The naturalist problem of suffering.

[Koldo]

Well thatis mu point of disagreement (in red letters)

Care to support your claim ?

Put your hand on a hot stove (actually, don't).
Not only your reflex will make you pull your hand away from the stove, but the suffering afterwards will find a place in your memories to call it home and make you never want to touch a hot stove again. And doing so will prolong your life.

 

[blü 2]

Consciousness = awarnes

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

Awareness? In contrast to lack of awareness? It would have evolved as part of the evolution of sleep in mammals, surely?

Awareness of pain? It tells you to moderate your physical conduct so that healing can occur, whereas without pain you may be trying to run on your broken legs and really mess things up.

Suffering? All animals are very likely to encounter periods of stress, whether from heat, hunger, aggression, frustration of need or desire eg mating, place in the social peck order, on and on and on. All those things I mentioned in my first post here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Awareness? In contrast to lack of awareness? It would have evolved as part of the evolution of sleep in mammals, surely?

Awareness of pain? It tells you to moderate your physical conduct so that healing can occur, whereas without pain you may be trying to run on your broken legs and really mess things up.

Suffering? All animals are very likely to encounter periods of stress, whether from heat, hunger, aggression, frustration of need or desire eg mating, place in the social peck order, on and on and on. All those things I mentioned in my first post here.

Apparently we're starting this thread all over from the beginning again, as though all of this was not previously discussed.

 

[blü 2]

Apparently we're starting this thread all over from the beginning again, as though all of this was not previously discussed.

That may well be the case. The present conversation between @leroy and me is about an early post of mine that he hasn't responded to until now.

 

[leroy]

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

But you dont seem to reject that assertion ... so lets move on

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

And such claim was supported....


Suffetong us useless, because organisms woould react to avoid danger anyway. (You dont need to suffer for such reaction to occure)

Put your hand on a hot stove. See what happens and how you react to it.

That is exactly my point..... I would react and remove my hand before experiencing suffering.
In other words

Yes: removing the hand from the stove is beneficial

No: I dont need to suffer in a concious way, in order to have thst benefit

Any disagreement

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.

That is my poit
A lovong God is not expected to create a works with so much suffering....... in the same way evolution by natural selection is not expected to create useless complex systems (like suffering in a concious way)

My point is that both views hace a similar obstacle.


Any disagreement?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

This is just another claim. Here is what you said: useless complex things are not expected to evolve.

Why are they not expected to evolve?

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

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You said: to suffer is useless(from the point of view of N Selection)
That is a claim, what is your evidence for this claim?

Why ?

Why is suffering evidence against a good God?

If you look at the suffering in the world such as starvation, child abuse, rape etc. it seems excessive if a god is good.

If you could stop starvation, rape and child abuse instantly would you do it? I would. I would expect a good god to be better than me. Some suffering may be good but if the level of suffering in the world is actually good, then the god needs to explain itself, which it could do.

 

[Koldo]

That is exactly my point..... I would react and remove my hand before experiencing suffering.
In other words

Yes: removing the hand from the stove is beneficial

No: I dont need to suffer in a concious way, in order to have thst benefit

Any disagreement

Did you know there are people on this world that are unable to experience pain? It is a very rare genetic disorder. Those people generally go through hard times because there is no substitute for pain, in human beings at least, when it comes down to self-preservation. Their bones tend to break very often and cooking is very dangerous. The reflexes we have are insufficient.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you dont seem to reject that assertion ... so lets move on

Wheter I do or not is irrelevant to your dodging of his question.

And such claim was supported....

No, it was only asserted.

Suffetong us useless, because organisms woould react to avoid danger anyway. (You dont need to suffer for such reaction to occure)

That doesn't make suffering useless. It's still as useful as any other method to avoid danger.
Being able to imagine other systems doesn't make any single system useless.
Some species can navigate the world / "see" through echolocation. That doesn't make squishy eyes useless.

That is exactly my point..... I would react and remove my hand before experiencing suffering.

Good job in showing how it's thus not useless.

In other words

Yes: removing the hand from the stove is beneficial

No: I dont need to suffer in a concious way, in order to have thst benefit

And you don't need eyes to see either since you could use echolocation also.
Nevertheless it does the job. So not useless.

Any disagreement

Yes. It's not useless. You just demonstrated it's not useless, since it makes you retract your hand from a hot stove.

That is my poit
A lovong God is not expected to create a works with so much suffering....... in the same way evolution by natural selection is not expected to create useless complex systems (like suffering in a concious way)

Here's where you are wrong.
A loving god would be a thinking entity that can actually make decisions with intent and purpose and reason about doing it one way versus an other way.

