Suffering

[joe1776]

Then your answer as to why suffering exists is unsatisfactory, for there is suffering in the world that can't be justified by your reasoning.

You set the bar for proof high enough that I can't get over it. That's not really a tough trick to master for Internet forum debates.

 

[Koldo]

You set the bar for proof high enough that I can't get over it. That's not really a tough trick to master for Internet forum debates.

The bar has always been very high.
This is the problem of dealing with the concept of an all-knowing and resourceful creator... everything must be optimized because any flaw in design entails he is not one of those things... or not quite well-meaning.

 

[Koldo]

You set the bar for proof high enough that I can't get over it. That's not really a tough trick to master for Internet forum debates.

I am going to offer an analogy to further explain my last post. Imagine I have a very special power: I can heal you of any disease. And this power can be used in two different ways: (1) I can blink my eyes and make that person be instantly healed OR (2) I can pick my favorite axe, chop off that person's both arms and then that person gets healed just after.

If I am going to claim I am not a sadist, but rather the most kind person in the entire world, I better have a really good justification to use method #2 whenever I use it, as in every single time I use it. Right? Perhaps there should even be consent involved, wouldn't you say?

It is the same with God. Every single case of suffering must have a justification.

 

[joe1776]

The bar has always been very high.
This is the problem of dealing with the concept of an all-knowing and resourceful creator... everything must be optimized because any flaw in design entails he is not one of those things... or not quite well-meaning.

No sale. The ploy of raising the bar to impossible heights can be used in any debate.

 

[joe1776]

I am going to offer an analogy to further explain my last post. Imagine I have a very special power: I can heal you of any disease. And this power can be used in two different ways: (1) I can blink my eyes and make that person be instantly healed OR (2) I can pick my favorite axe, chop off that person's both arms and then that person gets healed just after.

If I am going to claim I am not a sadist, but rather the most kind person in the entire world, I better have a really good justification to use method #2 whenever I use it, as in every single time I use it. Right? Perhaps there should even be consent involved, wouldn't you say?

It is the same with God. Every single case of suffering must have a justification.

So, in your mind, if I can't answer every conceivable question you can dream up for the Creator, you aren't satisfied?

I have no choice then but to admit failure to persuade you. However, it wasn't my goal to persuade my debate opponents. My goal, as always, was to imagine lurkers who are intelligent but unbiased that my argument is solid.

I have but one regret. I should have made it clear in the OP that my argument was a response to the often heard question: Why would a Creator allow suffering?

 

[Koldo]

So, in your mind, if I can't answer every conceivable question you can dream up for the Creator, you aren't satisfied?

I have no choice then but to admit failure to persuade you. However, it wasn't my goal to persuade my debate opponents. My goal, as always, was to imagine lurkers who are intelligent but unbiased that my argument is solid.

I have but one regret. I should have made it clear in the OP that my argument was a response to the often heard question: Why would a Creator allow suffering?

Your argument is an unsatisfactory answer to that question. It only justifies the existence of a very specific subset of suffering, but not the real bad stuff. This isn't about whether you can manage to persuade me, but rather about how solid your argument is.

 

[Koldo]

No sale. The ploy of raising the bar to impossible heights can be used in any debate.

It is impossible just because there is a logical contradiction to an omnimax god and the existence of evil.

 

[joe1776]

... This isn't about whether you can manage to persuade me, but rather about how solid your argument is.

We agree on this much. Although I think my argument held up well.

I expected more hassle on the free-will premise than I got.

 

[Koldo]

We agree on this much. Although I think my argument held up well.

I don't see how when it fails to justify a whole suffering in the world...

I expected more hassle on the free-will premise than I got.

I tend to stay away from free will premises on this topic. Not because I can't argue against it, but rather because there is an entire debate to be had about that outside of the scope of the problem of evil.

 

[ppp]

We agree on this much. Although I think my argument held up well.

All that your argument says is that under the hypothetical framework of an extant creator that one possibility is that said creator is making people suffer to accomplish its own ends. This is hardly revelatory.

 

[joe1776]

All that your argument says is that under the hypothetical framework of an extant creator that one possibility is that said creator is making people suffer to accomplish its own ends. This is hardly revelatory.

How "revelatory" would you expect an RF post to be? I provided an answer, not easily dismissed, to the forum's frequently-heard question: Why would a compassionate Creator allow suffering? I didn't expect to change the world.

 

[ppp]

How "revelatory" would you expect an RF post to be? I provided an answer, not easily dismissed, to the forum's frequently-heard question: Why would a compassionate Creator allow suffering? I didn't expect to change the world.

I didn't say anything about compassionate. If you go back and read I said omnipotent and omniscient. If you are also claiming that this creator is compassionate let alone omnibenevolent, it would be impossible for that being to exist.

 

[Fool]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

would be constantly changing, or recycling.

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

more importantly like a thing in a maze, able to move beyond the illusion of limitation and requiring evolving past what appears to be a boundary. all boundaries are conventions - cloud atlas

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

good/bad under certain conditions is not necessarily good/bad under certain other conditions.

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

change is permanent becoming attached to anything permanently is going to get in the way of impermanence.

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.

unfortunately this is tenuous the closer you get to the pinnacle.

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.

mettle is steeled in both fire and water. or if you prefer formed in spirit and water

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

ok

 

[Sheldon]

My goal, as always, was to imagine lurkers who are intelligent but unbiased that my argument is solid.

Now who's setting an impossibly high bar?