The naturalist problem of suffering.

[leroy]

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?

What on Earth makes you think that I disagree with your scholar?

1 The fact that the OP and the scholar both agree on that there is not a conclusive explanation for how consciousness evolved

2 And the fact that you claimed tha the OP has been refuted


The sum of 1 + 2 is what made me think that you disagree with the scholar.

 

[leroy]

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.

That has been answered multiple times. ... why havent you adress the responses instead of repeating the same argument over and over again. ?

 

[leroy]

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

The point that I am making is that even before "suffering " evolved ......organisms where already defending themselve or reacting in some way to prevent harm

Suffering in a conscious way, doesn't seem to add any extra benefit....

 

[Koldo]

The point that I am making is that even before "suffering " evolved ......organisms where already defending themselve or reacting in some way to prevent harm

Suffering in a conscious way, doesn't seem to add any extra benefit....

But does merely reacting provide a higher survival rate than experiencing suffering (in every single species)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 The fact that the OP and the scholar both agree on that there is not a conclusive explanation for how consciousness evolved

So what? You are conflating "not conclusive" for scientists and "no clue at all" for you. That does not help your beliefs. The scholars still think that consciousness is the product of evolution. Not having all of the answers is never an excuse to introduce magic into the answer.

2 And the fact that you claimed tha the OP has been refuted

Yes, you were refuted. You are now trying to change the topic.

The sum of 1 + 2 is what made me think that you disagree with the scholar.

More nonsense. Try to actually make a point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been answered multiple times. ... why havent you adress the responses instead of repeating the same argument over and over again. ?

Why haven't you admitted that your OP was refuted and instead started grasping at straws by changing the topic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Why?

Complex stuff requiere many steps and the power of natural selection

Why?

You seem to be saying that many simple steps can't end up in something complex.
Why do you think that?

It seems to me that that is exactly what evolution does.... Many simple steps leading to something complex.
1+1+1+...+1+1+1 = huge number

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

Why? You already agreed with the basic mechanism.
Seems to me that now you are only opposing it because you don't like where it leads.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That's because of your religious bias.
The difference, off course, is that 1 is a plausible mechanism that is KNOWN to occur, while 2 is merely religiously inspired imagination.

Both answers are logically possible

They are not.
I don't remember you show gods to be possible. Logically or otherwise.
Believing it does not make it so. Just because you can imagine something, does not mean it's actually possible.

I can imagine defying gravity, but that doesn't make it possible. Let alone plausible

, but both are 100% speculative and are far from being conclusve solutions.

No. 1 is not speculative at all. It is a known mechanism. 2 is a religious belief.

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

Well, your point is wrong for reasons stated above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That has been answered multiple times. ... why havent you adress the responses instead of repeating the same argument over and over again. ?

 

[leroy]

But does merely reacting provide a higher survival rate than experiencing suffering (in every single species)?

I dont know, that is a good question

 

[leroy]

So what? You are conflating "not conclusive" for scientists and "no clue at all" for you. That does not help your beliefs. The scholars still think that consciousness is the product of evolution. Not having all of the answers is never an excuse to introduce magic into the answer.


Yes, you were refuted. You are now trying to change the topic.

More nonsense. Try to actually make a point.

The point is, and has always been that we don't know how/ why the concious state that we call suffering evolved.

The topic has not been changed as you wrongly accused me for.

The topic has never been changed

 

[leroy]

Why haven't you admitted that your OP was refuted

And one wonders why is it that you are unable to quote my actual words , and the alleged refutation

and instead started grasping at straws by changing the topic?

Added to the list of lies / the topic as not been changed

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I dont know, that is a good question

Considering your claims in the OP, it sounds like something you should know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is, and has always been that we don't know how/ why the concious state that we call suffering evolved.

The topic has not been changed as you wrongly accused me for.

The topic has never been changed

We have a rather good idea. You tried to claim in the OP that atheism had a similar problem of suffering as theists have. That was refuted. The mere existence of suffering is a problem for theism. The existence of suffering is not a problem for atheism. It in no way threatens atheism. It is merely an unpleasant reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And one wonders why is it that you are unable to quote my actual words , and the alleged refutation



Added to the list of lies / the topic as not been changed

Why would I need to? And no. I supported my claim. My refutation is still the first answer to the OP. And why the false claim about me? You know the rules. I constantly support my claims. You just cannot deal with them or ignore how they refute your claims. Just ask questions properly if you want an answer.

If anyone has lied here it has not been me. Do you have a mirror at hand?

 

[SkepticThinker]

All the "numbers" represent strawman refutations or reutationsthatvare based on speculations and "maybe"

And you know it.

Nope. They represent exactly what you asked for. And you know it.

Did you respond to the sickle cell anemia one yet?

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

If this was, in reality, the case there is a problem with God being an omnipotent, all-powerful, all-knowing God, and setting up two fallible humans with the potential of causing all the suffering and death in human history. If this is the case God screwed, and then had to correct things God Created again wiping out humanity with a world flood and starting over. In this case, I seriously question God's ability and omnipotence as a Creator.

Of course, none of the myths of Genesis are true. Just an ancient culture trying to explain why Creation is flawed and Created Adam and Eve as scapegoats.

 

[leroy]

Nope. They represent exactly what you asked for. And you know it.

Did you respond to the sickle cell anemia one yet?

That would be an example of straw man

There is nothing in the OP nor in any of my comments that suggests that I would deny anything related to sickle cell anemia that has been commented in this thread.

But hey this claim is testable and falsifiable………… you can quote my actual words and the sickle cell anemia post , and show that I have been refuted………………… can you do that? …..Nooooooooooo

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be an example of straw man

There is nothing in the OP nor in any of my comments that suggests that I would deny anything related to sickle cell anemia that has been commented in this thread.

But hey this claim is testable and falsifiable………… you can quote my actual words and the sickle cell anemia post , and show that I have been refuted………………… can you do that? …..Nooooooooooo

LOL! I was not proposing a hypothesis. You really should try to get the basics of science down. I was using known facts for my claim. And yes, it showed how you as usual have no clue as to what you are arguing about.

I will make a deal. Own up to your errors in your post, specifically your incorrect application of the scientific method, and I will show you, with quotes from the OP and my refutation of it how you were wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That would be an example of straw man

Nope. This was in response to, "Nope. They represent exactly what you asked for. And you know it.

Did you respond to the sickle cell anemia one yet?"

No strawman there. Just me pointing out that you actually received many answers to your questions, despite your (typical) claim that you haven't.

There is nothing in the OP nor in any of my comments that suggests that I would deny anything related to sickle cell anemia that has been commented in this thread.

LOL I didn't make any claim about it. I asked if you've responded to the post about it yet. Did you?

My "claim" was that you got what you asked for. I demonstrated that by providing all the posts numbers in which you got what you asked for.

But hey this claim is testable and falsifiable………… you can quote my actual words and the sickle cell anemia post , and show that I have been refuted………………… can you do that? …..Nooooooooooo

Oh good grief! I asked if you responded to the post about sickle cell anemia. Did you, or not?


Why do you have to make this sooooo tedious and difficult?? This is why your threads always go no where. Your silly games are tiring and useless.