• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The naturalist problem of suffering.

leroy

Well-Known Member
Honestly, other people shouldn't have to explain your argument for you. That's your job.
If I am accusing you for misunderstanding the argument and making straw man arguments, you should be motivated to prove me wrong ……… again that is what I would do
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It's "over."
As in "Over and over again"
Ohh so you do have the willingness to quote and correct mistakes in a clear and direct way when you see them……….. so why are you making an arbitrary exception with the argument in this thread……………. Why aren’t you willing to quote my exact words and explain why am I wrong just like you did with the spelling mistake?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.
I already addressed that multiple times, you may or may not agree with my reply, but why don’t you interact with my refutation rather that repeating the same argument over and over again?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
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

Fear of heights is not a reflex though. If anything, it is also a form of suffering depending on the intensity.
Also, why would fear of heights be less complex than pain? Where did you get that from?
 

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Simple solutions are more likely to evolve than complex solutions

Depends. Evolution never really evolved complex mechanisms from the get go. Just look at the way complex eyes evolve over time; baby step by baby step

1200px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png


Sometimes adaptations that were useful before lose their value and kind of just hang around as vestigial mutations, too, like Darwin's tubercle. At one point human kind's predecessors needed to rotate their ears just like dogs or cats can do. Not any more. Now all they serve to do is make it so some people can wiggle their ears a little. Entertaining, but useless

 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.
I disagree, but I don’t think it is relevant for this conversation. Even if there is no free will, the point is that a tornado could lead to a series of events that happened to be benefitial.

  • Perhaps you became Christian and gain a place in heaven
  • Perhaps you moved to a different city with a better job and a better house
  • Perhaps you neighbor helped you reconstructing your house and you gained a new frien

All I am saying is that it is realistically possible that some suffering lead in to a grate goodCan I prove it ? (no) Am I speculating without evidence (yes) ….. but you are doing the same with the hot stove and memory thing

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.
I don’t see your point, why is the omnipotence of God relevant?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Fear of heights is not a reflex though. If anything, it is also a form of suffering depending on the intensity.
Also, why would fear of heights be less complex than pain? Where did you get that from?
Because pain (as being defined in this thread) is a conscious experience (which requires consciousness.

Conscious expereicnes are only possible if one has a complex brain.

Reflexes and instincts are just simple reactions in our nervous systems,

Even microbes have these type of reflexes………. But only complex animals (perhaps only vertebrates) feel pain in a conscious way

To put it this way, our brainless ancestors already had reflexes that prevented them from touching hot stuff and jumping from trees. ……….. adding a conscious awareness of pain has no obvious selective advantage.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I disagree, but I don’t think it is relevant for this conversation. Even if there is no free will, the point is that a tornado could lead to a series of events that happened to be benefitial.

  • Perhaps you became Christian and gain a place in heaven
  • Perhaps you moved to a different city with a better job and a better house
  • Perhaps you neighbor helped you reconstructing your house and you gained a new frien

All I am saying is that it is realistically possible that some suffering lead in to a grate goodCan I prove it ? (no) Am I speculating without evidence (yes) ….. but you are doing the same with the hot stove and memory thing


I don’t see your point, why is the omnipotence of God relevant?

I don't dispute that bad events can lead to good events, but this is not sufficient to justify the ocorrence of bad events. To justify the bad events, you must also defend that those good events could only take place if and only if those bad events happened.

Let me exemplify: Imagine I often give a lot of money to Bob, but only after I punch him on the face several times. That's an example of a good event taking place after a bad event. Now, do I have to punch Bob's to give him money? Not at all. Could I have just given money to Bob without punching him? Sure. Then the bad event is not justified, because it was completely unnecessary.

Now, for a proper bad event that must take place to trigger a good event: vaccination. Vaccines inflict pain but they increase immunity and allow our bodies to better deal with multiple conditions. This is a bad event that leads to a greater good.

Now, where does omnipotence enter the picture? Since God omnipotent, he doesn't need a vaccine to make us immune to a disease. He can simply will that and it is done. Therefore, the pain inflicted by the vaccine is completely unnecessary to God and thus God wouldn't be justified in using vaccines on us. Likewise, he is not justified in allowing a tornado to hit someone's home just to make them gain a new friend, for there are many other ways that would have achieved that end without the bad event.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Because pain (as being defined in this thread) is a conscious experience (which requires consciousness.

