SimWorld without suffering

[Gloone]

Did anyone research the pic of the vulture waiting for the child to die?

It's been awhile since I read the story....but as I recall....
the photographer chased away the bird.
His photo won a Pulitzer.

He may not have known the fate of the child after he left the scene.
But he himself, became haunted by the event.
He fell into depression and it is believed he committed suicide.

So you said you read about the photo. Why did someone leave their kid out there for it to get eaten in the first place?

 

[Thief]

So you said you read about the photo. Why did someone leave their kid out there for it to get eaten in the first place?

In some countries, the death rate is so high among infants....
mothers birth as many children as they can.....hoping some will survive.

I cannot be sure if this is the practice in Sudan.

Often the children are left to their own....begging for food as soon as they are able to speak.

 

[Gloone]

In some countries, the death rate is so high among infants....
mothers birth as many children as they can.....hoping some will survive.

I cannot be sure if this is the practice in Sudan.

Often the children are left to their own....begging for food as soon as they are able to speak.

.. and the death rate is high because people just get sick of their kids and leave it out for the buzzards because they decide they want a new one?

 

[Willamena]

Does if the mind dismisses it as not real.

Like realizing the scraping at the door is the dog and not an axe-murderer.

Ah, but the "problem" isn't evil's existence, per se. It's the presence of evil + benevolent all-powerful goody-two-shoes being.

 

[Walkntune]

Sorry to be so blunt, but how can this rationalization mean anything to a baby born with a painful disease, and then after a year die a painful death? What lesson did they learn?

I am not disagreeing with you about young children, adults learn from trial and errors, pain and suffering, but you must realize that argument looks thin when we address those that are not around long enough to learn anything.

This is where Meow Mix has the upper hand against arguments like you are presenting. That is why I have a problem with it, because it sounds fine for most situations, it doesn't work for all of them, therefor is ineffective against her position.

I will reword it this way. Pain and suffering is a signal to the brain damage is being done.That is it. Thats all there is to it.
It is the evil intent in man that uses pain as evil.
Unfortunately man causes much suffering through sin of selfishness and greed and allows the world to starve while he concerns himself with how green his grass is in the front lawn or as a nation how we use most of the worlds resources in a wasteful manner.
Pain and suffering is not evil but can be caused by evil acts.It can also be caused by acts that are not evil so therefore do not fit under the definition of evil.

Pain and suffering is the process of life wanting to continue past all resistance.

 

[ellenjanuary]

When I used to play Vice City, ya know how I spent the vast majority of my game time? Parking garage + sniper rifle = god's little angel of suffering. Unnecessary suffering at that. I mean, them cops didn't cause me no harm....

In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth. Remove the first ten words from the bible, and alla sudden, "creator god" becomes "engineer god." We don't know jack about some of these concepts - that are words with definitions, yet completely without meaning - like, almighty and omni and creation and nothing. And I know more than most - the portfolio of the artist ellenjanuary is a ball point and fifteen minutes - yet "creation from nothing?" Rather than spout the party line, preach a gospel that ain't even in the gospel, let me think like the god I know. "Created in god's image" means I need look no further than my nose to find a yardstick to measure the infinite. If I get a kick out of blowing people away just cause, who am I to make excuses for god?

I can, however, make excuses for my fellow human beings. "Why is there suffering in the world when god is all good and light and omni?" Here I am, on my pulpit, facing my congregation. The angel on my shoulder tells me to comfort them with scripture, the devil is telling me that they just want fire and brimstone, and to know that "we are better than them..." Mathematical theology, however, contains a curious piece of gospel called the scientific method...

Let us do an experiment. In one hand, I hold a hammer; in the other, an unsuspecting thumb - mine is a living faith, by the way... when I use the priestly wisdom of "do as I say, not as I do," it is because I'm a professional. Others might get hurt...

WHACK!

After a moment of silence for my swollen digit, I ask, where is the suffering - I saw you wince. Like many things, it is a case of asking the wrong questions. Let me ask the same question, only different - why is there compassion in the world? A god of goodness and almighty and omni, perhaps?

And the problem with utopia, of course; is that it is boring. In the happy-go-lucky "star trek universe," there are still Romulans ... (Klingons are aligned, last I heard. Indiscriminate phaser blasts to stray birds of prey is no longer politically correct....)

