The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Sheldon]

It only remains in the heads of people who don't know how to think beyond the box.Some people put themselves in a box and just don't know how to get out of it. They think with one-track mind and just don't know how to reason via critical thinking!

No, you obviously don't understand critical thinking, or theodicy, and are trying to wave away a rational paradox that theologians have struggled with for millennia, with desperate rationalisations. If you genuinely think you have solved it, I can only suggest you contact the Vatican, they'll be thrilled.

Why not?

Obviously because the paradox remains.

I solved it! Do I get a prize?

You can pat yourself on the back if that makes you happy, but theologians globally will not be impressed, nor will anyone who understand the paradox of theodicy.

I already showed the theodicy is flawed.

I think you need to learn what it means.

It assumes our world is the center piece and everything revolves around us! (figuratively speaking). It does not understand how the time works outside of our universe.
God is not existing with evil in the same dimension - in a manner ancient philosophers assumed.

No it doesn't, you don't seem to understand the paradox, or the rational deduction it is drawn from.

Why keep mentioning Christianity? Please define Christianity.

Obviously because one concept of deity that creates the paradox, is quite a common one among many Christians, though of course it is not unique to that religion.

Once again, I told you the theodicy is flawed. It starts with wrong premise!

Why are you telling me, I don't believe in any deity or deities, you can direct your objections to theists who believe in omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.

It is not fooling me because I didn't put myself in a box!

The paradox remains, and if you genuinely think you have succeeded where countless theologians and religions apologists have failed for millennia, then it manifestly has fooled you. Hubris and stridency are not sound argument.

God can be omni-benevolent and and all the other Omnis while suffering occurs on a tiny world of the size of a drop of water.

Not without violating the aw of non contradiction.

God can choose not to be omni-present .......Only folks who want to limit God's capabilities would create something like this theodicy.

You have simply proved again that you don't understand theodicy, or at least the rational contradiction that causes it. I will give you a clue, it has absolutely nothing to do with limiting those characteristics in a deity. Quite the opposite in fact. It's also you who trying to rationalise this paradox away by imaging a deity that can limit it's powers. Imagining a deity that chooses to allow suffering, no matter how it achieved this, cannot rationally be claimed to be omnibenevolent.

This line of thinking is exactly what creates atheists.

Nope, I am an atheist and theodicy has absolutely nothing to do with my lack of belief.

if some sort of evil exist in a realm while God decided to be temporarily absent - then it should not be an issue and it doesn't make God malevolent.

Choosing to allow evil is a rational contradiction with omnibenevolence.

 

[Sheldon]

It only remains in the heads of people who don't know how to think beyond the box.Some people put themselves in a box and just don't know how to get out of it. They think with one-track mind and just don't know how to reason via critical thinking!

No, you obviously don't understand critical thinking, or theodicy, and are trying to wave away a rational paradox that theologians have struggled with for millennia, with desperate rationalisations. If you genuinely think you have solved it, I can only suggest you contact the Vatican, they'll be thrilled.

Why not?

Obviously because the paradox remains.

I solved it! Do I get a prize?

You can pat yourself on the back if that makes you happy, but theologians globally will not be impressed, nor will anyone who understand the paradox of theodicy.

I already showed the theodicy is flawed.

I think you need to learn what it means.

It assumes our world is the center piece and everything revolves around us! (figuratively speaking). It does not understand how the time works outside of our universe.
God is not existing with evil in the same dimension - in a manner ancient philosophers assumed.

No it doesn't, you don't seem to understand the paradox, or the rational deduction it is drawn from.

Why keep mentioning Christianity? Please define Christianity.

Obviously because one concept of deity that creates the paradox, is quite a common one among many Christians, though of course it is not unique to that religion.

Once again, I told you the theodicy is flawed. It starts with wrong premise!

Why are you telling me, I don't believe in any deity or deities, you can direct your objections to theists who believe in omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.

