sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
It is the concept of "intended" that I am looking for you to defend and explain.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Design of Torture
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Are you you arguing that responsibility implies intent?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Well, you're the one who originally said that God intends harm.
No, but being responsible means just that; And it is usually considered bad to be responsible for something harmful.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Not in the cases you offered.
Really now, that is the sum of your case. Ok, then if you create a child who is convicted of murder, are you then responsible, knowing full well of the propensity of mankind to murder?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
He doesn't intend harm in the case of FOP? In that case, why does it exist?
I am if I have the foreknowledge and power to not only stop the murder trivially, but also rewrite history so that it never happens in the first place. That's the bit your analogy doesn't take into account.
What propensity? The vast majority of mankind never murders anyone at all.
If God creates the laws of nature in such a way that people get diseases and cancers He couldn't have done it "on accident" or "unknowingly," since omniscient beings don't make such mistakes.
Therefore it must have been intentional.
It was Not intentional or deliberate that Satan and Adam willfully disobey.
Sin [disobedience] brought death into the world.
Along with sin comes sickness leading to death.
Time allows us to be born and have the opportunity to be at the future time when sickness and death will be no more according to Rev 21vs4,5;Isa 33v24.
Satan challenges all of us [Job 2v4,5] that touch our skin [health] and all will curse God. Both Job and Jesus proved [the god of this world of badness 2 Cor 4v4; Rev 12v12] Satan a liar and we can too.
So it is not the 'law of nature' but rather 'sin's law' that is to blame.
Romans 5 vs12-19
see also Romans 7v23 mentioning the 'law of sin'.
That vague description doesn't explain why Plasmodium has such a specific way of torturing humans.
Whence came Plasmodium's specificity with evading immune systems to torture humans? You say "Sin did it" but that doesn't explain how it does it in such a specific way.
As another poster here said at one point, it makes sense to see the relationship between touching a stove burner and then recoiling in pain.
It does not make sense to say "Man sinned, therefore Plasmodium poofed into a magic thingy that can dodge immune systems to torture children."
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok, you can make a case, with a little prodding. Now, can you make a case as to why allowing suffering is either wrong or evil?
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
It was a weak analogy that finally got Poly to make a case.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
This is a weak argument. It just shifts the blame from God to Adam, still leaving the question as to why God allows innocent people to suffer for another's mistake. Try again.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Dictionary.com says "characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering." That enough? However, I don't see what possible meaning of "evil" doesn't count needless suffering.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ok, good you are now defining your position. Now make a case for "needless" and I might just be able to jump in.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I don't need to, since you're the one positing a "need" that is not apparent.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Back to not making your case again. Perhaps you could point out where I did this?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva has no known benefit, and so no apparent purpose. Therefore, there is no apparent need for it to exist. By saying that I need to make a case for "needless", you are implying that there is a need, and I'd like you to demonstrate that.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You are quite good at aviodance. Now using your fine site.
The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof. However, their respective burdens of proof will often be unequal or asymmetrical.
"As a starting point, the person who does not know whether [something] exist is not subject to any burden. It is only when one has an opinion and argues this opinion publicly that the burden of proof takes effect. In this case, the party making no claim about [something]has no burden of proof."
Since you have made a claim and cannot point out where I have made a claim the burden of proof falls squarely on you.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Um, yes I can point out where you made a claim: You claimed, by implication, that there is a need for the suffering caused by fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, et. al, without demonstrating it.