The naturalist problem of suffering.

[1213]

....a possible ...

That was the best part.

 

[joelr]

That was the best part.

It's called "honesty". Religious ideology doesn't often use it, they proclaim what they say is the truth. When religious see it used they may laugh and think it means it cannot be true. It shows you are skimming and just using confirmation bias to find way to disprove something you have already made your mind up on. For historians it shows they are simply looking for the most likely truth, if it isn't proven they say so.

Sometimes they are more certain:


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.



Raised up to heaven, for the first time in the Bible, during the Persian occupation where they already had that myth. Very likely it was influenced from them. As well as - 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.
Very likely this was also borrowed from the Persians.

You asked for evidence, this is historical evidence. Nothing in history is 100%, however Yahweh , angels and such, no evidence whatsoever. Same as Zeus and Hercules.

 

[1213]

It's called "honesty". Religious ideology doesn't often use it, they proclaim what they say is the truth. When religious see it used they may laugh and think it means it cannot be true....

No, it means it is not necessary true, it is what they believe.

 

[joelr]

No, it means it is not necessary true, it is what they believe

In this case it's the most likely thing that happened but they say possibly because we cannot go back in time.

But other examples are almost certain, such as:


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.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

From a Buddhist perspective, the existence of suffering is not attributed to a specific divine being but is understood as an inherent aspect of life. The teachings of Buddhism offer a path towards understanding and transcending suffering, leading to a state of liberation and peace.

 

[leroy]

I don't see how it's irrelevant, and you haven't explained why, as far as I can see.

Well why dont you try to explain my argument with your own words...... I will be happy to point the parts that you fail to understand....

Not adequately, in my opinion. You've just dismissed it because there are other ways to feel pain. Which of course, doesn't make "conscious pain" useless.

There are many different ways to see, and many different types of eyes in many different types of organisms all over the planet. They can all "see" in various different ways that differ from each other in some ways and are similar in other ways. For instance, cows, cats, horses and deer have a reflective layer in their eyes that makes it easier for them to see at night. Human beings do not have this reflecting system so we can't see as well at night as a lot of other animals can. We don't see you saying, 'Well I can see well enough at night so those other types of eyes didn't need to evolve that way and so we can't explain it!" Because we can explain it, right? Or that this kind of eye is less useful than this other type of eye, so we can't explain it. Because you know that different types of eyes evolved in different populations, in different times and in different environments. What works in one environment won't necessarily be optimal in another environment.

It's the same for pain and the different ways that organisms experience and react to it.

The origin of consciousness is not the same thing as the usefulness of consciousness. And of course, consciousness and "conscious pain" are different things as well.

That is irrelevant, nobody is denyin that there are different ways to suffer , in the same way there are many ways to "see"

The only claim that I am making is that:

"A system that already works, is unlikely to become more complex through random mutations + Natural selection........ if this extra layer of complexity adds no adicional benefits ."

This is a simple and uncontrovertial claim.

Please let me know if you would claim otherwise... (that useless complexity is expected to evolve)

 

[leroy]

Your question was

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

And I gave you a considered reply about how suffering evolved and how suffering is a natural part of being alive and surviving.

It's still there, #104.

You've never responded to it. Did you overlook it? Perish the thought that you didn't reply because you found it inconvenient.

Because post 104 is irrelevant, you are adressing an issue that has nothing to d with my argument.


I am simply asking, why / how did consciousness evolved, including the concious state that we call "suffering"

The simple anwer accordig o scholars is "we dont know" .... do you have any good reasons to disagree with what scholás say ?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

Suffering is not evidence against a god. It is evidence against a good god.

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”

How have you determined that suffering adds no selective benefit?

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.

1. What evidence do you have to support this claim?
3. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[Trailblazer]

Suffering is not evidence against a god. It is evidence against a good god.

To me suffering is not evidence against a God, or even evidence against a good God, but it is evidence against a loving God.

 

[blü 2]

Because post 104 is irrelevant, you are adressing an issue that has nothing to d with my argument.


I am simply asking, why / how did consciousness evolved, including the concious state that we call "suffering"

The simple anwer accordig o scholars is "we dont know" .... do you have any good reasons to disagree with what scholás say ?

Goodness! How you can think the answer I gave you before is irrelevant to the issue you're raised ─ in your own words, 'How did suffering evolve?' ─ escapes me altogether. It directly addresses the question you asked.

If I read you correctly, you wish it didn't.

 

[leroy]

Goodness! How you can think the answer I gave you before is irrelevant to the issue you're raised ─ in your own words, 'How did suffering evolve?' ─ escapes me altogether. It directly addresses the question you asked.

If I read you correctly, you wish it didn't.

You are misunderstanding the argument, and you dont even seem to be interesed in understanding my actual argument.

You are expected to explain how and why consciousness evolved

...

Related to your post 104, earthquakes, viruses, competition etc. Explain why we react in certain ways. (As you explained)

But you did nothing to explain the origin of the concious state that we call suffering.... do you understand why where you wrong? Are you willing to admit your mistake. ?

