, but I'll elaborate on this more later in the day.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The cause of babies suffering and dying has its roots fundamentally in our biology. One can't just get rid of this single effect without changing our nature as human beings significantly. I've got to go to work, but I'll elaborate on this more later in the day.

Fine, when you get back, you'll have the task of explaining why God couldn't avoid making babies to live such a way. Like, not allow them to be born.
This is Meow Mix's argument, that God should have the power to prevent such things, and IF he does and chooses not to exercise it, it shows malevolence.

This is why I say your approach won't answer the puzzle Meow Mix is asking everyone to solve for.

 

[Willamena]

Except these people make up the majority of the people on the planet. Their beliefs have caused lots of harm to many different people through the centuries. If the idea of God is going to invade every facet of our lives by saying gays don't have the same rights as straight people, then we have every right to discuss it.

What is more akin to someone banging their head against a wall is seeing someone stoop to the, "Why do you care what we think," argument every time someone show a demonstrable flaw in there belief system. It almost sounds like a cry of defeat, but that could just be me.

Alright. "...indeterminate number of people somewhere out there, believed to be a majority,..."

Fixed.

 

[Willamena]

I've come to realize that a world without suffering is a world without need for wisdom, courage, moderation, justice, or indeed any virtue at all.

Also, medicine, shelters, food banks, etc., the absence all of which could be considered "good."

 

[Meow Mix]

...and I disagree. It's whining dressed up as a logical, philosophical argument.

The whole thing pre-supposes that suffering is bad.

I'm not the one that attributed God with benevolence; I'm just going off of the characteristics assigned by popular paradigms of theism. Benevolence is tied to suffering in such a way that a benevolent being shouldn't cause suffering, it's pretty much what the word means.

Nah, moral judgments are never that cut and dry. there's always some element of subjective preference trying to pass itself off as an absolute; in this case, again, that suffering is bad.

PoE isn't a moral judgement. It's a logical argument; i.e. it exposes contradictions in a set of assumed propositions. In this case, omnipotence + omniscience + creator + benevolence + existence (of the god) + suffering = contradiction. That's all. No moral judgement is passed in PoE.

 

[Meow Mix]

I've come to realize that a world without suffering is a world without need for wisdom, courage, moderation, justice, or indeed any virtue at all.

Why couldn't you have wisdom?

Indeed, though, you wouldn't need moderation or justice. What's wrong with that? Why would you miss them?

Right now, you're not experiencing a lack of oxygen so you're not having to conserve your breaths. Does it pain you that you don't get to experience the virtue of moderation right now, or are you doing just fine without it?

Right now, one of your family or friends is (hopefully) being not-murdered. Does it pain you that you're not getting to experience the justice done to the perpetrator, would you rather that be the case? Or are you doing just fine without the existence of justice in your life right now?

Many so-called virtues only exist to prevent or alleviate suffering. They become extraneous if suffering doesn't exist. In the nonexistence of suffering, their absence itself isn't a bad thing, so I don't get why people think that somehow they'd miss them.

 

[Meow Mix]

in this case all of us will be rewrded heaven, but before getting the prize we shall paly an amusing game.

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!

 

[Meow Mix]

A lot of people have no interest in playing that game and will simply toddle off to hell.

That seems like a pretty malevolent creator being to play torture games and then lock people in hell that don't win.

Are you sure you don't want to just solve the Problem of Evil by admitting God isn't benevolent?? You practically just did without saying so.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not the one that attributed God with benevolence; I'm just going off of the characteristics assigned by popular paradigms of theism.

For the sake of the argument that you are making, though, you are the one who attributes it. Else, you're fopping responsibility for your argument onto your opponent --I'm sure there's a fallacy name for that.

Benevolence is tied to suffering in such a way that a benevolent being shouldn't cause suffering, it's pretty much what the word means.

And it's an argument of aesthetics (i.e. "shouldn't"), not logic.

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe this stems from one needing a comfort zone when addressing the subject of God, suffering, evil, good etc...
Me personally I prefer to dive head first and assume nothing. In the end if it is all fantasy, so be it, but I would feel uncomfortable building such a tight parameter as she has, to which she can't seem to see the error of this box she is building.
Oh well, I am done for now, but I'll be back if I have anything else to offer.

