• 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 naturalist problem of suffering.

leroy

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

What I meant is that microbes, plants, and probably most invertebrates, don’t feel pain in conscious way. …But they still react top void harm and danger. … for example If you poke an amoeba with a needle it recoils, but that doesn’t mean that the amoeba is consciously were of its pain

That is the clam that i m making nd that is the clam that I can support……….ok?
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
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.
Thanks, but I've exited this thread. The OP wasn't interested in discussion.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
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.
An example of this: a young man does not have the same experience as his father. If his experienced father gives him wise advice on how to act in life and the boy does not follow it and suffers the consequences of his bad behavior, it is not his father's fault.

All humans are like children who are learning to live in a healthy, safe way... Our Creator is the wisest and most experienced Father. He not only created us but he also wishes to teach us how to fully benefit from the nature he created us with without harming ourselves.

It is easy to understand if we understand the example of the human father that I talked about before.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
What I meant is that microbes, plants, and probably most invertebrates, don’t feel pain in conscious way. …

That's what we generally imagine to be the case, but since pain/suffering are subjective experiences it is hard to say what exactly those beings are experiencing.

But they still react top void harm and danger. … for example If you poke an amoeba with a needle it recoils, but that doesn’t mean that the amoeba is consciously were of its pain

That is the clam that i m making nd that is the clam that I can support……….ok?

It might be the case that pain allows for more complex reactions to stimulus which happens to improve survival rate.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What I meant is that microbes, plants, and probably most invertebrates, don’t feel pain in conscious way.
True, but you are moving the goal posts.
…But they still react top void harm and danger. … for example If you poke an amoeba with a needle it recoils, but that doesn’t mean that the amoeba is consciously were of its pain

That is the claim that i m making nd that is the clam that I can support……….ok?

That was not your original claim. Even with this approach science adequately describes the Natural Selective process of all organisms in the history of life for survival, which is a process of avoiding harm and death to be able to perpetuate the species and reproduce..
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
Sorry I'm so late to the party, but I was out of town.

Suffering has nothing whatever to do with the existence of God. For example, God could simply WANT there to be suffering. And now both God and suffering can logically coexist.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Human suffering is not and never was the will of God.

I still don't know what is called here a "naturalist problem of suffering". Human suffering IS NOT NATURAL. It came after our first human parents' rebellion:

Gen. 3:16 To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, and your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (...) 23 With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken.

In Eden there was NOT any suffering for the newly created couple.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Human suffering is not and never was the will of God.

I still don't know what is called here a "naturalist problem of suffering". Human suffering IS NOT NATURAL. It came after our first human parents' rebellion:

Gen. 3:16 To the woman he said: “I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, and your longing will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (...) 23 With that Jehovah God expelled him from the garden of Eʹden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken.

In Eden there was NOT any suffering for the newly created couple.
Please try to argue from a perspective of reality instead of obviously false myths.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
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?
The Persian myths go back to around 1600 BC.

But how could Israel influence Persia? They had none of those myths at that time? Satan was an agent of Yahweh. End times war and resurrection wasn't a thing.

But I am talking about cultural myths, you are talking like there are Gods. First I need evidence of any God being real. Next there needs be an explanation why the God of Israel, who's out to save Israel and HATES other religions, even wants to kill all living beings in 6 cities just because their religions might "rub off", explain why Yahweh is telling Persian religious leaders about his theology?
That doesn't make any sense?
It's just cultural diffusion or syncretism.

Here are a couple more specific myths that were known to be Persian and showed up in the OT after the occupation.


Old Testament Interpretation


Professor John J. Collins




12:10 a possible inspiration for Ezekiel treatment of dead (valley of bones) was Persian myth





14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.


In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.


The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.





17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The Persian myths go back to around 1600 BC.
Religious beliefs in Persia do not precede the truths that Noah and his family may have learned in their relationship with the true God.
But how could Israel influence Persia? They had none of those myths at that time?
Many very dissimilar religions around the world and from all times have some beliefs in common.