Evolution is a blind process and has none of these qualities. It doesn't think ahead nore does it "care" about states of being or suffering or love or well-being or anything else, because it has no ability to care full stop.

So you're just drawing a false analogy

My point is that both views hace a similar obstacle.

Any disagreement?

Yes. They don't have a similar obstacle.
One is supposedly a conscious creature that does things with intent and actually has the ability to chose one system over another and presumable has reasons to chose one over another.

The other has none of those things as it is a blind process.


With a conscious reasonable entitiy that makes decisions with intent that can weigh pros and cons and decide between options, I would expect reasonable decision making.
With a blind process, I would expect no such thing and instead, whatever works will be good enough.

 

[leroy]

Put your hand on a hot stove (actually, don't).
Not only your reflex will make you pull your hand away from the stove, but the suffering afterwards will find a place in your memories to call it home and make you never want to touch a hot stove again. And doing so will prolong your life.

++

that is far from obvious ,
, I would remove my hand from the hot stove even without the memory of that pain.

The point is that while I grant that what you are proposing is a realistic possibility, you lack robust and conclusive evidence for that. ………..for example…. you can´t provide a path of specific positive mutations that would lead to “conscious suffering”

This is not supposed to be controversial, no serious scientists denies that everything related to consciousness is hard to explain,

My only point is that if you can speculate about possible explanations for the existence of suffering , the theist can do the same and speculate with possible explanations for why would a good God allow suffering.

You shouldn’t demand theist for a robust and conclusive explanation for suffering if you can´t do the same as a naturalist. I am not accusing you for doing this (I haven’t seen you doing it) all I am doing is establishing something obvious that is not expected to be controversial.

--

If you (or anyone who answers) don’t start your reply with “NO LEROY I affirm you are wrong in this point (follow by a quote of my actual words) I will assume that you don’t have any mayor disagreement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

++

that is far from obvious ,
, I would remove my hand from the hot stove even without the memory of that pain.

The point is that while I grant that what you are proposing is a realistic possibility, you lack robust and conclusive evidence for that. ………..for example…. you can´t provide a path of specific positive mutations that would lead to “conscious suffering”

This is not supposed to be controversial, no serious scientists denies that everything related to consciousness is hard to explain,

My only point is that if you can speculate about possible explanations for the existence of suffering , the theist can do the same and speculate with possible explanations for why would a good God allow suffering.

You shouldn’t demand theist for a robust and conclusive explanation for suffering if you can´t do the same as a naturalist. I am not accusing you for doing this (I haven’t seen you doing it) all I am doing is establishing something obvious that is not expected to be controversial.

In the post right above yours, I explained to you how you are drawing a false equivalence here.
A creator god would have options. He would have design. He would think ahead. He could evaluate several options and presumably have reasons to choose one option over another. So if there are other ways of being that accomplish the same goals without suffering, then presumably said god had reasons to choose the way of being that includes suffering over one that doesn't.

Evolution is a blind mindless process and thus has no such evaluating capabilities. So there are no "options to choose from for reasoned reasons" there. So in evolution, whatever works is good enough - and it requires no further explanation beyond that.

Not so with a god that consciously chooses one way of being over another, as such an entity has the ability weigh pros against cons and presumable has reasons to choose a system that includes suffering over any other system that can accomplish the same thing without it.

So no, they (=evolution vs creator god) absolutely are not on the same footing here.

Under evolution, a system that includes suffering is simply how it turned out to be "because it worked well enough" and requires no further explanation, as evolution doesn't have the option to choose between different outcomes.

Under a creator god, a conscious decision was made to go for a system that includes suffering over one that doesn't. A god DOES have the option to choose between different outcomes.

You shot yourself in the foot here.

If you (or anyone who answers) don’t start your reply with “NO LEROY I affirm you are wrong in this point (follow by a quote of my actual words) I will assume that you don’t have any mayor disagreement.

Yeah, you have a habbit of making false assumptions whenever you feel it works in your favor.

 

[leroy]

In the post right above yours, I explained to you how you are drawing a false equivalence here.
A creator god would have options. He would have design. He would think ahead. He could evaluate several options and presumably have reasons to choose one option over another. So if there are other ways of being that accomplish the same goals without suffering, then presumably said god had reasons to choose the way of being that includes suffering over one that doesn't.

Evolution is a blind mindless process and thus has no such evaluating capabilities. So there are no "options to choose from for reasoned reasons" there. So in evolution, whatever works is good enough - and it requires no further explanation beyond that.