 

[leroy]

1. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

This is smoly how evolution by natural selection works..... useless comolx systems are not expected to evolve.. by definition natural selection selects usefull stuff..... and random genetic dtift is unlikely to build something complex.

3. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

The burden proof is on the afirmative side. If you think that the concious state that we call suffering has a benefit then share that information.

I personaly dont see any benefit. In the same way you dont see why would a good god allow so much suffering

Suffering is not evidence against a god. It is evidence against a good god.

Why ?
Why is suffering evidence against a good God?

 

[blü 2]

You are misunderstanding the argument, and you dont even seem to be interesed in understanding my actual argument.

You are expected to explain how and why consciousness evolved

How do you define "consciousness" for this purpose? How did what, exactly, evolve?

you did nothing to explain the origin of the concious state that we call suffering.... do you understand why where you wrong?

You asked how suffering evolved. I gave you an entirely relevant answer,

If the rest of your question is "How did consciousness evolve?" then I look forward to your definition, and when that's in hand I'll see what I can add.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are misunderstanding the argument, and you dont even seem to be interesed in understanding my actual argument.

You are expected to explain how and why consciousness evolved

...

Related to your post 104, earthquakes, viruses, competition etc. Explain why we react in certain ways. (As you explained)

But you did nothing to explain the origin of the concious state that we call suffering.... do you understand why where you wrong? Are you willing to admit your mistake. ?

You misunderstand his argument and you don't even seem to be interested in understanding his actual argument.

 

[Koldo]

This is smoly how evolution by natural selection works..... useless comolx systems are not expected to evolve.. by definition natural selection selects usefull stuff..... and random genetic dtift is unlikely to build something complex.



The burden proof is on the afirmative side. If you think that the concious state that we call suffering has a benefit then share that information.

I personaly dont see any benefit. In the same way you dont see why would a good god allow so much suffering


Why ?
Why is suffering evidence against a good God?

The benefit is that most circumstances that cause suffering are related to a decrease at survival rate. Suffering therefore provides stimuli that increases our survival rate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is smoly how evolution by natural selection works..... useless comolx systems are not expected to evolve.. by definition natural selection selects usefull stuff..... and random genetic dtift is unlikely to build something complex.

He asked for evidence. He didn't ask you to simply repeat your assertion.

The burden proof is on the afirmative side.

"X is useless". This is a claim. Claims have a burden of proof.

As for the opposite claim "suffering is useful"... this has been explained ad nauseum already in this thread.
To summarize: it makes for a negative state of being that one would wish to avoid which in turn helps survivability for both you and your loved ones / other members of your group.

If you think that the concious state that we call suffering has a benefit then share that information.

See above.

I personaly dont see any benefit

Put your hand on a hot stove. See what happens and how you react to it.
Now ask yourself how you would react if putting your hand on the stove didn't put you in an undesirable state of suffering and what the outcome of that would be.

In the same way you dont see why would a good god allow so much suffering

Can't speak for other people, but if memory serves me right, in my very first post in this thread I already said that I consider that to be a worthless argument.
The "problem of evil" is only a problem if you go into it with a bunch of unjustifiable assumptions imo.

Why is suffering evidence against a good God?

If you assume god is good and loves us and wants the best for us and created all living things, I wouldn't expect such a god to create a species of fly which procreates specifically by laying eggs in human eyes after which the larva literally eat their way out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The benefit is that most circumstances that cause suffering are related to a decrease at survival rate. Suffering therefore provides stimuli that increases our survival rate.

You'ld think this is obvious ha.... You'ld be right off course and if you go back to page 1 of this thread, you'ld see that exactly this has been put to him by multiple people in their pretty much first reply in this thread.

Yet here we are on page 15 and 2 months later, still stuck on the same silly question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well why dont you try to explain my argument with your own words...... I will be happy to point the parts that you fail to understand....

How about you present and explain your argument, as I've already asked.

That is irrelevant, nobody is denyin that there are different ways to suffer , in the same way there are many ways to "see"

The only claim that I am making is that:

"A system that already works, is unlikely to become more complex through random mutations + Natural selection........ if this extra layer of complexity adds no adicional benefits ."

This is a simple and uncontrovertial claim.

Please let me know if you would claim otherwise... (that useless complexity is expected to evolve)

It's very relevant, in fact. It explains how "an extra layer of complexity" actually does add additional benefits.
Your claim has already been debunked in this thread. You've declared that irrelevant, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[leroy]

How do you define "consciousness" for this purpose? How did what, exactly, evolve?

You asked how suffering evolved. I gave you an entirely relevant answer,

If the rest of your question is "How did consciousness evolve?" then I look forward to your definition, and when that's in hand I'll see what I can add.

Consciousness = awarnes

For example the mental stste in which we are aware that we re in pain and suffering....... how / why did it evolved?

 

[leroy]

The benefit is that most circumstances that cause suffering are related to a decrease at survival rate. Suffering therefore provides stimuli that increases our survival rate.

Well thatis mu point of disagreement (in red letters)

Care to support your claim ?