All of humanity and all of its religions arose from the confusion of languages at Babel, and all the people who left there took with them their own versions of ancient events and truths that over time spread more or less distorted by different factors.
Satan was an agent of Yahweh. End times war and resurrection wasn't a thing.
Job, who although he was a descendant of Abraham through a different via than Isaac, predated the Mosaic Law, the first writings that Jehovah gave to his chosen nation at that time. Job knew the hope of the resurrection:

Job 14:13 O that in Sheʹol you would conceal me,
That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back,
That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!
14 If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?
All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait,
Until my relief comes.
15 You will call, and I myself shall answer you.
For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.

Moses heard the story of the life of Job, who was a worshiper of the God of Abraham, after his visit to the region where Job had lived some time before his birth.
The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.
Dan. 12:13 is not the only passage of the Hebrew Scriptures referring to the resurrection as seen before (Job 14:13-15). Besides those passages, there are others:

Deut. 32:39 See now that I—I am he, And there are no gods apart from me. I put to death, and I make alive. I wound, and I will heal, And no one can rescue from my hand.

1 Sam. 2:6 Jehovah kills, and he preserves life; He brings down to the Grave, and he raises up.

Hos. 13:14 From the power of the Grave I will redeem them; From death I will recover them. Where are your stings, O Death? Where is your destructiveness, O Grave? Compassion will be concealed from my eyes.

When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son he was willing to do what was required of him. Even so, he had been told that Isaac, who had not yet fathered children, would be the son through whom he would have blessed offspring.

Gen. 21:12 Then God said to Abraham: “Do not be displeased by what Sarah is saying to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her, for what will be called your offspring will be through Isaac. 13 As for the son of the slave girl, I will also make a nation out of him, because he is your offspring.”

Abraham did not believe that Isaac's death would prevent God's promise from being fulfilled... It is logical to reason and conclude, as Paul did, that Abraham trusted that after his son died he would live again, to give him the offspring that God had promised to give him through Isaac.

Heb. 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Religious beliefs in Persia do not precede the truths that Noah and his family may have learned in their relationship with the true God.
Yes, the Persian religion dates to around 1600 BCE.
Noah is a mythology that re-works Mesopotamian myths.



The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.


You have to demonstrate a "true God" exists and show this god is that god. Otherwise it's just a claim as all religions do.



Many very dissimilar religions around the world and from all times have some beliefs in common.
Not to that degree. Zoroastriansim is more like Christianity than Judaism?

The end times myth started with them and spread into other religions.

Revelation, Mary Boyce


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).



All of humanity and all of its religions arose from the confusion of languages at Babel, and all the people who left there took with them their own versions of ancient events and truths that over time spread more or less distorted by different factors.
Yes, that is how the myth goes. No evidence it's true. It's a story.




Job, who although he was a descendant of Abraham through a different via than Isaac, predated the Mosaic Law, the first writings that Jehovah gave to his chosen nation at that time. Job knew the hope of the resurrection:

Job 14:13 O that in Sheʹol you would conceal me,
That you would keep me secret until your anger turns back,
That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!
14 If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?
All the days of my compulsory service I shall wait,
Until my relief comes.
15 You will call, and I myself shall answer you.
For the work of your hands you will have a yearning.
Not a messianic passage, he's lamenting on life and death:
7 For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.

8 Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground;

9 Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.

10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?






Moses heard the story of the life of Job, who was a worshiper of the God of Abraham, after his visit to the region where Job had lived some time before his birth.

Dan. 12:13 is not the only passage of the Hebrew Scriptures referring to the resurrection as seen before (Job 14:13-15). Besides those passages, there are others:

Deut. 32:39 See now that I—I am he, And there are no gods apart from me. I put to death, and I make alive. I wound, and I will heal, And no one can rescue from my hand.

1 Sam. 2:6 Jehovah kills, and he preserves life; He brings down to the Grave, and he raises up.

Hos. 13:14 From the power of the Grave I will redeem them; From death I will recover them. Where are your stings, O Death? Where is your destructiveness, O Grave? Compassion will be concealed from my eyes.

When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son he was willing to do what was required of him. Even so, he had been told that Isaac, who had not yet fathered children, would be the son through whom he would have blessed offspring.

Gen. 21:12 Then God said to Abraham: “Do not be displeased by what Sarah is saying to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her, for what will be called your offspring will be through Isaac. 13 As for the son of the slave girl, I will also make a nation out of him, because he is your offspring.”

Abraham did not believe that Isaac's death would prevent God's promise from being fulfilled... It is logical to reason and conclude, as Paul did, that Abraham trusted that after his son died he would live again, to give him the offspring that God had promised to give him through Isaac.

