Suffering

[joe1776]

I am able. First, your conclusion assumes there is a God. Second your first premise assumes there is a God. Circular.

In other words, you don't realize that an argument based on a 'conditional premise' grants that premise "for the sake of the argument."

 

[joe1776]

Then I reject your conclusion. If the entire purpose of suffering is to motivate good behavior but suffering can't be overcome with good behavior then it follows that suffering has some other role (or maybe no role).

So, basically, you're rejecting my conclusion because this premise isn't enough for you.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

I think it ought to be, but your opinion obviously is your call.

 

[ppp]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

I assume that you really mean:
p1: An existent creator designed and made humans with free will and a the ability to distinguish moral right from moral wrong. (conditional premise)

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

This is not a premise. You are merely defining terms. How we generally define good and bad behavior.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

Again, trivial. If bad behavior is defined as behavior that contributes to suffering, then in a world without suffering, there would be no bad behaviors. There could be no behavior that contributes to suffering.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

And the recent past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

That does not follow. A creator could be unconcerned with humans. Or mildly sadistic. You have no method of calculating the probabilities.

 

[joe1776]

I assume that you really mean:
p1: An existent creator designed and made humans with free will and a the ability to distinguish moral right from moral wrong. (conditional premise)

No, the only conditional premise is the existence of the Creator. I'll defend the other premises if you'd like to challenge any of them.

This is not a premise. You are merely defining terms. How we generally define good and bad behavior.

No, good and bad behavior can be defined in many ways. I'm claiming this relationship to suffering specifically as a fact.

Again, trivial. If bad behavior is defined as behavior that contributes to suffering, then in a world without suffering, there would be no bad behaviors. There could be no behavior that contributes to suffering.

It's not trivial to point out that suffering presents the necessary challenge.

That does not follow. A creator could be unconcerned with humans. Or mildly sadistic. You have no method of calculating the probabilities.

My conclusion follows logically from the premises of my argument. You nit-picked the premises, but IMO, you really didn't offer a serious counter that would require me to rethink my conclusion.

 

[Trailblazer]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

I agree with your premises and your conclusion but I would like to offer a slightly different stance, which is similar to what you offered.

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will.

p3 Some but not all people have a conscience enabling them to discern right from wrong.

p4 God sends Messengers who reveal teachings and laws that, if followed, allow everyone to discern right from wrong.

p5 Suffering is inherent in this life in a material world, so it is unavoidable.

p6 Sometimes good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to suffering, but that is not always the case, since bad things sometimes happen to good people through no fault of their own.

p7 Suffering offers us the opportunity for spiritual growth. A world without suffering would present no challenges, and thus with no suffering the opportunity for spiritual growth would be missing.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process, offering us an opportunity to learn and grow spiritually from our suffering.

c2 This earthly life is the one opportunity we have to learn and grow spiritually and this life is a preparation for our lives in the next world, which is a spiritual world.

 

[joe1776]

I agree with your premises and your conclusion but I would like to offer a slightly different stance, which is similar to what you offered.

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will.

p3 Some but not all people have a conscience enabling them to discern right from wrong.

p4 God sends Messengers who reveal teachings and laws that, if followed, allow everyone to discern right from wrong.

p5 Suffering is inherent in this life in a material world, so it is unavoidable.

p6 Sometimes good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to suffering, but that is not always the case, since bad things sometimes happen to good people through no fault of their own.

p7 Suffering offers us the opportunity for spiritual growth. A world without suffering would present no challenges, and thus with no suffering the opportunity for spiritual growth would be missing.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process, offering us an opportunity to learn and grow spiritually from our suffering.

c2 This earthly life is the one opportunity we have to learn and grow spiritually and this life is a preparation for our lives in the next world, which is a spiritual world.

I can't support P4. If I could, I'd accept Baha'i as my religion because it comes as close to my Global Citizenship philosophy as a religion can get.

 

[ppp]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise), [accepted conditionally]

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong. [rejected due to lack of evidence]

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it. [definitional. accepted.]

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad. [accepted. But there would be no bad behavior. Bad behavior (behavior that contributes to suffering) can only exist where there is suffering to contribute to.]

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past. [we have, but I don't think this is a premise. just a side note. it is relevant, but does not directly contribute to the conclusion. If we had not made moral progress, your conclusion could still be true.]

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad. [rejected, non sequitur & rejected p2]

No, the only conditional premise is the existence of the Creator. I'll defend the other premises if you'd like to challenge any of them.

My mistake.

We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong..

Assuming that you are talking about the conventional libertarian free will, I reject your second premise. I am willing to accept it conditionally, but I am unconvinced that we have it.
We do have a conscience.

No, good and bad behavior can be defined in many ways. I'm claiming this relationship to suffering specifically as a fact.

Maybe I should have broken that down a bit more. I accept your usage of good and bad behavior as an acceptable working definition. But good and bad are just labels that we attach to actions for a given reason. You are attaching them to easing and causing suffering, respectively. Some people defined them as obedience or disobedience to their particular god. Some people define them by utility.

I am saying that you are merely establishing how you are using the words; by what criteria. I am accepting that criteria. It does not mean we are correct outside of that agreed upon framework.

It's not trivial to point out that suffering presents the necessary challenge.

You defined good and bad behavior as, "p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it."
You said, "p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad."

