The naturalist problem of suffering.

[SkepticThinker]

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…….”?

No, this post does.

 

[leroy]

leroy said:
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.

So in summery

1 I presented an argument

2 you responded with a strawman

3 I explained why is it a strawman

4 you repeat the exact same straw man

5 I asked you to explain the argument with your words (so that I can spot the points where you made a mistake)

6 you refuse to do that

So the question is: ¿do you understand why at least from my point of view, it seems obvious that you are just “playing skeptic” and disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing? no dont even have an interest in understanding the argument

 

[SkepticThinker]

So in summery

1 I presented an argument

2 you responded with a strawman

3 I explained why is it a strawman

4 you repeat the exact same straw man

5 I asked you to explain the argument with your words (so that I can spot the points where you made a mistake)

6 you refuse to do that

So the question is: ¿do you understand why at least from my point of view, it seems obvious that you are just “playing skeptic” and disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing? no dont even have an interest in understanding the argument

Oh boy, this game again. Which post of mine are you referring to here? I know this is your standard cut and paste job, so let's be more specific.

 

[leroy]

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

we survive less, if we dont have the reflexes........... remember I woudl remove my hand away from the hot stove regaldless if I suffer in a conscious way or not

there is no evidnece (atleast not conclusive evidence) thta having awarness and conscious pain has survival value.

most organisms (plants, microbes, etc.) dont experience conscious pain........... but they seem to do very good with their reflexes.

.



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

Hypothetically it is very easy to justify suffering.

Maybe a tornado destroying your house would lead to a series of events that eventually convert you to Christianity , in this case the suffering caused by the tornado would result in something …..(if Christianity is true)

Many people turn to God, after having a painful experience, so this possibility is far from unrealistic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

we survive less, if we dont have the reflexes........... remember I woudl remove my hand away from the hot stove regaldless if I suffer in a conscious way or not

there is no evidnece (atleast not conclusive evidence) thta having awarness and conscious pain has survival value.

most organisms (plants, microbes, etc.) dont experience conscious pain........... but they seem to do very good with their reflexes.


Hypothetically it is very easy to justify suffering.

Maybe a tornado destroying your house would lead to a series of events that eventually convert you to Christianity , in this case the suffering caused by the tornado would result in something …..(if Christianity is true)

Many people turn to God, after having a painful experience, so this possibility is far from unrealistic.

This is just an exact repetition of your earlier posts.

 

[leroy]

Oh boy, this game again. Which post of mine are you referring to here? I know this is your standard cut and paste job, so let's be more specific.

well I quoted the post, just follow the chain.

I asked you to expalin the argument with your own words, and you refuse to do it............... why?

 

[leroy]

This is just an exact repetition of your earlier posts.

Well if I am wrong , why don’t you quote my exact words, and explain why am I wrong………. ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

well I quoted the post, just follow the chain.

I asked you to expalin the argument with your own words, and you refuse to do it............... why?

I'm not explaining your argument for you. That's your job.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well if I am wrong , why don’t you quote my exact words, and explain why am I wrong………. ?

Another exact repetition of the same post you keep posting over and over and over ....

These games you play are tired. We've all responded to your arguments numerous times.

 

[Koldo]

we survive less, if we dont have the reflexes........... remember I woudl remove my hand away from the hot stove regaldless if I suffer in a conscious way or not

there is no evidnece (atleast not conclusive evidence) thta having awarness and conscious pain has survival value.

most organisms (plants, microbes, etc.) dont experience conscious pain........... but they seem to do very good with their reflexes.

I have provided you an example of a child that jumped multiple times from a tree and died from internal bleeding. No ammount of reflexes would have made up for refraining from jumping from a tree in the first place. If falling hurts and triggers pain, you definitely are going to be more cautious.

Hypothetically it is very easy to justify suffering.

Maybe a tornado destroying your house would lead to a series of events that eventually convert you to Christianity , in this case the suffering caused by the tornado would result in something …..(if Christianity is true)

Many people turn to God, after having a painful experience, so this possibility is far from unrealistic.

Let's assume that my conversion to Christianity is good, which is not a given. Do we agree that something is good if and only if it increases our well-being? Because this is an essential part of the problem of evil. Suffering, in itself, decreases our well-being. This entails that suffering would only be justified if and only if there was no other mean to make me convert to Christianity (the end goal). But God is omnipotent, which means he doesn't need a mean to reach an end. He can just make it happen. Therefore, God doesn't need to make use of suffering to convert me to Christianity. Therefore, suffering is not compatible with God's existence.

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Number 2 Suffering is a mental state and as such arbitrary based on beliefs. The naturalist argument would be there is no suffering there is just existing and not existing. People choose to believe those that are worse off then them but still alive to be suffering. People choose to believe that pain, sickness and death are suffering. If you are a naturalist you realize these as just lives challenges and ending. If you believe in God they are challenges so that you can get a better life. In reality it is religion and God that creates suffering without religion and god it is just natural.

 

[leroy]

I'm not explaining your argument for you. That's your job.