It is not fooling me because I didn't put myself in a box!

The paradox remains, and if you genuinely think you have succeeded where countless theologians and religions apologists have failed for millennia, then it manifestly has fooled you. Hubris and stridency are not sound argument.

God can be omni-benevolent and and all the other Omnis while suffering occurs on a tiny world of the size of a drop of water.

Not without violating the aw of non contradiction.

God can choose not to be omni-present .......Only folks who want to limit God's capabilities would create something like this theodicy.

You have simply proved again that you don't understand theodicy, or at least the rational contradiction that causes it. I will give you a clue, it has absolutely nothing to do with limiting those characteristics in a deity. Quite the opposite in fact. It's also you who trying to rationalise this paradox away by imaging a deity that can limit it's powers. Imagining a deity that chooses to allow suffering, no matter how it achieved this, cannot rationally be claimed to be omnibenevolent.

This line of thinking is exactly what creates atheists.

Nope, I am an atheist and theodicy has absolutely nothing to do with my lack of belief.

if some sort of evil exist in a realm while God decided to be temporarily absent - then it should not be an issue and it doesn't make God malevolent.

Choosing to allow evil is a rational contradiction with omnibenevolence.

 

[leroy]

You seem to be since the explanation of why you were wrong involved the ability of animals to learn.

Which is based on a straw man , nobody is denying that animals can learn

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is based on a straw man , nobody is denying that animals can learn

And here you are being logically inconsistent. The ability to learn makes the conscious detection of pain to be a positive trait. You should be able to understand this.

 

[leroy]

I disagree. I'd elaborate, but what's the point? Look at how many questions I asked in my last post that went unanswered:











You also didn't address why "help" and "better" don't equate to survival benefit.

Why does that happen? Did you think that I wouldn't be interested in the answers, or that I didn't deserve them? The answers to those questions would have helped us make forward progress, but you declined to do your part. Whatever, you triple my work when you do that, and the work isn't for my benefit. I don't have any problem with this matter. You do. You have questions.

I'll also add that it's disrespectful and offensive. My words don't count? Why do I even bother writing them to you? I've treated your words like they mattered, but they don't any more. Even if you answered those questions now, I not interested in continuing any further. I've made my case, I'm done trying to get you to cooperate, we can't make progress if you won't, and I've lost interest in trying to help.

We can do this again in the future on another topic if you like, but once I see that you (or anybody else) won't do their part, I'll do what I'm doing here: Ending the discussion.

Before signing off, since you declined to weigh in with your opinions to all of those questions, I'll just go ahead and answer them. We would do worse without conscious suffering from cold, which is why nature would select for individuals with that capability. You have no purpose for this line of questioning apart from arguing against evolution by insisting that evolution could not have accomplished that, which points to your god. Both theists and atheists have an explanation for conscious suffering. There is no reason for conscious suffering to occur unless either it conferred a survival benefit or an intelligent designer wanted it to be that way. I wouldn't turn off the stove. I would just keep burning my hand on it because without a conscious experience to teach me, I'd have no more reason the second time to avoid it than I did the first, also demonstrating the survival advantage of consciousness of pain.

Thanks for your good cheer. If we do this again in the future on another topic, please try to do your part. Look at what's written. If you disagree with any point made, point it out and give your reason. If you agree, say so in order to let me know that you saw it and agreed. If you are asked any non-rhetorical questions like all of the ones above, answer them. That's dialectic. If not, the ending will be the same as this one, but probably sooner. Why? Ask yourself what's in it for the other guy when you do that. What value do you think there is for me for you to ignore so much of it? I can tell you: none.

That is an unfair accusation, specifically because you have ignored my question the fish twice.

Most of your questions are based on the strawman assumption that I am making a case for ID.and .irreducible complexity....given that I corrected you and explained to you that promoting ID is not the purpose , I though it was obvious that your further questions are irrelevant

The rest of the questions have been answered before .