The "box I'm building" is logic, it's everyone's box. The only wiggle room is in semantics, which we can work the details out of should the need arise, but otherwise reducing an opponent's valid argument to "Oh they're just building a box" doesn't accomplish anything.

Anyone can say that of anyone, and it would be a complete non-objection. In fact it's practically an ad hominem.

 

[Meow Mix]

My point was that without suffering there is no need to learn or gain wisdom. No incentive to become wise. How can you learn from your misakes or the mistakes of others if you or they never suffer the consequences? Human intelligence resulted from the struggle to survive in a harsh yet understandable world. Its our suffering that defines our humanity.

The cause of babies suffering and dying has its roots fundamentally in our biology. One can't just get rid of this single effect without changing our nature as human beings significantly. I've got to go to work, but I'll elaborate on this more later in the day.

Reptillian, you're answering the PoE from a non-theistic standpoint as far as I can tell... something the PoE was never intending to address.

There is no Problem of Evil if there is no God. We would EXPECT suffering to exist in the absence of a God that purposely created us. So, of course babies suffering and dying has roots in our biology: because we are beings that evolved to fit the universe, not beings living in a universe made for us. OF COURSE suffering exists for us if there isn't a personal creator-God.

I often like to point out that as far as I can see, the universe appears exactly as I'd expect it to in the absence of a personal creator-God.

 

[Meow Mix]

Fine, when you get back, you'll have the task of explaining why God couldn't avoid making babies to live such a way. Like, not allow them to be born.
This is Meow Mix's argument, that God should have the power to prevent such things, and IF he does and chooses not to exercise it, it shows malevolence.

This is why I say your approach won't answer the puzzle Meow Mix is asking everyone to solve for.

I'd vote for a different method of saving than not allowing them to be born, but close enough

 

[Meow Mix]

Also, medicine, shelters, food banks, etc., the absence all of which could be considered "good."

Why would it be bad if those things didn't have to exist?

I really, really don't understand this common objection.

"But then virtue X wouldn't exist!"

So? Why would it be missed? No one is attacking you right now and thus a hero doesn't (can't) exist in your room, are you sad that the hero isn't there? Would you rather a dragon torch your house so that someone could exist to slay it? I just really, seriously don't understand the "But X virtue wouldn't exist!" argument at all...

 

[Meow Mix]

For the sake of the argument that you are making, though, you are the one who attributes it. Else, you're fopping responsibility for your argument onto your opponent --I'm sure there's a fallacy name for that.

I'm taking the listed propositions of my target opponents and showing they contradict. So I don't understand what you're objecting to. This is a common thing done in philosophy: your opponent lists attributes of something, so you build an argument ASSUMING those attributes to demonstrate a contradiction. This is a very old tactic and I don't get what about it confuses you.

And it's an argument of aesthetics (i.e. "shouldn't"), not logic.

No, you're misinterpreting... maybe I shouldn't have used the word "shouldn't." A benevolent being creating suffering is a contradiction. There.

 

[Willamena]

Why would it be bad if those things didn't have to exist?

I wasn't being sarcastic. It would be a good thing if those things didn't have to exist.

I'm taking the listed propositions of my target opponents and showing they contradict. So I don't understand what you're objecting to. This is a common thing done in philosophy: your opponent lists attributes of something, so you build an argument ASSUMING those attributes to demonstrate a contradiction. This is a very old tactic and I don't get what about it confuses you.

But you build YOUR argument, not theirs.

To do otherwise is to create the straw man.

 

[Meow Mix]

I wasn't being sarcastic. It would be a good thing if those things didn't have to exist.

Oh. Where's that little foot in mouth smiley? Sorry for misunderstanding you

But you build YOUR argument, not theirs.

To do otherwise is to create the straw man.

I don't get what you mean, or even if you're condemning or condoning something.

In your opinion, is it acceptable to take someone's characteristics that they've listed and build an argument out of them with the purpose of demonstrating they contradict?

 

[Willamena]

In your opinion, is it acceptable to take someone's characteristics that they've listed and build an argument out of them with the purpose of demonstrating they contradict?

If you understand it. If you're ready, willing and able to own what it is you're talking about.