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I will reword it this way. Pain and suffering is a signal to the brain damage is being done.That is it. Thats all there is to it.
It is the evil intent in man that uses pain as evil.
Unfortunately man causes much suffering through sin of selfishness and greed and allows the world to starve while he concerns himself with how green his grass is in the front lawn or as a nation how we use most of the worlds resources in a wasteful manner.
Pain and suffering is not evil but can be caused by evil acts.It can also be caused by acts that are not evil so therefore do not fit under the definition of evil.

Pain and suffering is the process of life wanting to continue past all resistance.

This simply has nothing to do with the OP, or what I said. You just haven't answered for, or addressed what it being presented to you. Sorry...

 

[Meow Mix]

I will reword it this way. Pain and suffering is a signal to the brain damage is being done.That is it. Thats all there is to it.
It is the evil intent in man that uses pain as evil.
Unfortunately man causes much suffering through sin of selfishness and greed and allows the world to starve while he concerns himself with how green his grass is in the front lawn or as a nation how we use most of the worlds resources in a wasteful manner.
Pain and suffering is not evil but can be caused by evil acts.It can also be caused by acts that are not evil so therefore do not fit under the definition of evil.

Pain and suffering is the process of life wanting to continue past all resistance.

So, the being that created leishmaniasis (which causes huge boils that eventually eat people's faces off)

...you're telling me that the being that deliberately created leishmaniasis, knowing full well that it would do this to these people, isn't malevolent?

If you believe that God created life then you believe God created leishmaniasis. Why did God do that?

It's not KILLING these people, it's just making them live through life with constant pain and itching as social pariahs who have to cover their faces. Sometimes it gets in their eyes and they aren't able to scratch it without going blind (which many do when they scratch it at last).

What kind of just, loving, benevolent God unleashes this thing on people, knowing exactly what would happen? Do you have an explanation for the existence of suffering through leishmaniasis?

Or are you going to use arguments like "oh the suffering is only in their minds" or "oh the suffering is just there to remind them not to touch that hot burner again?" Clearly neither of those arguments works here. This suffering is very real, and it is very awful. EXTREMELY awful. Can you explain away this suffering if there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, BENEVOLENT creator God? Perhaps it's because they're sinners, or weren't baptized?

Perhaps they're God's examples to "test our faith," or God uses them to bring compassion into the world?

Perhaps you'll argue, "Oh, that was caused by nature, which isn't evil so this isn't a question of evil" or something like that. But the question remains: why did God create it to be that way? Isn't He culpable for the house that He built? If a carpenter built a house with a death pit full of spikes and someone fell down it, wouldn't the carpenter be at some fault for negligence (or in that case, outright malevolence) of construction?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If not, then your position is what's known as "inexhaustive" and until you find one that does you must admit defeat.

Either you can find an exhaustive refutation for PoE, or you can't and must admit its force.

Either or thinking again, eh? Life sucks. God didn't make life suck. We didn't make life suck. Life just sucks. Why is it so important that you assign blame?

 

[PolyHedral]

Because one of the premises is that God did make life suck?

 

[Willamena]

So, the being that created leishmaniasis (which causes huge boils that eventually eat people's faces off) ...you're telling me that the being that deliberately created leishmaniasis, knowing full well that it would do this to these people, isn't malevolent?

If you believe that God created life then you believe God created leishmaniasis. Why did God do that?

It's not KILLING these people, it's just making them live through life with constant pain and itching as social pariahs who have to cover their faces. Sometimes it gets in their eyes and they aren't able to scratch it without going blind (which many do when they scratch it at last).

What kind of just, loving, benevolent God unleashes this thing on people, knowing exactly what would happen? Do you have an explanation for the existence of suffering through leishmaniasis?

Or are you going to use arguments like "oh the suffering is only in their minds" or "oh the suffering is just there to remind them not to touch that hot burner again?" Clearly neither of those arguments works here. This suffering is very real, and it is very awful. EXTREMELY awful. Can you explain away this suffering if there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, BENEVOLENT creator God? Perhaps it's because they're sinners, or weren't baptized?

Perhaps they're God's examples to "test our faith," or God uses them to bring compassion into the world?