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
Why would I turn off the stove? And why wouldn't I put my hand back on the hot element if I'm unaware that I shouldn't?

As has been told multiple times, you dont need to feel conscious pain in order to remove your hand of the hot element......and if you are an intelligent creature you could notice that if you turn off the stove the object will no longer be hot......you dont need to feel conscious pain to do that.

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
If it's not due to an intelligent designer, it must be due to evolution, correct?

I am not building a case for ID in this thread so I don't see the relevance of the question.

But yes evolution (darwinism) is the best alternative once excluded ID

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
Why else would that suffering occur if not for it conferring an evolutionary benefit?

Again the whole point of the thread is that we don't know why is there suffering, nether do theists nor naturalists have an answer.... there are many possibilities but no convincing and conclusive explanation

Both theist and naturalist would (or should ) argue that suffering is a byproduct of a grater good (or greater benefit) but none has a definite explanation of what this good would be .

Is that your larger argument, that since we experience suffering, and since evolution could not be responsible, God is? If not, what is your purpose for pursuing this line of inquiry?

As has been answered, no that is not my larger argument... so the following questions are based on a false assumption

How do you suppose we'd fare if we couldn't experience the suffering of cold exposure? Do you imagine the body running somewhere for warmth without feeling the discomfort of cold exposure

.

The same way invertebrates do, spiders don't have a conscious experience of suffering, they simply "feel something " and instinctively move to a warm place (inside your house for example)

If spiders where inteligent they could make the conscious decision of building their own houses regardless if they feel conscious pain or not

You also didn't address why "help" and "better" don't equate to survival benefit.

Help and better are too generic , something can be good for our society, even if it has no selective (darwinian) benefit . Long term benefits would be an example of this

 

[leroy]

And here you are being logically inconsistent. The ability to learn makes the conscious detection of pain to be a positive trait. You should be able to understand this.

Ok so the ability to learn has a selective benefit......nobody is disputing that.

You seem to belive that
1 conscious detection of pain
And
2 feeling conscious pain

Are the same thing

 

[BrightShadow]

Why are you telling me, I don't believe in any deity or deities, you can direct your objections to theists who believe in omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.

1) You are the one who presented this theodicy; so, why make such a statement? Why refusing to hear the counter argument?
2) Theists who believe in an all-Omni deity don't need to be told anything! They are on the correct path in regards to God's supreme attributes! IMO. So, why would I direct my objections toward them?

Imagining a deity that chooses to allow suffering, no matter how it achieved this, cannot rationally be claimed to be omnibenevolent.

Are you aware where the claim originated from? Via religious doctrines? Right? So, God (in some major religion) claimed to be omnibenevolent himself! In that case - obviously you have to check the validity of this claim from God's prospective and from God's Realm! Have you ever heard the proverb about the "Frog in the Well"? The frog never saw a way out of the well and spend his entire life in the "Well" - thinking nothing is out there! The "Well" was his entire World! Similarly, you need to broaden your horizon! If you are going to evaluate God's supreme traits - you need to do it from God's realm. But you can't - at least not when you are alive. I mentioned this in my last post. Let me run over it again - in case you missed it!

I told you the theodicy is flawed. It literally starts from wrong premise! Since you cannot look from God's realm or God's prospective - it is a baseless argument. It proves nothing! You cannot describe how an eagle sees the world when you spent your whole life inside a box (literally). You cannot describe how the storm engulfs the land when you lived and died inside the eye of the storm! You don't know how God surrounds us!

Time will tell how time created this illusion that God and evil is residing in the same ground in the manner this theodicy projects . Time will also explain how this paradox is false to anyone who is amused by it (you and your philosophers).I am not fooled by it, because I don't believe God is existing with evil in the same dimension - in a manner ancient philosophers assumed. IMO. Look and think beyond the box!

If you genuinely think you have solved it, I can only suggest you contact the Vatican, they'll be thrilled.

