The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[Subduction Zone]

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






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.




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


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

Are you still making the mistake of conflating conscious pain with suffering?

 

[leroy]

No, if pain was unconscious an organism is not going to be able to learn from it.

I even gave an example

If you touch a hot pan, you will remove your hand, learn from it and turn off the stove.

At no point you felt conscious pain you never really suffered, you just “felt something” and remove your hand

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.

You are comparing:

1 a “dumb gold fish” that can’t feel pain,

2 with a Smart fish with memory and learning capabilities (that can also suffer)

obviously “2” is better than “1” and more likely to be selected, but you are adding new abilities like being reasonable, having memory, being intelligent etc.

remove all those abilities in “2” and you will have something as “bad” as “1”……. 2 woudnt be better than 1

in Evolution (random mutations + natural selection) you can´t have “suffering” and “learning about suffering” and “ consciously reacting to avoid suffering “ at the same time( borrowing from Dawkins analogy, that would be climbing mount improbable in one step )





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.[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

Are you still making the mistake of conflating conscious pain with suffering?

I am using both terms as synonymous, in this context they mean the same

 

[Subduction Zone]

I even gave an example

If you touch a hot pan, you will remove your hand, learn from it and turn off the stove.

At no point you felt conscious pain you never really suffered, you just “felt something” and remove your hand

That is only because we are a very intelligent species. It requires intelligence far beyond that of most animals. Do you think that will intelligence we would automatically lose the ability to consciously feel pain? And conscious pain is still a positive trait since it reinforces the lesson learned. It is better than a reactive pain only. That refutes your claim. If you pick on a person twice your size and get a thumping you will remember the pain that next time you try to do so.

You are comparing:

1 a “dumb gold fish” that can’t feel pain,

2 with a Smart fish with memory and learning capabilities (that can also suffer)

obviously “2” is better than “1” and more likely to be selected, but you are adding new abilities like being reasonable, having memory, being intelligent etc.

remove all those abilities in “2” and you will have something as “bad” as “1”……. 2 woudnt be better than 1

in Evolution (random mutations + natural selection) you can´t have “suffering” and “learning about suffering” and “ consciously reacting to avoid suffering “ at the same time( borrowing from Dawkins analogy, that would be climbing mount improbable in one step )

Nope, not adding anything. Those are part and parcel of feeling pain. To have the ability to sense pain is not that of a lower species that cannot learn. The two go together. Do you not understand that intelligence is an emergent property?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am using both terms as synonymous, in this context they mean the same

No, they do not. Suffering is not temporary. Pain can be temporary. Pain is the big tent, suffering is just one item under that roof. You probably will not be able to understand any of your errors until you understand this one key error of yours.

 

[leroy]

That is only because we are a very intelligent species. It requires intelligence far beyond that of most animals. Do you think that will intelligence we would automatically lose the ability to consciously feel pain? And conscious pain is still a positive trait since it reinforces the lesson learned. It is better than a reactive pain only. That refutes your claim. If you pick on a person twice your size and get a thumping you will remember the pain that next time you try to do so.

Ok good point and granted.

There might be a small benefit in that you will learn the lesson more effectively if you feel conscious pain.

So once you have an intelligent organism with memory, learning skills and the ability to react consciously conscious pain might represent a benefit.

Then problem is that “feeling pain” evolved long before all that stuff

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok good point and granted.

There might be a small benefit in that you will learn the lesson more effectively if you feel conscious pain.

So once you have an intelligent organism with memory, learning skills and the ability to react consciously conscious pain might represent a benefit.

Then problem is that “feeling pain” evolved long before all that stuff

The unconscious reaction? Yes. But that sensation had to be interpreted as something as our brains evolved. And that sensation is what we call "pain" today. And once again pain is not always suffering. hopefully it is rarely suffering. Most pain comes and goes. Suffering does not. It lingers and is intense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope, you would remove your fingers from a hot pan, even if you haven’t been burned before, you don’t need to experience conscious pain in order those that reflexes

And now you know to avoid putting your hand on it in the future, without ever having to put your hand on it again, as the Poster said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

So your argument is that conscious suffering would have provided a benefit, but could not have evolved alongside the evolution of learning skills because the body was somehow so occupied with one that it couldn't do both? That's not a very good argument. We know that that isn't correct.

Well conscious pain was supposed to evolve in primitive fish.

Maybe. I explained that it's difficult to say what is going on in a fish's mind. And it's irrelevant. Eventually, animals became conscious, developed the ability to experience pain consciously, and to learn, all of which worked together to the benefit of the organism. Whether this first occurred in a fishlike creature or a reptile or a mammal is difficult to decide, and as I said, irrelevant to the fact that man and many of the beasts do all of that.