Not so with a god that consciously chooses one way of being over another, as such an entity has the ability weigh pros against cons and presumable has reasons to choose a system that includes suffering over any other system that can accomplish the same thing without it.

So no, they (=evolution vs creator god) absolutely are not on the same footing here.

Under evolution, a system that includes suffering is simply how it turned out to be "because it worked well enough" and requires no further explanation, as evolution doesn't have the option to choose between different outcomes.

Under a creator god, a conscious decision was made to go for a system that includes suffering over one that doesn't. A god DOES have the option to choose between different outcomes.

You shot yourself in the foot here.


Yeah, you have a habbit of making false assumptions whenever you feel it works in your favor.

I noticed that you didnt respect muy request

"If you (or anyone who answers) don’t start your reply with “NO LEROY I affirm you are wrong in this point (follow by a quote of my actual words) I will assume that you don’t have any mayor disagreement."

the post right above yours, I explained to you how you are drawing a false equivalence here.
A creator god would have options. He would have design. He would think ahead. He could evaluate several options and presumably have reasons to choose one option over another. So if there are other ways of being that accomplish the same goals without suffering, then presumably said god had reasons to choose the way of being that includes suffering over one that doesn't.

you are making a strawman , that is why my request above Is so important.

i am not stablishing an equivalence on how intelligent minds and evolution work...... The equivalence is how both theist and naturalists have obstacles and on how both solve those obstacles with explanations that could be true , but there is far from conclusive evidence in support of those explanations.

things are very simple
1 if you start with bacteria-like organisms that evolve trough random variation + national selection

2 it is far from obvious that conscience (including conscious suffering) would eventually emerge. (A world without conscious creatures seems more feasible)

in the same way ....

3 if you start with an all loving God

4 it is far from obvious that we would have a world with so much suffering (a world without so much suffering seems more feasible)

...
5 sure you can speculate , and claim that maybe there is a likely and realistic path that would lead in to the emergence of consciousness (it is just that we haven't found it Yet)

6 in the same way theist can speculate and claim that maybe there is a good reason for why God allows so much suffering (it is just that we don't know Yet, what reasons might be)

...
7 if you accept 5 as a valid answer (or excuse) you should also accept 6 as valid. ...... Or you can reject both and claim that non is a valid answer.......... What you shouldn't do is accept 5 as valid and reject 6



So please anyone that answers to this post start your reply with .......
"Leroy i think that out of your list if 7 points I think that points .... Are wrong because ..... '

if you don't do that, I will assume that you grant all 7 points

 

[leroy]

Did you know there are people on this world that are unable to experience pain? It is a very rare genetic disorder. Those people generally go through hard times because there is no substitute for pain, in human beings at least, when it comes down to self-preservation. Their bones tend to break very often and cooking is very dangerous. The reflexes we have are insufficient.

That is because these people lack the reflexes, they wouldn't remove the hand from the stove.

Nobody disputes the selective advantage for having these reflexes..... The issue is that having a conscious awareness of suffering seems useless from the point of view of natural selection

 

[Koldo]

That is because these people lack the reflexes, they wouldn't remove the hand from the stove.

Nobody disputes the selective advantage for having these reflexes..... The issue is that having a conscious awareness of suffering seems useless from the point of view of natural selection

The lack of reflexes is just part of the problem. Engaging in risky behavior without understanding the risks is another. Out of the top of my head, I remember reading about the case of a child (with that condition) that jumped from a tree multiple times because it was fun, just to die from internal bleeding later. And on this case, reflexes simply wouldn't make up for pain as a survival mechanism.

 

[Koldo]

++

that is far from obvious ,
, I would remove my hand from the hot stove even without the memory of that pain.

Correct. However, if you didn't know about the harm caused to your body by hot stoves, you would now comprehend it. The pain would make it clear to you. And now you would be cautious while around hot objects and fire. Which is what would increase your survival rate. Our reflexes simply aren't good enough, you would still have a minor burn in your hand.

The point is that while I grant that what you are proposing is a realistic possibility, you lack robust and conclusive evidence for that. ………..for example…. you can´t provide a path of specific positive mutations that would lead to “conscious suffering”

This is not supposed to be controversial, no serious scientists denies that everything related to consciousness is hard to explain,

You are moving the goalpost. Your OP relies on 3 premises. One of which is that suffering is useless. I am showing it is not useless, since it improves survival rate. Showing how it evolved is unnecessary as far as your argument is concerned.

My only point is that if you can speculate about possible explanations for the existence of suffering , the theist can do the same and speculate with possible explanations for why would a good God allow suffering.