Heb. 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way.
NONE of this is literal bodily resurrection or involves heaven and hell, which comes from the Persian religion. None of these passages demonstrate a body getting up from the grave. It's just talking about the power of their God.
Also Satan id not evil or working against God. In the Persian religion there is to be a final battle and all followers will be bodily resurrected and live in bliss for eternity. That isn't "similar", they used the myth.

"14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.

In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.

The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.

17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT."
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.
All the "numbers" represent strawman refutations or reutationsthatvare based on speculations and "maybe"

And you know it.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.


Your point has been shown invalid multiple times already.

Well honestly I dont find much difference between

1) Maybe conscious Suffering evolved because A B and C evolved and D (Suffering) is a necesary consecuence of A B and C

2 Maybe God creared a world with Suffering, because all this Suffering has a higher purpose that we still dont understand.

Both answers are logically possible, but both are 100% speculative and are far from being conclusve solutions.

My point is that you have to ether reject or accept both responses as valid .. otherwise you wouldn't be intelectually consistent
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.


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


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.
Again D could be the inevitable resoult of A B and C , only of D is simple

Complex stuff requiere many steps and the power of natural selection

Perhaps you should try to show your point with real examples rather than with A B C D
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That's what we generally imagine to be the case, but since pain/suffering are subjective experiences it is hard to say what exactly those beings are experiencing.



It might be the case that pain allows for more complex reactions to stimulus which happens to improve survival rate.
Well
1 suffering is a conscious state

2 conscious states require a complex brain

3 therefore organisms that have no brain or a simple brain , cant suffer.

The controversy is on how simple the brain has to be.... some say that even insects suffer others say that only the higher primates suffer

But the point I that suffering evolved at some point in the evolutionary tree , and nobody knows how and why
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Well
1 suffering is a conscious state

2 conscious states require a complex brain

3 therefore organisms that have no brain or a simple brain , cant suffer.

The controversy is on how simple the brain has to be.... some say that even insects suffer others say that only the higher primates suffer

But the point I that suffering evolved at some point in the evolutionary tree , and nobody knows how and why

The simplest answer is that it provides a higher survival rate.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The Persian myths go back to around 1600 BC.

But how could Israel influence Persia?
You think these scriptures don't speak of God of Israel influencing Persian king?

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
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is unlikely, anyone that could explain *in detail* why/how the ability to have conscious experiences like suffering would be rich famous and would be aiming For a noble price.

This is the opinión if a scholar who who has published on the subject multiple times




Here is my dilema
My options are
1 trust a scholar who is an expert in this very topic.

Or

2 trust fanatic Internet atheist like @Subduction Zone @It Aint Necessarily @SkepticThinker that claim to have an answer this issue, but for some reason they are unable to quote the post where this was answered.

Do you understand why am I more inclined to trust scholars than to trust fanatic Internet atheists that have a long history of making things up in the past?


Just to make a summery
1 nobody knows how consciousness evolve (this includes the concious experience that we call suffering)

2 only a small group of ellite atheists that happen to have an account in this forum, and who have access to secret knowledge know how consciousness evolved .
Perhaps you should not make false claims about others. Just because you were shown to be wrong is no reason to personally attack others and try to distort there positions.

When you screw up you should just admit it and move on. It is when you don't that everyone seems to be jumping on you. What on Earth makes you think that I disagree with your scholar? The problem is that you are either misinterpreting what he said, or what I said, or both. Did you note that he was not even talking about the topic of this thread. So why did you even refer to him?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well
1 suffering is a conscious state

2 conscious states require a complex brain

3 therefore organisms that have no brain or a simple brain , cant suffer.

The controversy is on how simple the brain has to be.... some say that even insects suffer others say that only the higher primates suffer

But the point I that suffering evolved at some point in the evolutionary tree , and nobody knows how and why
I would say that you do not know why. Others understand that evolution is not the oversimplified A or B model that you try to make it.

The simple fact is that the ability to feel pain is beneficial for a species survival. Evolution never works on "perfect" it words on "good enough" so a system that sometimes produces excessive pain still is more beneficial than the lack of that. And that would be true from at least insect on up.


Suffering is not a problem for evolution It is merely a byproduct of it.
 
Top