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

I don't know what you mean by definitive or conclusive, but the naturalistic explanation is settled science. If you're looking for more assurance than that, you won't get it and you don't need it.

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

You missed the point of how consciousness of suffering prior to heat stroke in those who didn't realize how close they were to stroke or death would have conferred a survival advantage.

If you touch a hot pan, you will remove your hand, learn from it and turn off the stove.

You've already said that, I already asked you why, and you ignored it: "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? How could my body know to withdraw the hand reflexively if it weren't detecting tissue damage, and if it were detecting a threat, why keep that knowledge out of consciousness? So the guy can keep putting his hand on the element and watching it withdraw automatically and painlessly?"

Don't bother answering. I've told you that I've lost interest in that game. I've made my point, and you had no rebuttal. I've explained it to you multiple times: that's where that subtopic ends. My answer is the same.

So, I've answered the questions, because you wouldn't: I wouldn't turn off the stove and I would put my hand on the element repeatedly.

I need to stop using question marks in my posting to you (and many others) entirely. I will no longer ask you for your input. I will just give you mine in declarative sentences. And with every claim or argument not explicitly agreed with ("Yes, I see your point now") or refuted ("That can't be correct because [contradictory argument]"), I will simply assume that you have no argument, nor enough courtesy to acknowledge the comment.

I'd ask you what your excuse is, but there's no point (I just caught myself writing "but what's the point?" and changed it to "but there's no point"). You can rebut that if you like and explain why it's wrong, or just tacitly agree by ignoring it rather than disagreeing. I'm not giving you the opportunity to ignore questions. I can't stop you from ignoring statements, but I can tell you that when you do, the issue is settled and that aspect of the discussion over.

What I'm asking for from you is to participate in dialectic, the name for this process: "any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict : a method of examining and discussing opposing ideas in order to find the truth."

My wife and a longtime girlfriend in another country email one another every day. When my wife replies, she's looking at her girlfriend's email, and addressing her every point in order: "That tuna salad sounds delicious," "Glad that your brother Robb is in good spirits," and "That's terrible how the painters messed up your koi pond," then adds what's happened to her in the last 24 hours, which get's exactly the same treatment from the girlfriend: "I didn't realize how much rainfall you get," "I'm glad you got those brakes looked at," and "I'll bet you're really enjoying those sketching classes."

You and I don't do as well, but I'm hoping that will change.

 

[Sheldon]

1) You are the one who presented this theodicy; so, why make such a statement? Why refusing to hear the counter argument?

It's literally thousands of years old, it has nothing to do with me, and the concept of deity that create the paradox is again nothing to do with me, since I don't believe in any deity or deities. I have refused nothing, what on earth are you talking about, were you under the impression everyone has to agree with you, and in a debate forum?

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?

Obviously because blaming an atheist, as you did, for the logical consequences of what some theists believe is absurd.

Sheldon said: ↑
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?

What has that to do with my response to irrational claim?

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!

Why, it's their unevidenced belief its for them to validate it if they can, I am an atheist, and theodicy is not of my making.

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.

Which bit of I am an atheist is confusing you? Theodicy involves a paradox that mainstream religions have known about and struggled with for thousands of years. Any belief that involves a paradox violates the law of non contradiction, I need not share an irrational belief in order to see why it is irrational.

I told you the theodicy is flawed.

Theodicy is a paradox derived from a theistic notion of a deity, if the belief is flawed you need to take that up with those who believe it, again why you keep telling me is baffling?

Last I checked, they have a bigger issue to resolve first. They believe in a human version of God!

Nevertheless, they will no doubt be thrilled that you have succeeded where theologians globally have failed for thousands of years.

Feel free to point out your reason for your lack of belief.

No one can demonstrate any objective evidence that ay deity exists, or is even possible.

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

On the contrary, I can give you many reasons from the nature to think - there is a such a supreme entity called a creator.

That claim has nothing to do with my response to your false claim?

 

[Sheldon]

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

So you believe in a deity that isn't omnibenevolent, while others do not.

 

[Sheldon]

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!

This is priceless, you reel off claims in a debate forum, then claim no one is allowed to debate he claims. Try demonstrating any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you believe in a deity that isn't omnibenevolent, while others do not.

Sadly he will not even state his deity's traits. That makes it easy to claim strawman when people come draw logical conclusions based upon his claims.

