The naturalist problem of suffering.

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I seriously believe that he does not know what a strawman fallacy is. He does not understand that using that argument still puts a burden of proof upon the one claiming "strawman". Quite often creationists are refuted by the logical fallacies that they use. The problem is that they do not understand those logical fallacies or how to apply them. They merely see other people using those terms and they think that it is a magic phrase.

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.

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.

Which shows you that he did not understand the concept of a strawman fallacy. Just as he thought that I should have constructed a proper scientific hypothesis to refute him.

 

[leroy]

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.


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.

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.

ok
straw man Would be my response to sickle cell anemia

I don’t remember if I responded to that post, but that would be my answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok
straw man Would be my response to sickle cell anemia

I don’t remember if I responded to that post, but that would be my answer.

How was that a strawman?

 

[leroy]

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.


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.

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.

If you affirm the sickle cell anemia post refutes any of my claims then I would challenge you to quote my actual words and the alleged refutation, and show that I was refuted.

If you don’t make such affirmation, then why bringing that topic to the table?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you affirm the sickle cell anemia post refutes any of my claims then I would challenge you to quote my actual words and the alleged refutation, and show that I was refuted.

If you don’t make such affirmation, then why bringing that topic to the table?

Why do you always play this silly game?

 

[SkepticThinker]

ok
straw man Would be my response to sickle cell anemia

I don’t remember if I responded to that post, but that would be my answer.

And that is a straw man because ...... ?

How about responding to that post? It was a great example of exactly what you were asking for.

 

[leroy]

How was that a strawman?

How was that a strawman?

Because there is nothing in the sickle cell anemia post that I refutes any of my comments

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you affirm the sickle cell anemia post refutes any of my claims then I would challenge you to quote my actual words and the alleged refutation, and show that I was refuted.

If you don’t make such affirmation, then why bringing that topic to the table?

Good grief.

I don't know what you're reading, but you're not reading what I'm saying.

I didn't say you refuted the post, that wouldn't make any sense since I don't even know if your responded to the post. Hence my question asking if you responded to the post. I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation.

 

[leroy]

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,

Sure, If you quote my errors and show that they’re indeed mistakes I would admit such mistakes.

and I will show you, with quotes from the OP and my refutation of it how you were wrong.

sure

 

[leroy]

Good grief.

I don't know what you're reading, but you're not reading what I'm saying.

I didn't say you refuted the post, that wouldn't make any sense since I don't even know if your responded to the post. Hence my question asking if you responded to the post. I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation.

Good grief.

I don't know what you're reading, but you're not reading what I'm saying.

I didn't say you refuted the post, that wouldn't make any sense since I don't even know if your responded to the post. Hence my question asking if you responded to the post. I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation.

Yes I responded to that post in post #94

My response was and still is that the sickle cell anemia post is irrelevant to the OP

Nowhere in the OP (or elsewhere) I denied that sickle cell anemia is not useless nor that it causes suffering ………. and none of those ruths about sickle cell anemia refute anything from the OP

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I responded to that post in post #94

My response was and still is that the sickle cell anemia post is irrelevant to the OP

Your response was, "Irrelevant to the OP"

You didn't even attempt to explain why. Care to try now?

Nowhere in the OP (or elsewhere) I denied that sickle cell anemia is not useless nor that it causes suffering ………. and none of those ruths about sickle cell anemia refute anything from the OP

Nobody has claimed you said anything about sickle cell anemia in your OP.

 

[Kfox]

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

Suffering is natural. What is good for some, will be bad for others.

 

[leroy]

Your response was, "Irrelevant to the OP"

You didn't even attempt to explain why. Care to try now?

"Care to try now?"
sure

There is not much to explain, the OP and the sickle cell anemia post have nothing to do with each other

The sickle cell anemia post shows that something can be useful (in the context of natural selection) and at the same time cause pain and suffering in those who suffer from it…………… In other words, something can be useful and painful at the same time.

The OP simply exposes an uncontroversial truth accepted by scholars……… that there is no explanation (yet) for how/why consciousness evolved ……. Including the conscious state that we call “suffering”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because there is nothing in the sickle cell anemia post that I refutes any of my comments

Prove it.

When you make that sort of rather foolish claim you take on the burden of proof. I did offer to go over it if you would pay a small and reasonable price, but for some odd reason, even when you screw that poor pooch so she can't walk straight for a week you never acknowledge your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, If you quote my errors and show that they’re indeed mistakes I would admit such mistakes.



sure

They were already made abundantly clear to you. This was an honesty test. So far you have failed it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Care to try now?"
sure

There is not much to explain, the OP and the sickle cell anemia post have nothing to do with each other

The sickle cell anemia post shows that something can be useful (in the context of natural selection) and at the same time cause pain and suffering in those who suffer from it…………… In other words, something can be useful and painful at the same time.

The OP simply exposes an uncontroversial truth accepted by scholars……… that there is no explanation (yet) for how/why consciousness evolved ……. Including the conscious state that we call “suffering”

It sounds like that it's an actual direct answer to your question about why there is a "conscious state that we call suffering" - because it's useful and provides survival advantage.

 

[leroy]

It sounds like that it's an actual direct answer to your question about why there is a "conscious state that we call suffering" - because it's useful and provides survival advantage.

What would be the “survival advantage” for this conscious experience?............

The benefits of sickle cell anemia would still be there regardless of the existence of “conscious suffering”

You seem to be confused, and I bet @Subduction Zone is making the sme mistake

1 yes something that causes conscious suffering could be beneficial (in the context of NS)

2 But conscious suffering itself doesn’t have any known benefits...................(this claim was supported with peer reviwed literture......... honestly waht else do you expect from me?)

Do you see the difference between 1 and 2?

 

[leroy]

They were already made abundantly clear to you. This was an honesty test. So far you have failed it.

How can I admit my mistakes, if I don’t even know which claims are suppose to be wrong according to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I admit my mistakes, if I don’t even know which claims are suppose to be wrong according to you?

Do your homework. The error that you made was very recent.


I am not playing your silly games. If you do not now what you are doing wrong then you really have no business debating at all.

 

[leroy]

Do your homework. The error that you made was very recent.


I am not playing your silly games. If you do not now what you are doing wrong then you really have no business debating at all.

Well the difference between you and I is that when I accuse you for being wrong or for using logical Fallacies, I can quote your exact words and explain your mistakes