The naturalist problem of suffering.

[Subduction Zone]

You’re just typing random numbers………

Quote my actual words and the alleged refutation for those words…………. Can you do that? No because you know that such refutation doesn’t exists.

You played this same game with me. So I went back to the post that I got them from. Did a copy and paste and checked. They were the same exact words since I did a copy and paste the first time.


Maybe if you did not post so much garbage you would not have to play this game. For the FSM's sake, in just one thread can you try to learn from your mistakes?

 

[Koldo]

This is just semantics, it ll means on how do you define pain.

But you can react without feeling conscious pain or suffering ………. Most organisms are like this

Can you show that to be the case?
Can you that most organisms react without feeling conscious pain?

 

[1213]

During the 2nd Temple Period, 600-300 BCE, Judaism and later Christianity took many ideas from the Persian theology, that was one.

Could it be, because Christian God influenced Persian theology?

And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, in order to accomplish the word of Jehovah in the mouth of Jeremiah, Jehovah awakened the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, and he caused a voice to pass throughout all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying, So says Cyrus the king of Persia, Jehovah the God of the heavens has given to me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has laid a charge on me to build a house in Jerusalem to Him, that is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up.
2 Chr. 36:22-23
So says Jehovah to His anointed, to Cyrus, whom I have seized by his right hand, to subdue nations before him. Yea, I will open the loins of kings, to open the two leaved doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut.
Isa. 45:1

If Christian God influenced it, is it then actually Christian also?

 

[Eli G]

It is not a parent's responsibility if his child causes himself suffering by his wrongdoing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The goal post has not been moved, the OP is and has always been about the conscious experience that we call “suffering” and the lack of an evolutionry explanation for its origin.

You've been given plenty of plausible mechanisms and explanations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most organism receive this signal of “pain” and they avoid it without feeling conscious suffering………….only the higher animals seem to have this conscious experience of suffering.

Maybe the fact that this is shared among all "higher" animals, should tell you something

So if animals already avoided “pain” what was the benefit of adding conscious suffering?

This has already been addressed countless times by both me as well as others.

I have nothing more to add to that. And you have yet to respond to a single one of them properly

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

again that is only true with simple traits……

It isn't. Nothing in my simplistic example excludes complex traits from this process.
In fact, quite the opposite, since traits that are the result of "the sum of parts" various other traits, are bound to be complex since there are multiple parts to it.

it is unlikely to evolve complex trait without NS

We have already established that this isn't the case and you even agreed to the mechanic thereof.

It is useless. Conscious suffering is not necessary (or even useful) to react and prevent harm……. We know this because this is how most organisms prevent harm

And a backwards eye isn't necessary either, but nevertheless it works.
All evolution needs is something that works.
Something that works poorly is still better then not working at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the same way God could have good reasons to create a world with so much suffering

False.
First of all, I already said I think this argument is garbage.
Secondly, you don't know what a god "could" do or not do, because you have no god to investigate and study to establish what she could and could not do.

What I told you is plausible. Not merely "imaginable" or whatever.

…….. my point is that naturalist don’t have better solution than theists…….

Your point has been shown invalid multiple times already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok you re unable to quote the alleged refutation

talk about head-in-sand syndrom.....................................................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You’re just typing random numbers………

They aren't random. They are actual specific post numbers referring to posts that obliterate your nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You’re just typing random numbers………

No, Leroy. Despite my better judgment, I actually took the time to read through the thread from the beginning and jotted down every post number that contained a response to your claims. Look how great that turned out for me, eh? Now I'm being accused of just making up random numbers.

Quote my actual words and the alleged refutation for those words………….

No. Not playing your games anymore, like I said already. We're tired of this song and dance.
You've got the numbers. Scroll back and read them.

Can you do that? No because you know that such refutation doesn’t exists.

They exist in the post numbers I just gave you.
Don't call me a liar again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They aren't random. They are actual specific post numbers referring to posts that obliterate your nonsense.

Thank you. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this thread or something. Good grief

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, Leroy. Despite my better judgment, I actually took the time to read through the thread from the beginning and jotted down every post number that contained a response to your claims. Look how great that turned out for me, eh? Now I'm being accused of just making up random numbers.



No. Not playing your games anymore, like I said already. We're tired of this song and dance.
You've got the numbers. Scroll back and read them.

They exist in the post numbers I just gave you.
Don't call me a liar again.

Infuriating, isn't it.

 

[Eli G]

Animals were not created to live forever.

2 Pet. 2:12 But these men, like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed, speak abusively about things of which they are ignorant. They will suffer destruction brought on by their own destructive course, 13 suffering harm as their reward for their own harmful course.

