The “naturalist” Problem of Suffering

[ppp]

So it will probably vanish in the future!

While humans exist? Who can say? If we go extinct then male nipples definitely disappear. At least human male nipples.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So it will probably vanish in the future!

If it is not important for evolution, it may linger on. Evolution will not care whether it remains or goes. After all, they have lasted for all this time. You can feel it at your bottom.

Also, appendix and coccyx.
Tailbone Pain (aka Coccydynia)

Nipples depend on harmones. The more female hormones, the more female like they will be.

 

[firedragon]

While humans exist? Who can say? If we go extinct then male nipples definitely disappear. At least human male nipples.

Wow. If humans disappear human male nipples will disappear? Nice. Thanks.

 

[ppp]

Wow. If humans disappear human male nipples will disappear? Nice. Thanks.

"Wow! Sarcasm. That's original! "

 

[firedragon]

"Wow! Sarcasm. That's original! "

The day humans go extinct, human sarcasm will be extinct.

 

[ppp]

The day humans go extinct, human sarcasm will be extinct.

Wouldn't human sarcasm survive in our literature and dvds?

 

[Koldo]

It leads to the apparently absurd thesis that this rich and complex phenomenology of first person access consciousness is just an accidental development with no benefits or reasons.

What's absurd about it?
I think we are so used to calling some things special that we have a hard time accepting they happen to be or happened to be just because, for no particular reason. That however has no bearing on truth itself.

 

[firedragon]

Wouldn't human sarcasm survive in our literature and dvds?

When all the literature are all gone in any mode they were stored in, and all humans are all extinct, human sarcasm would not have survived.

 

[sayak83]

What's absurd about it?
I think we are so used to calling some things special that we have a hard time accepting they happen to be or happened to be just because, for no particular reason. That however has no bearing on truth itself.

In this universe complex things come into existence because of laws and processes that cause them to come into existence. Otherwise there is no need to explain anything and leave everything as saying "things just are that way or this way".
It seems obvious that physicalist theories try to brush conscious experiences under the carpet and try to ignore them precisely because they have no way to explain them. This is despite the fact the first person conscious experiences constitute the essence of our lived condition and is basically the first or primitive fact of who and what we are. Knowledge of the external world is but secondary inferential facts from this first fact and epistemologically dependent on this.
Ignoring the need for an explanation for this is well...absurd.

 

[PearlSeeker]

There was a study that shows the more intelligent you are, the lesser children you have. Or was it people who are involved in highly scholarly/scientific professions have letter children? Must try and find that study.

It was probably the more educated.

But just thinking about it, just because you live longer you might not be able to bear more children because there is something called a child bearing age. Exceptions could be there. I remember there was an entry in the Guinness book of world records about a woman who had a child in her sixties. Statically I doubt it can make much of an effect. This is just my opinion, so if there are indeed any studies I would like to read.

Yes, that's why I wrote "or better support". Longer life span would mean to be more able to help children, care for grandchildren, not being a burden to children...

 

[PearlSeeker]

More life experience, more wisdom in some cases.

Yes. And passing this to younger generations.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You take up space and use resources that can be more effectively used by your (better adapted) offspring. There is an optimal age span that is different for every niche and species.

Yes. This may also be the purpose of aging.

 

[firedragon]

It was probably the more educated.

It was a little more than that as I remember. But until I find that study can't articulate it.

Yes, that's why I wrote "or better support". Longer life span would mean to be more able to help children, care for grandchildren, not being a burden to children...

I have a feeling it might be the other way around also.

But I guess long life will work both ways and nurture the future generation better. You are probably right.

 

[Sheldon]

What does "omni" got to do with anything? If God's kingdom is like an ocean - he can choose not to be "omnipresent" in a space equivalent to one single drop and have his angels run the affairs. God can be "omni" everywhere else. It won't nullify his overall status!

In the context of the thread and your scenario, such a deity would be able to stop unnecessary suffering, but as you point out in your hypothetical, would have chosen not to intervene. You can't simultaneously claim such a deity is omniscient and not know, or omnipotent yet unable to prevent anything, and in this context that it is omnibenevolent yet chooses not to prevent unnecessary suffering.