Perhaps you'll argue, "Oh, that was caused by nature, which isn't evil so this isn't a question of evil" or something like that. But the question remains: why did God create it to be that way? Isn't He culpable for the house that He built? If a carpenter built a house with a death pit full of spikes and someone fell down it, wouldn't the carpenter be at some fault for negligence (or in that case, outright malevolence) of construction?

The argument has become rhetorical. Leishmaniasis is treatable and preventable. It would be special pleading to blame --err, argue --"God" as malevolent for the suffering that the illness causes and omit that "God" is also benevolent for the relief that the treatment causes.

God forbid "God" be both malevolent and benevolent at once.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Because one of the premises is that God did make life suck?

Ah yes. If God created the world, then God made evil and so on and so on.
But...God didn't create the world, did he? So...you're entire point is basically void. Unless you are allowing God to have created everything...but he'd have to exist first...

 

[Willamena]

Ah yes. If God created the world, then God made evil and so on and so on.
But...God didn't create the world, did he? So...you're entire point is basically void. Unless you are allowing God to have created everything...but he'd have to exist first...

It's not good form to assume your opponent's argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

The argument has become rhetorical. Leishmaniasis is treatable and preventable. It would be special pleading to blame --err, argue --"God" as malevolent for the suffering that the illness causes and omit that "God" is also benevolent for the relief that the treatment causes.

God forbid "God" be both malevolent and benevolent at once.

If a carpenter builds a spiked death trap in a house, can the carpenter take credit for a yeoman who comes along and nails boards over it to prevent people from falling in it?

 

[Meow Mix]

Ah yes. If God created the world, then God made evil and so on and so on.
But...God didn't create the world, did he? So...you're entire point is basically void. Unless you are allowing God to have created everything...but he'd have to exist first...

Strike, there is such a thing as assuming premises of your opponent's in order to demonstrate a contradiction in them.

For instance:

Sally: There's a cat-eating dragon in my garage! It can eat all cats in the garage in an hour's time.

Billy: Is that your garage there?

Sally: Yes.

Billy: Is that your cat in the garage?

Sally: Yes, but I'm too afraid to go in and get him!

Billy: How long has your cat been in there?

Sally: For a couple of hours, the poor thing.

Billy: Ah, but if there is a cat-eating dragon in your garage; and it can eat ALL cats in the garage within an hour, there is a contradiction with your propositions. Either there isn't a dragon, or it doesn't eat cats, or it can't eat ALL cats in the garage within an hour since clearly your cat has been there for more than an hour.

 

[Willamena]

If a carpenter builds a spiked death trap in a house, can the carpenter take credit for a yeoman who comes along and nails boards over it to prevent people from falling in it?

If the carpenter also built the yeoman, yeah.

 

[Meow Mix]

If the carpenter also built the yeoman, yeah.

Granted, but is it benevolent to create the spike trap in the first place?

 

[Willamena]

Granted, but is it benevolent to create the spike trap in the first place?

Of course not.

Does malevolence trump benevolence?

 

[Meow Mix]

Of course not.

Does malevolence trump benevolence?

It trumps OMNIbenevolence, yes.

Omnibenevolence is essentially the same as "not-malevolence."

Though usually PoE just says "benevolence" it's actually short for "omnibenevolence."

Otherwise there's no dilemma at all. Even the most evil person can be benevolent to at least someone. I always use the example that Sauron in LotR is mostly benevolent to the Black Numenoreans: offering them title and privilege and land in the event that they win the war.

PoE responds to a God that's postulated to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If someone says God can act malevolently even once, then they are simply dropping "omnibenevolence" from God's attributes -- which is indeed one way to solve the PoE.

The reason why PoE sticks around though is because most are unwilling to drop any of those characteristics.

 

[MEMNOCK]

To summarize:
Why the hell hasn't God done this unless He is a malevolent/negligent creator?

Although I agree with alot of what you have to say, I think the main problem is that people often believe that God is like humans. The Universe/God has laws. Without these laws nothing could exist. So in the sense of someone getting ran over by the truck; The truck had to follow the same laws at all time. To make exceptions would be chaotic. It might seem like a small thing to change, but the laws are setup to keep all things in balance. Not to mention, one human death to a infinite Universe/God means very little. Just a thought...