Last I checked, they have a bigger issue to resolve first. They believe in a human version of God! It is like telling someone how to take care of some minor scratches on their car - when car has serious transmission issues!

I am an atheist and theodicy has absolutely nothing to do with my lack of belief.

Feel free to point out your reason for your lack of belief. Particularly, if it is other than your need for empirical evidence!
On the contrary, I can give you many reasons from the nature to think - there is a such a supreme entity called a creator.

 

[BrightShadow]

Yet the need to protect oneself from a greater evil will still exist at times.

Oh! I see! We can do evil and protect ourselves from greater evil but God cannot do things for greater good? I know - you will say - God should be uphold on higher standards or God can work differently and God can take away evil and suffering altogether etc. etc.
Yes! sure God can do all that if he so chooses and that can be achieved via a few different paths....

1) Take away our freewill and turn us into preprogrammed robots!
2) Obliterate us altogether with all evil entities and thus evil will be gone for good!
3) temptation needs to be contented and that means all of our needs must be satisfied and fulfilled in its entirety. In other words - put all souls in a place like heavens!

God would do number 3 eventually but obviously after Angels can be shown which of our souls can truly be salvaged! To do anything prior to that would defeat the purpose of the entire project!

Anyhow, so, after your above quoted comment - I hope you will remember next time - when you accuse God's actions to be malevolent in nature! Remember you indicated - doing bad things can be justified when you come to the conclusion that -someone else is greater evil than you. (That is pretty much your position!) Do you see any difference between you and the terrorists from that line of thinking? They also think we (westerners) are the greater evil!

With your biased and limited knowledge behind the root causes of any political conflicts - if you think your position is correct regarding a group of people and you think they deserve carpet bombing and attacks from drones and indiscriminately eliminated together with innocent civilians then why question any of God's actions when his knowledge is incomparable to yours? Every thing happens can be justified. Everything has a valid reason. You may not know that reason or the circumstance! So, you should refrain from questioning God's actions especially if you don't even believe in such an entity!

I believe it is an automated world where Angels are sorting out which of our souls should be allowed back into God's immediate kingdom. Since I believe - no one is born sin-free - every suffering can be justified. In this world, time works differently for us. It is possible everything happened in a friction of a moment but it is laid out in a way that gives an illusion of time. So, by removing "time" from the equation - God's traits remain unstained! I believe God already knows who does what, where and how etc. He is just showing his Angels that some of our souls could be salvaged and that - we are not all lost cause!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh! I see! We can do evil and protect ourselves from greater evil but God cannot do things for greater good? I know - you will say - God should be uphold on higher standards or God can work differently and God can take away evil and suffering altogether etc. etc.
Yes! sure God can do all that if he so chooses and that can be achieved via a few different paths....

1) Take away our freewill and turn us into preprogrammed robots!
2) Obliterate us altogether with all evil entities and thus evil will be gone for good!
3) temptation needs to be contented and that means all of our needs must be satisfied and fulfilled in its entirety. In other words - put all souls in a place like heavens!

God would do number 3 eventually but obviously after Angels can be shown which of our souls can truly be salvaged! To do anything prior to that would defeat the purpose of the entire project!

Anyhow, so, after your above quoted comment - I hope you will remember next time - when you accuse God's actions to be malevolent in nature! Remember you indicated - doing bad things can be justified when you come to the conclusion that -someone else is greater evil than you. (That is pretty much your position!) Do you see any difference between you and the terrorists from that line of thinking? They also think we (westerners) are the greater evil!

With your biased and limited knowledge behind the root causes of any political conflicts - if you think your position is correct regarding a group of people and you think they deserve carpet bombing and attacks from drones and indiscriminately eliminated together with innocent civilians then why question any of God's actions when his knowledge is incomparable to yours? Every thing happens can be justified. Everything has a valid reason. You may not know that reason or the circumstance! So, you should refrain from questioning God's actions especially if you don't even believe in such an entity!