 

[leroy]

No, they do not. Suffering is not temporary. Pain can be temporary. Pain is the big tent, suffering is just one item under that roof. You probably will not be able to understand any of your errors until you understand this one key error of yours.

Even if true, a “mistake” in semantics is far from being a “key error”……….. with conscious pain I simply mean the mental experience in which one is aware that such stimuli is painful, and quite frankly I would define physical suffering in a similar way.

But I don’t care, I´ll use any term that you whant

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if true, a “mistake” in semantics is far from being a “key error”……….. with conscious pain I simply mean the mental experience in which one is aware that such stimuli is painful, and quite frankly I would define physical suffering in a similar way.

But I don’t care, I´ll use any term that you whant

Do you understand how suffering is different from common every day pain?

 

[BrightShadow]

It's literally thousands of years old, it has nothing to do with me, and the concept of deity that create the paradox is again nothing to do with me, since I don't believe in any deity or deities. I have refused nothing, what on earth are you talking about

Since you brought up the theodicy in you post number 175 on page 9 of this thread - you have everything to do with it!
This is your position and you even quoted the whole thing! It is disingenuous to say it has nothing to do with you.

What has that to do with my response to irrational claim?

It is irrational to claim it is irrational!
Anyhow - you are combining different quotes - I am not even sure if one quote was about the other!

Why, it's their unevidenced belief its for them to validate it if they can, I am an atheist, and theodicy is not of my making.

Well! One of them is telling you that you have to evaluate from God's realm not planet earth!
Again - you are trying to separate yourself from the theodicy when in fact you brought it up and tried to validate it - in the first place. Check your post# 175 in this thread on page 9. You even said Epicurus solved the theodicy.

No one can demonstrate any objective evidence that ay deity exists, or is even possible.

In other words - you are looking for empirical evidence! By the way - what criteria of empirical evidence?

So you believe in a deity that isn't omnibenevolent, while others do not.

You took my quote out of context. I was pointing out to Sub. Zone that he/she is using double standards. And I already mentioned my position regarding this in my posts here. You are asking as if- you haven't read anything!
No need for me to keep repeating! You get it or you don't!

Try demonstrating any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible.

For lack of better analogy - all I can say is that - when an incarcerated prisoner from his isolation chamber asks to see the president - the request can easily be denied! Let the prisoner continue to believe - whatever he wants but if he has any desire to be exonerated or vindicated (via appeal or even a presidential pardon) then he better behave and believe in the justice system and respect the judge and be remorseful - otherwise - no hope!

 

[ppp]

For lack of better analogy - all I can say is that - when an incarcerated prisoner from his isolation chamber asks to see the president - the request can easily be denied! Let the prisoner continue to believe - whatever he wants but if he has any desire to be exonerated or vindicated (via appeal or even a presidential pardon) then he better behave and believe in the justice system and respect the judge and be remorseful - otherwise - no hope!

That is not evidence that a god exists.

 

[BrightShadow]

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?

You are talking like a "one trick pony"! The only thing you have mastered - is how to lambaste folks from a certain religion. Even though I told you I am not Christian - you still think I am.
It is like you are on mission to go after certain belief system! Were you a missionary for this religion at some point in your life and now you have switched side? Just wondering!

Aren't you the one who accuses folks of strawman and red herring arguments?

You distort and take extreme meanings and bring irrelevant topics to the conversation. It is not an honest way to debate. Remember accusing others of this practice? Read your own last couple of posts. You mastered this techniques!

You are desperately looking for something to attack your opponent with. You tried topic of "Hell" and when that didn't work - now you bring "flood" to the conversation. You are throwing everything and trying to see what sticks!

Anyhow - now I can see you had a Christian background! You had a lot of confusing materials in your basket that you were carrying around on top of your head.
You shook your basket so much that you lost everything in it including your basket!

Of course Bible is full of corruptions. IMO. Sort through it - probably wrong to completely shake it off!
Every religion probably had some true basis!
Just because a lot of things don't add up - doesn't mean you have to discard everything in it. You are fixated on the controversial parts of your previous doctrine.
Believing in flood or not believing in flood won't fade you away into nothingness - what will however is - not believing in the existence of God altogether! IMO

That makes it easy to claim strawman when people come draw logical conclusions based upon his claims.

So far - there was nothing logical about most of the things you said.
I mention the analogy of "Frog in the Well". Most of the things you said was from your perception. IMO.

 

[BrightShadow]

That is not evidence that a god exists.

Your request is denied as well!

 

[ppp]

Your request is denied as well!

I didn't request anything from you. It is clear that you have nothing to offer.