Substituting in your definitions
A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate [easing suffering] over [contributing to suffering]..
A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate [easing something does not exist] over [contributing to something that does not exist].

I agree that there is a challenge, but you have not established that there is a necessary challenge. This is the thing you are trying to demonstrate.

 

[QuestioningMind]

My argument dealt only with suffering, however conscience deals in both reward and punishment. We feel guilt when we have treated someone badly and when we have treated them with unusual kindness, we feel good about it.

Reward alone can be effective Punishment alone can be effective. But together they are very powerful. That's why the Christian offer of Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers works so well.

As a former educator I rarely if ever found threats to be an effective teaching tool. As a nonbeliever the last thing that's likely to get me to believe is some threat about being sent to hell.

 

[ppp]

Reward alone can be effective Punishment alone can be effective. But together they are very powerful. That's why the Christian offer of Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers works so well.

The carrot and stick approach is very powerful. Fear is a string motivator. It just isn't a moral motivator.

 

[Koldo]

So, basically, you're rejecting my conclusion because this premise isn't enough for you.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

I think it ought to be, but your opinion obviously is your call.

Not quite. Let me ask you something: Are you positing this argument to explain suffering or is it to justify suffering?

Explain means to give a reason. Justify goes further than that and entails the reason is just. We can explain, if we know enough, any murder, however justifying them is a different beast.

Do you intend to explain or do you intend to justify suffering?

 

[74x12]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

We aren't making moral progress. You could say the world is possessed and needs exorcism. Can you do a global exorcism?

 

[joe1776]

...
I am saying that you are merely establishing how you are using the words; by what criteria. I am accepting that criteria. It does not mean we are correct outside of that agreed upon framework.

It sounds like you still have me defining terms when my premise asserts cause and effect. I'll restate the premise omitting the words bad and good.

If you agree that we have a conscience which enables us to discern moral from immoral behavior, then my premise can be restated

-- immoral behavior can cause suffering and moral behavior can ease suffering.

I agree that there is a challenge, but you have not established that there is a necessary challenge. This is the thing you are trying to demonstrate.

I regard it as necessary because I can't think of a better way to teach humans capable of free will how to make moral progress than by challenging them with suffering. If you can, I'll quit this argument.

 

[joe1776]

Not quite. Let me ask you something: Are you positing this argument to explain suffering or is it to justify suffering?

Explain means to give a reason. Justify goes further than that and entails the reason is just. We can explain, if we know enough, any murder, however justifying them is a different beast.

Do you intend to explain or do you intend to justify suffering?

Not explaining or justifying really.

I'm posting this argument as just one answer to the often-asked question: Why might a well-meaning Creator allow suffering?

 

[joe1776]

We aren't making moral progress. You could say the world is possessed and needs exorcism. Can you do a global exorcism?

Most people would agree with you, but you're wrong. The idea that we are going downhill morally is a popular myth.

Did you click on the link I offered for support?

 

[joe1776]

As a former educator I rarely if ever found threats to be an effective teaching tool. As a nonbeliever the last thing that's likely to get me to believe is some threat about being sent to hell.

You'd never make the grade as a Mafia Don. In the movie the Godfather (Brando) got people to do his bidding by making them "an offer they can't refuse." Essentially, both a wonderful reward and a harsh punishment were on the table. Take your pick.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

I'm not sure about the 'good behaviour eases suffering while bad behaviour contributes it' can be taken as given. The world appears less clear cut than that to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

Assumption based on faith. By the evidence the nature of our human existence remains the same regardless of whether a Creator exists or not.

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

Free Will is highly questionable. There are far to many diverse and conflicting beliefs, and add the fallible nature of being human what is right or wrong is most often justified by one's own perspective. There are more universal standards, but they are often ignored for selfish motives.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.]/quote]

Too simplistic and idealistic to be workable.

]quote] p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

The reality of suffering is both natural and self-inflicted by fallible selfish human motives.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past. [/quote[

Again, far too idealistic to be real. Fortunately and unfortunately humans will remain natural fallible humans


pquote[ c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

Do far humans remain very human and have not graduated past tribal selfish motives.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

Paul Bloom is trippy through the daisies idealist.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not sure about the 'good behaviour eases suffering while bad behaviour contributes it' can be taken as given. The world appears less clear cut than that to me.

Charity eases suffering as a rule. Criminal behavior causes suffering as a rule. I can't think of a major category of human behavior, good or bad, that would be exceptional. Can you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Charity eases suffering as a rule. Criminal behavior causes suffering as a rule. I can't think of a major category of human behavior, good or bad, that would be exceptional. Can you?

Category?

I'm talking about individual behaviours, not broad categories.
Doctors used to prescribe arsenic, with the best of intentions...

 

[joe1776]

Assumption based on faith. By the evidence the nature of our human existence remains the same regardless of whether a Creator exists or not.

In this argument, the Creator is offered not on faith but as a conditional premise.

Free Will is highly questionable.

I don't think it matters in this argument whether we act on free will or the illusion of free will.

The reality of suffering is both natural and self-inflicted by fallible selfish human motives.

True. But that isn't a counter-argument to the OP.

Do far humans remain very human and have not graduated past tribal selfish motives.

Yet we are making moral progress.

Paul Bloom is trippy through the daisies idealist.

Bloom is one of many social researchers over the last 20 years who have identified our moral sense (conscience) as innate and intuitive (not the product of reasoning),