Human suffering is different from animal problems and natural phenomena. Only the human couple was created in the image of God, with consciousness and intellectual qualities.

Gen. 1:27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him (...)

Given that human nature is also carnal like that of animals (Gen. 6:3), humans must follow the instructions of his spiritual Father to avoid the suffering that the flesh could bring to him as it does to animals.

Jude 10 But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.

When the first couple decided to deviate from the direction of their spiritual Father, they brought suffering to themselves and their descendants. That is why those who in their imperfect nature decide not to follow God's advice put themselves in the same position as animals that were created to eventually die.

We humans have the hope of eternal life, that our Father will forever fix the problem we inherited from our first human parents. He already paid a great price so that the foundations for the rescue of human nature were universally established. He did this by allowing his perfect spiritual Son to be sacrificed as a human, so that we all have now the opportunity to benefit from that hopeful arrangement by striving to demonstrate to God that we desire to benefit from His help. In any case, everything that is harmful to God's earthly creation will be swept away very soon.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Infuriating, isn't it.

You can say that again.

 

[shunyadragon]

Animals were not created to live forever.

2 Pet. 2:12 But these men, like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed, speak abusively about things of which they are ignorant. They will suffer destruction brought on by their own destructive course, 13 suffering harm as their reward for their own harmful course.

Human suffering is different from animal problems and natural phenomena. Only the human couple was created in the image of God, with consciousness and intellectual qualities.

Gen. 1:27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him (...)

Given that human nature is also carnal like that of animals (Gen. 6:3), humans must follow the instructions of his spiritual Father to avoid the suffering that the flesh could bring to him as it does to animals.

Jude 10 But these men are speaking abusively about all the things they really do not understand. And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.

When the first couple decided to deviate from the direction of their spiritual Father, they brought suffering to themselves and their descendants. That is why those who in their imperfect nature decide not to follow God's advice put themselves in the same position as animals that were created to eventually die.

We humans have the hope of eternal life, that our Father will forever fix the problem we inherited from our first human parents. He already paid a great price so that the foundations for the rescue of human nature were universally established. He did this by allowing his perfect spiritual Son to be sacrificed as a human, so that we all have now the opportunity to benefit from that hopeful arrangement by striving to demonstrate to God that we desire to benefit from His help. In any case, everything that is harmful to God's earthly creation will be swept away very soon.

Citing the Bible concerning the nature of suffering in humans versus animals is about as meaningless as rubber crutches in a handicap ward.

Suffering is a physiological and mental process common to all humans and animals with a complex nervous system and consciousness by objective verifiable evidence.

Animals evolve to migrate and evolve to avoid predation to avoid suffering. Natural Selection in the animal world.

 

[Eli G]

Quoting the Bible is more valid that reading to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quoting the Bible is more valid that reading to you.

The Bible as ancient tribal writings cannot define or describe suffering from the broad perspective of science in the contemporary world including what we can objectively observe in the animal kingdom, and the Natural Selective processes in evolution to reduce suffering and increase the survival of offspring.

. . . and of course, without the ancient bias without science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The naturalist problem of suffering.

Probably the most sound and convincing argument against the existence of God, is the problem is the problem of suffering.

The argument goes s follows “if God exists why is there so much suffering in the world”?

Things like cancer, or tornados come to mind, (why would God allow such things?)

While I admit that this is a very strong argument against the existence of God and I personally have no satisfactory response , I would argue that naturalism has no explanation for suffering ether

Why is this problem for naturalism?

Because too suffer is a complex and useless mental state

Useless complex stuff is not expected to evolve naturally, the mechanism of mutation + natural selection is unlikely build and keep something useless and complex

Why is suffering “complex”?

Well it is an assumption obviously, but given that only complex animals suffer and given that we can’t make robots that can suffer, it seems to be a valid assumption.

Why is suffering useless

To suffer has no selective benefit, organisms like plants or invertebrates can react and prevent danger even though they don’t really suffer, the experience of suffering adds no selective benefit over simply “reacting”


So ill simply ask the naturalist, if we are product of evolution, why do we even suffer? Why did suffering evolved?

My argument is based on 3 premises

1 useless complex things re not expected to evolve

2 to suffer is a complex mental state (complex brains are needed)

3 to suffer is useless (from the point of view of N Selection)

The skeptic is expected to refute one of these premises.

I and others have responded specifically to how science explains suffering in detail in the animal kingdom and in the Selective process of evolution, and you have failed to respond.

Silence, except for crickets.

 

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't define it. Waiting on the OP.

That is the reality of what suffering is in humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. There were clear references as to whether suffering can be explained in terms of the Selective process of evolution. This question specifically must address natural suffering in the animal kingdom.

Please define specifically and objectively how suffering is different in humans in humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.