You shouldn’t demand theist for a robust and conclusive explanation for suffering if you can´t do the same as a naturalist. I am not accusing you for doing this (I haven’t seen you doing it) all I am doing is establishing something obvious that is not expected to be controversial.

--

If you (or anyone who answers) don’t start your reply with “NO LEROY I affirm you are wrong in this point (follow by a quote of my actual words) I will assume that you don’t have any mayor disagreement.

You are wrong on this particular point, and it is quite a misunderstanding. If you can show there is one possible scenario where a good god would create/allow suffering, the problem of evil has been refuted. It doesn't even have to be the actual case. It just has to be a possibility. This is what Platinga's free will defense relies on, for example. The problem with his argument though is that it relies on arbitrarily picking free will as the supreme good.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I noticed that you didnt respect muy request

Who do you think I am? A slave that needs to do your bidding in order to post in your bs thread?

you are making a strawman

I am not. I'm taking your statements and replying directly to them.

i am not stablishing an equivalence on how intelligent minds and evolution work...... The equivalence is how both theist and naturalists have obstacles and on how both solve those obstacles with explanations that could be true

And these supposed "obstacles" are a direct result of how intelligent minds and evolution work.
So no, not a strawman.

The supposed "obstacles" flow directly from how design / engineering as opposed to evolution works.

, but there is far from conclusive evidence in support of those explanations.

I have just explained to you why in context of evolution it requires no further explaining beyond "because it works well enough".

things are very simple
1 if you start with bacteria-like organisms that evolve trough random variation + national selection

2 it is far from obvious that conscience (including conscious suffering) would eventually emerge. (A world without conscious creatures seems more feasible)

Bare assertion. Also in context of evolution, in hindsight you could say that about pretty much ANY specific trait and / or way of being.
Aka, some type of system of navigation for mobile creatures is expect. But any specific outcome of a specific type of eye or echo-location is also "unlikely".

Why it ends up being this kind of "eye" or that kind of "eye" does not require any special explanation beyond "that's just how it happened to unfold - it worked well enough".

Conversely, under creationism, any specific type of eye requires explanation beyond that. In that case it becomes a conscious design decision to create an eye with a blind spot due to all the wiring being in front of the light-sensitive cells. Then you can, and should, ask "why?", since then there would have to be reasoning underpinning that design choice.

in the same way ....

3 if you start with an all loving God

4 it is far from obvious that we would have a world with so much suffering (a world without so much suffering seems more feasible)

And then you can ask about a why, because there would have to be reasoning to underpin that design choice. A god has options to choose between.
Evolution does not. Evolution has random changes and moves forward with whatever works well enough in the moment.
If you push the reset button, any given given specific species or trait would not evolve again, due to the random nature of introducing change and the complete lack of planning, decision making and intent.

...
5 sure you can speculate , and claim that maybe there is a likely and realistic path that would lead in to the emergence of consciousness (it is just that we haven't found it Yet)

I don't need any specific path to be "likely" in context of evolution.
It's in fact you who's arguing a strawman now from the looks of it.
You seem to assume that certain things are "destined" to evolve. This is not the case at all.

6 in the same way theist can speculate and claim that maybe there is a good reason for why God allows so much suffering (it is just that we don't know Yet, what reasons might be)

Good or bad, in context of design / engineering, design choices are always made because of reasons. When you design a car and have to decide on the operating system of the multi-media center, you will not be tossing a coin. That OS will not suddenly materialize at random. It will be planned with intent. Pros and cons will be evaluated. Your design choice will be underpinned by reasons. Good reasons or bad reason, no matter. There will nevertheless be motivation, intent, purpose behind your choice. It's more secure, it's more lightweight, it's cheaper, it's energy sufficient, ...what-have-you. There will be reasons underpinning the choice. Reasons that look forward, that evaluate the pros and cons in the long run.

...
7 if you accept 5 as a valid answer (or excuse) you should also accept 6 as valid. ...... Or you can reject both and claim that non is a valid answer.......... What you shouldn't do is accept 5 as valid and reject 6

5 looks like a strawman and 6 is besides the point I'm making.

So please anyone that answers to this post start your reply with .......
"Leroy i think that out of your list if 7 points I think that points .... Are wrong because ..... '

if you don't do that, I will assume that you grant all 7 points

Your dishonest demands are noted.

 

[leroy]

Who do you think I am? A slave that needs to do your bidding in order to post in your bs thread?



I am not. I'm taking your statements and replying directly to them.



And these supposed "obstacles" are a direct result of how intelligent minds and evolution work.
So no, not a strawman.