I did, but you failed to understand the argument. And you keep strawmaning the argument.

I can even take the blame, and say that I am very bad I explaining stuff.

All I am doing is offering you the opportunity to explain your understanding of the argument, so that I can correct it. ………… I don’t see why you find this so problematic……….. The only likely explanation that I see, is that you do understand the argument, but you are willingly and knowingly misrepresenting the argument

 

[leroy]

Another exact repetition of the same post you keep posting over and over and over ....

These games you play are tired. We've all responded to your arguments numerous times.

I don’t know why you see these as “games” I am offering an easy way to stay on topic………

You keep repeating vague assertions where you imply that I am wrong, but you fail to quote my alleged mistakes……… why?

Another exact repetition of the same post you keep posting over and over and over ...

spellign mistake, as far as I know the correct spelling is Ober.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did, but you failed to understand the argument. And you keep strawmaning the argument.

I can even take the blame, and say that I am very bad I explaining stuff.

All I am doing is offering you the opportunity to explain your understanding of the argument, so that I can correct it. ………… I don’t see why you find this so problematic……….. The only likely explanation that I see, is that you do understand the argument, but you are willingly and knowingly misrepresenting the argument

According to you, everyone on this thread has strawmanned your argument.
And though we've all provided more than sufficient explanations to your questions and points, you still claim we don't get your argument and we haven't done provided explanations. We've all given you plenty of sufficient reasons as to why conscious suffering and pain exist and what sorts of survival advantages they offer.

If you were us, what would you do now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t know why you see these as “games” I am offering an easy way to stay on topic………

You're just repeating yourself. Then you leave the thread for a while, come back, and repeat the same exact posts again.

You keep repeating vague assertions where you imply that I am wrong, but you fail to quote my alleged mistakes……… why?

We've all given you many examples of conscious pain and how it can be useful to us.
Having a memory of a painful experience from your past, can be helpful to you when you come across that experience again.
Knowing ahead of time that putting your hand on a fire is going to hurt and burn your hand, comes in handy every other time in your life when you are around a fire.

spellign mistake, as far as I know the correct spelling is Ober.

It's "over."
As in "Over and over again"

 

[leroy]

I have provided you an example of a child that jumped multiple times from a tree and died from internal bleeding. No ammount of reflexes would have made up for refraining from jumping from a tree in the first place. If falling hurts and triggers pain, you definitely are going to be more cautious.





Let's assume that my conversion to Christianity is good, which is not a given. Do we agree that something is good if and only if it increases our well-being? Because this is an essential part of the problem of evil. Suffering, in itself, decreases our well-being. This entails that suffering would only be justified if and only if there was no other mean to make me convert to Christianity (the end goal). But God is omnipotent, which means he doesn't need a mean to reach an end. He can just make it happen. Therefore, God doesn't need to make use of suffering to convert me to Christianity. Therefore, suffering is not compatible with God's existence.

1 God can´t make it happen, by definition he can´t make you to freely and willingly descide to love him and have a relationship with him

2 And if you allow me to speculate as much as you did, I could argue that maybe suffering from a tornado is the only way you would have made the choice of becoming a Christian.

 

[leroy]

According to you, everyone on this thread has strawmanned your argument.
And though we've all provided more than sufficient explanations to your questions and points, you still claim we don't get your argument and we haven't done provided explanations. We've all given you plenty of sufficient reasons as to why conscious suffering and pain exist and what sorts of survival advantages they offer.

If you were us, what would you do now?

If you were us, what would you do now?

I woudl expalin the argument, and then challenge you (me) to spot the mistakes and missunderstandings. ........ this would be a very efficient and easy way to expose your/my failures.

honeslty it shouldlnt even be and issue.

 

[Koldo]

1 God can´t make it happen, by definition he can´t make you to freely and willingly descide to love him and have a relationship with him

2 And if you allow me to speculate as much as you did, I could argue that maybe suffering from a tornado is the only way you would have made the choice of becoming a Christian.

Let's, for the sake of the debate, presume that free will exists then (since I consider it doesn't and I have an argument for that). If God is making me suffer just so I choose to love and have a relationship with him then he is manipulating me, or trying to, and my choice is no longer free.

And second, you are pressuposing that I would have to freely love God to experience my utmost well-being. And this premise doesn't make sense me if God is omnipotent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I woudl expalin the argument, and then challenge you (me) to spot the mistakes and missunderstandings. ........ this would be a very efficient and easy way to expose your/my failures.

honeslty it shouldlnt even be and issue.

Honestly, other people shouldn't have to explain your argument for you. That's your job.

 

[leroy]

I have provided you an example of a child that jumped multiple times from a tree and died from internal bleeding. No ammount of reflexes would have made up for refraining from jumping from a tree in the first place. If falling hurts and triggers pain, you definitely are going to be more cautious.

And isn’t it much simpler to evolve a reflex that would prevent children (or our ancestral reptiles) from jumping for the tree? (something like the instinct of fear to heights)

Simple solutions are more likely to evolve than complex solutions