I believe it is an automated world where Angels are sorting out which of our souls should be allowed back into God's immediate kingdom. Since I believe - no one is born sin-free - every suffering can be justified. In this world, time works differently for us. It is possible everything happened in a friction of a moment but it is laid out in a way that gives an illusion of time. So, by removing "time" from the equation - God's traits remain unstained! I believe God already knows who does what, where and how etc. He is just showing his Angels that some of our souls could be salvaged and that - we are not all lost cause!

We have limits. You are now limiting the power of God. The reason that we have to do less than optimal things is because we are not omniscient, and omnipotent. Those excuses would not apply to a God.

You are not reasoning properly when you try to put the same limitations on God that we have to put on man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so the ability to learn has a selective benefit......nobody is disputing that.

You seem to belive that
1 conscious detection of pain
And
2 feeling conscious pain

Are the same thing

You appear to be trying to define your own nonsensical terms and are failing again at it. Yes, the two are one and the same. You would have to define the two terms properly and show how they are different in life.

 

[BrightShadow]

We have limits. You are now limiting the power of God. The reason that we have to do less than optimal things is because we are not omniscient, and omnipotent. Those excuses would not apply to a God.

You are not reasoning properly when you try to put the same limitations on God that we have to put on man.

Hasty response as predicted! Read my post first. I predicted your answer and I already answered.
Which of the 3 choices do you think God should take? Number 3? Put us in heavens? Not everyone deserves! Some should go into their "nothingness"! Don't you think?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again the whole point of the thread is that we don't know why is there suffering

That's your point. I don't agree. We DO know why there is conscious suffering. Because it is possible and because it promotes learning and thus survival and reproduction.

Regarding fish, I explained that we don't know much about their inner life - how conscious they are, what kinds of thoughts go through their minds if they are conscious, and the like. If they are incapable of modifying their behavior according to ambient circumstances, then consciousness and the awareness of suffering are of no apparent benefit. I assume that that is the case in worms and jellyfish, for example. But as consciousness evolved, the ability to benefit from an awareness of suffering increases, and would be expected to trail the development of consciousness fairly closely, more mental processing ability rendering awareness and consideration of noxious stimuli more beneficial to survival.

nether do theists nor naturalists have an answer

Disagree again. Both do. For the theist, it's the same as why we have free will: God wanted it that way for whatever His reasons. For the naturalist, it's what I just described.

there are many possibilities but no convincing and conclusive explanation

There are two possibilities - intelligent design and unguided evolution - and the latter is quite convincing to me and others posting on this thread. You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that because you don't understand something that it isn't or can't be understood. Apologists frequently tell us some version of "I just don't see it" as if that were a statement about what is seeable rather than about how much they can see.

Both theist and naturalist would (or should ) argue that suffering is a byproduct of a greater good (or greater benefit) but none has a definite explanation of what this good would be .

Yes, the naturalist does know what the survival benefit of conscious suffering is. I explained it to you with examples. There are people suffering heat stroke these days because they aren't aware of how far from a homeostatic balance they are - how close to tissue damage and collapse they are - and continue working because they have insufficient conscious suffering. More suffering earlier might have been useful. If these kinds of examples aren't meaningful to you - and so far, they haven't been - then you cannot be shown the evolutionary benefit of conscious pain, because there it is right there in every example I've offered.

 

[leroy]

You appear to be trying to define your own nonsensical terms and are failing again at it. Yes, the two are one and the same. You would have to define the two terms properly and show how they are different in life.

You appear to be trying to define your own nonsensical terms and are failing again at it. Yes, the two are one and the same. You would have to define the two terms properly and show how they are different in life.

Well It’s my argument, I am the one who determines what I mean with each term.