The supposed "obstacles" flow directly from how design / engineering as opposed to evolution works.



I have just explained to you why in context of evolution it requires no further explaining beyond "because it works well enough".



Bare assertion. Also in context of evolution, in hindsight you could say that about pretty much ANY specific trait and / or way of being.
Aka, some type of system of navigation for mobile creatures is expect. But any specific outcome of a specific type of eye or echo-location is also "unlikely".

Why it ends up being this kind of "eye" or that kind of "eye" does not require any special explanation beyond "that's just how it happened to unfold - it worked well enough".

Conversely, under creationism, any specific type of eye requires explanation beyond that. In that case it becomes a conscious design decision to create an eye with a blind spot due to all the wiring being in front of the light-sensitive cells. Then you can, and should, ask "why?", since then there would have to be reasoning underpinning that design choice.



And then you can ask about a why, because there would have to be reasoning to underpin that design choice. A god has options to choose between.
Evolution does not. Evolution has random changes and moves forward with whatever works well enough in the moment.
If you push the reset button, any given given specific species or trait would not evolve again, due to the random nature of introducing change and the complete lack of planning, decision making and intent.



I don't need any specific path to be "likely" in context of evolution.
It's in fact you who's arguing a strawman now from the looks of it.
You seem to assume that certain things are "destined" to evolve. This is not the case at all.



Good or bad, in context of design / engineering, design choices are always made because of reasons. When you design a car and have to decide on the operating system of the multi-media center, you will not be tossing a coin. That OS will not suddenly materialize at random. It will be planned with intent. Pros and cons will be evaluated. Your design choice will be underpinned by reasons. Good reasons or bad reason, no matter. There will nevertheless be motivation, intent, purpose behind your choice. It's more secure, it's more lightweight, it's cheaper, it's energy sufficient, ...what-have-you. There will be reasons underpinning the choice. Reasons that look forward, that evaluate the pros and cons in the long run.



5 looks like a strawman and 6 is besides the point I'm making.



Your dishonest demands are noted.

Why is it so hard to follow instructions?

Why didn’t you answer with “I disagree with point…… because…. ?

All you have are vague answers where you don’t explicitly agree nor disagree with anything, but rather kept your position ambiguous so that you can circumvent any argument. and sad attemts to avoid the issues and change the topic

 

[leroy]

The lack of reflexes is just part of the problem. Engaging in risky behavior without understanding the risks is another. Out of the top of my head, I remember reading about the case of a child (with that condition) that jumped from a tree multiple times because it was fun, just to die from internal bleeding later. And on this case, reflexes simply wouldn't make up for pain as a survival mechanism.

I don’t deny that you are presenting a realistic possibility

My point is that you don’t have robust evidence for that , you cant really show in any conclusive way that say an ancient fish that can experience conscious suffering would have a selective advantage over a fish that simply reacts trough reflexes.

It is also realistically possible that God would allow say hurricanes for some grater good that we don’t understand yet. …….. my point is that you are not doing better than theist, both have highly speculative answers…… (which is ok)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is it so hard to follow instructions?

Why do you think you have the right to give me "instructions" on how to post?
Just how arrogant are you?

I will post however I see fit, thank you very much.


Allow me to repay your arrogance in kind:

If you have nothing else to respond directly to the actual statements I made and unless you reply in the manner that I want you to, which is to quote every single statement and respond to it directly, I will just assume you agreed with everything I said.

 

[Koldo]

I don’t deny that you are presenting a realistic possibility

My point is that you don’t have robust evidence for that , you cant really show in any conclusive way that say an ancient fish that can experience conscious suffering would have a selective advantage over a fish that simply reacts trough reflexes.

But we have an actual example that when it comes down to humans we survive less by not experiencing pain.

It is also realistically possible that God would allow say hurricanes for some grater good that we don’t understand yet. …….. my point is that you are not doing better than theist, both have highly speculative answers…… (which is ok)

I have argued extensively in other topics that the greater good argument doesn't work. Because no greater good could, even hypothetically, justify suffering.

 

[leroy]

Why do you think you have the right to give me "instructions" on how to post?
Just how arrogant are you?

I will post however I see fit, thank you very much.


Allow me to repay your arrogance in kind:

If you have nothing else to respond directly to the actual statements I made and unless you reply in the manner that I want you to, which is to quote every single statement and respond to it directly, I will just assume you agreed with everything I said.

That sounds like a pathetic excuse for avoiding the issue.

Why is it so hard to quote my comments and start your sentence with “I think that particular claim is wrong because…….”?