The next rationalisation is usually to assert that some suffering is necessary, but of course whilst that is true in reality, it would not be true for a hypothetical deity with literally limitless power, as @Subduction Zone pointed out, with all the omnis.

 

[Sheldon]

With your line of thinking - every judge is directly responsible for the pain they inflict on the accused through their judgments. Did I get that right? Do you really believe judges are responsible?

A poor analogy, since those judges are fallible evolved primates, and not infallible deities, that some theists and religious apologists insist has limitless power knowledge and mercy.

The real irony to the ongoing failure of apologetics to find a solution to theodicy, is that Epicurus solved it centuries before humans created Christianity.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

[Sheldon]

So, are you saying atheists don't accept anything unevidenced?

I made no comment about what other atheists claim or believ, so not this straw man is a pretty obvious red herring using whataboutism.

It seems you are implying - due to lack of evidence atheists don't accept sins exists, God exists, God's immediate kingdom exists or the notion that there would be a judgment day! Did I get that right?

No, again this is a straw man you've created. I can only say what I do or not believe, as I did in the post you responded to.

Ok, no problem! In that case - atheists will not seek God's immediate kingdom and thus they will just fade into nothingness.

How does repeating another unevidenced claim, represent a cogent response to my assertion I don't believe supernatural sin or any deity exists because they are not supported by any objective evidence. Incidentally your straw man analogy of rape is citing a natural phenomena we know exists, so a poor analogy as well. A better straw man would an atheist jury being told a woman had been raped by aliens using magic, by some people who were claiming they had witnessed it, before those aliens disappeared using magic leaving no physical evidence of any rape.

Just remember to not cry when that happens! Just fade into nothingness without any complains like a good atheist would do!

I am as afraid of imaginary posthumous torture chambers manned by imaginary demons, as I am of being attacked by unicorns or dragged to a watery grave by a nefarious mermaid, and for the same reason. Though it's always rather telling to see the pretend supporters of gentle Jesus meek and mild, take such obvious relish in the idea of others suffering, forever. Do you need an emoji, or is the irony self evident?

 

[Sheldon]

You totally missed my point

But well, like you said:

Actually he didn't, he nailed it, but you seem to have missed his point entirely. It seems the irony is lost on you, of you simultaneously claiming suffering is something you don't want, and that you're ok with it.

 

[Sheldon]

Good to know:
1: not smart
2: you are on my list now

Note: this is no joke

Are you sure, I'm laughing.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems obvious that physicalist theories try to brush conscious experiences under the carpet and try to ignore them precisely because they have no way to explain them.

I'm not sure either claim is true, human consciousness is an objective fact, and therefore consciousness doesn't seem to be at odds with materialist philosophy at all? That it is derived from the evolved human brain is also self evident, since we only ever see it when a functioning human physical brain exists, when that brain dies that consciousness disappears instantly. If that physical brain is damaged that consciousness can be impaired. The fact materialists don't accept that other insentient aspects of the physical universe has any conscious agency, is because there is no evidence to support the notion, it also adds nothing to our understanding of the universe, as science demonstrates amply.

 

[Koldo]

In this universe complex things come into existence because of laws and processes that cause them to come into existence. Otherwise there is no need to explain anything and leave everything as saying "things just are that way or this way".
It seems obvious that physicalist theories try to brush conscious experiences under the carpet and try to ignore them precisely because they have no way to explain them. This is despite the fact the first person conscious experiences constitute the essence of our lived condition and is basically the first or primitive fact of who and what we are. Knowledge of the external world is but secondary inferential facts from this first fact and epistemologically dependent on this.
Ignoring the need for an explanation for this is well...absurd.

Depends on what you mean by 'explanation' and 'need'. By explanation, do you mean how it came to be or do you mean the reason why it came to be? There is a 'how' for everything that exists, or at least there seems to be. But a reason implies agency.

What is the reason for magnetism existing? I can most certainly imagine a functional world where magnetism doesn't exist. So what is the reason for magnetism existing then? Perhaps there is no reason, and it just happens to be the case that magnetism exists? Perhaps my imagination is making a fool of me and such a world without magnetism is not actually a possible world, and perhaps the same applies to philosophical zombies?