1 and organism can have unconscious pain (like invertebrates do) (like you touching a hot pan)

2 an organism have conscious pain (like some vertebrates do)

both (assuming that they are intelligent and rational) could become aware of the danger and do something to avoid this pain

having “2” doesn’t add any selective benefit over “1” you can easily falsify my claim by providing a counterexample


As I said before (and you keep ignoring)

A fish will run away if a larger fish harms it, this is true independently if the fish feels conscious pain or just unconscious pain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hasty response as predicted! Read my post first. I predicted your answer and I already answered.
Which of the 3 choices do you think God should take? Number 3? Put us in heavens? Not everyone deserves! Some should go into their "nothingness"! Don't you think?

A nonsense filled post only needs a short response. Your response has the first false trichotomy that I can recall seeing. Why do you insist on limiting the power of your God? It appears as if you are not a fan of rational thought. Would a being that could reason rationally all of the time be a "robot"?

By the way, it is hard to answer all of your poorly asked questions. Which mythical God are we talking about? Just about any variant of the Abrahamic Gods can be shown to be immoral. But that does not mean that there is no a mythical God that is not immoral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well It’s my argument, I am the one who determines what I mean with each term.

1 and organism can have unconscious pain (like invertebrates do) (like you touching a hot pan)

2 an organism have conscious pain (like some vertebrates do)

both (assuming that they are intelligent and rational) could become aware of the danger and do something to avoid this pain

having “2” doesn’t add any selective benefit over “1” you can easily falsify my claim by providing a counterexample


As I said before (and you keep ignoring)

A fish will run away if a larger fish harms it, this is true independently if the fish feels conscious pain or just unconscious pain.

No, if pain was unconscious an organism is not going to be able to learn from it. In fac the ability to learn might be a hindrance. If a creature does not have a very high ability to learn it would be detrimental to have only an unconscious pain.

Take something as dumb as a goldfish. And some food protected by tethered piranhas. With your system the goldfish would see the food, move towards it and then move away when bitten. That is good so far. But now it sees the food again, does not know why it is moved away from it, remember this is your system his retreat was automatic and painless. In fact he would not feel the pain from the small wound that he has. So he moves towards the food again. And once again retreats. This would keep going on since pain is part of the learning process.

Now we have a goldfish that can feel pain. He will also automatically react, but he will still feel the pain of the bite. The lure of the food is overpowered by the pain that is left and the memory of the pain.

Nature "knows" what it is doing. The ability to feel pain is a survival trait.

 

[BrightShadow]

A nonsense filled post only needs a short response. Your response has the first false trichotomy that I can recall seeing. Why do you insist on limiting the power of your God? It appears as if you are not a fan of rational thought. Would a being that could reason rationally all of the time be a "robot"?

Oh! I forgot how atheists have one-track mind and they are fixated on this notion that a supreme entity should only create another supreme entity! If he doesn't then he is not a supreme entity at all!
Look at all the monkeys and donkeys around you!

By the way, it is hard to answer all of your poorly asked questions.

It is hard to answer your post too because "lack of belief" doesn't have any substance! It is just "lacking" anything and everything!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh! I forgot how atheists have one-track mind and they are fixated on this notion that a supreme entity should only create another supreme entity! If he doesn't then he is not a supreme entity at all!
Look at all the monkeys and donkeys around you!


It is hard to answer your post too because "lack of belief" doesn't have any substance! It is just "lacking" anything and everything!

No, but if a God screws up in his creation he cannot blame that which he made. Please, you are not reasoning this through thoroughly. You are trying to make excuses for your bad version of God.

How do you think that a God can justify Hell?

 

[BrightShadow]

No, but if a God screws up in his creation he cannot blame that which he made. Please, you are not reasoning this through thoroughly. You are trying to make excuses for your bad version of God.

How do you think that a God can justify Hell?

Look! Sorry to say this - but talking to you is like talking to a wall! It is pointless really! You are not really seeking anything. You know where you stand. IMO

Like I said - you want to see a supreme entity creating another supreme entity. According to you the created entity must not have any faults at all. All animal must be faultless as well.
Since God didn't create us that way then that means he screwed up and now it is his fault! Did I get that right?

Nice logic. Take this logic all the way into "nothingness" where it belongs!

Why do you want to know about "Hell"? Do you learn about jail so that you remain righteous and not commit a crime? Do you need incentives and disincentives to remain on the proper path?

Hell description won't be accurate because nothing on earth can be compared to hell. IMO
If you grew up on a small island and only ate fishes and a few fruits - you cannot describe how a chocolate cake tastes like even if you see one because you never had anything to compare to it.
So, it is pointless discussing Hell! Think of it as temporary separation from God but not like "nothingness"!

 

[leroy]

That's your point. I don't agree. We DO know why there is conscious suffering. Because it is possible and because it promotes learning and thus survival and reproduction.

The ability to learn and the ability to feel conscious pain are 2 independent mechanisms; you can have one without the other.

Sure if you have both mechanism at the same time you will have a benefit, the thing is that evolution (Darwinism) can´t produce 2 independent mechanism at the same time

Regarding fish, I explained that we don't know much about their inner life - how conscious they are, what kinds of thoughts go through their minds if they are conscious, and the like.

Well conscious pain was supposed to evolve in primitive fish.

1 So there was a fish that had the ability to run away if a larger fish harm him

2 then his offspring got a random mutation, as a result he is now conscious about the pain and is now suffering. (and he also ran away from the big fish)

Why would natural selection select this trait?

Now obviously if you have conscious pain, + memory + reason + the ability to react consciously to avoid this pain could result in a selective advantage, (but you need all that together at once) which is impossible (or very unlikely) under Darwinism.

Disagree again. Both do. For the theist, it's the same as why we have free will: God wanted it that way for whatever His reasons. For the naturalist, it's what I just described.

Yes at that level both the theist and the atheist has an answer, both can speculate can elaborate hypothesis that seem more less reasonable,

But none has a definitive nor a conclusive answer

Yes, the naturalist does know what the survival benefit of conscious suffering is. I explained it to you with examples. There are people suffering heat stroke these days because they aren't aware of how far from a homeostatic balance they are - how close to tissue damage and collapse they are - and continue working because they have insufficient conscious suffering. More suffering earlier might have been useful. If these kinds of examples aren't meaningful to you - and so far, they haven't been - then you cannot be shown the evolutionary benefit of conscious pain, because there it is right there in every example I've offered.

All you need is a reaction and scape where the sun is not so intense, even worms can react like that

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look! Sorry to say this - but talking to you is like talking to a wall! It is pointless really! You are not really seeking anything. You know where you stand. IMO

Like I said - you want to see a supreme entity creating another supreme entity. According to you the created entity must not have any faults at all. All animal must be faultless as well.
Since God didn't create us that way then that means he screwed up and now it is his fault! Did I get that right?

Nice logic. Take this logic all the way into "nothingness" where it belongs!

Why do you want to know about "Hell"? Do you learn about jail so that you remain righteous and not commit a crime? Do you need incentives and disincentives to remain on the proper path?

Hell description won't be accurate because nothing on earth can be compared to hell. IMO
If you grew up on a small island and only ate fishes and a few fruits - you cannot describe how a chocolate cake tastes like even if you see one because you never had anything to compare to it.
So, it is pointless discussing Hell! Think of it as temporary separation from God but not like "nothingness"!

No, I only want a competent creator. You keep telling us that your version of a creator is not competent. It would be nice if you could debate without false claims about others.

And I see that you do not understand the purpose of punishment. Some parents never taught their kids right from wrong properly.

Don't accuse others of not listening. Tell me your version of God and I can tell you how he screwed up, that is if he did. So far it appears that your made up version of God is very incompetent.

I will even help you out. It appears that you are a Christian by the way that you respond here. If so do you believe all of the myths of the Bible? For example do you believe the Flood myth?