Conscious expereicnes are only possible if one has a complex brain.

Reflexes and instincts are just simple reactions in our nervous systems,

Even microbes have these type of reflexes………. But only complex animals (perhaps only vertebrates) feel pain in a conscious way

To put it this way, our brainless ancestors already had reflexes that prevented them from touching hot stuff and jumping from trees. ……….. adding a conscious awareness of pain has no obvious selective advantage.

But fear of heights is also a conscious experience. What makes it less complex than pain?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That sounds like a pathetic excuse for avoiding the issue.

tenor.gif


Why is it so hard to quote my comments and start your sentence with “I think that particular claim is wrong because…….”?
Why is it so hard to quote every one of my statements and respond to them directly?

Do you see the irony here?
I certainly do. I'm positive others do also.

So, just like said and as I learned from you, if you don't post according to my arrogant request of arbitrary posting rules, I will just assume you agreed with every point I made.

Bazinga.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

The reply was the same. Running away, dodging, empty accusations of strawman, silly demands of irrelevant "posting rules", etc.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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)

The fear of heights comes from the instinctive desire to avoid pain and the realization or belief that falling from heights will result in exactly that: pain.

Derp.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
View attachment 85410


Why is it so hard to quote every one of my statements and respond to them directly?

Do you see the irony here?
I certainly do. I'm positive others do also.

So, just like said and as I learned from you, if you don't post according to my arrogant request of arbitrary posting rules, I will just assume you agreed with every point I made.

Bazinga.
You dont have to respect my rules if you dont whant....... all I am sayin is that I will not respond to any of your post unless you quote my words and start your comment with:

"I think that this claim is wrong because......"

If you dont like that rule then go find someone else to talk with

I will not fall in to your dishonest games, your strawman arguments nor your attemts change the topic
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Depends. Evolution never really evolved complex mechanisms from the get go. Just look at the way complex eyes evolve over time; baby step by baby step

1200px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png


Sometimes adaptations that were useful before lose their value and kind of just hang around as vestigial mutations, too, like Darwin's tubercle. At one point human kind's predecessors needed to rotate their ears just like dogs or cats can do. Not any more. Now all they serve to do is make it so some people can wiggle their ears a little. Entertaining, but useless

Interesting, butt that doesn't refute the claim that simple stuff is more likely to evolve than complex stuff.

If system 1 requires one baby step .... and system 2 requires 100 baby steps... then system 1 is more likely to evolve

(Assuming that both systems have the same selective value)

(Assuming that baby steps are random)
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The fear of heights comes from the instinctive desire to avoid pain and the realization or belief that falling from heights will result in exactly that: pain.

Derp.
interesting but you didnt granted nor refuted the post that you are quoting........... do you now understand why is "my rule" important?


why dindt you started you post with
"Yes leroy I agree with the claim in the post.......... but I will add something else that has nothing to do with the post "

not to mention the argument has been adressed, so why didnt you responded to the post that deals with your argument?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I don't dispute that bad events can lead to good events, but this is not sufficient to justify the ocorrence of bad events. To justify the bad events, you must also defend that those good events could only take place if and only if those bad events happened.

Let me exemplify: Imagine I often give a lot of money to Bob, but only after I punch him on the face several times. That's an example of a good event taking place after a bad event. Now, do I have to punch Bob's to give him money? Not at all. Could I have just given money to Bob without punching him? Sure. Then the bad event is not justified, because it was completely unnecessary.

Now, for a proper bad event that must take place to trigger a good event: vaccination. Vaccines inflict pain but they increase immunity and allow our bodies to better deal with multiple conditions. This is a bad event that leads to a greater good.

Now, where does omnipotence enter the picture? Since God omnipotent, he doesn't need a vaccine to make us immune to a disease. He can simply will that and it is done. Therefore, the pain inflicted by the vaccine is completely unnecessary to God and thus God wouldn't be justified in using vaccines on us. Likewise, he is not justified in allowing a tornado to hit someone's home just to make them gain a new friend, for there are many other ways that would have achieved that end without the bad event.
I understand and grant that you are presenting a good argument that I can’t dispute with nothing but unsupported speculation.....I also grant that theist tend to minimize this problem…… it obviously seems unlikely that a loving God would create a world with this amount of suffering

But it is logically possible that suffering is the only way to achieve that particular good………….. maybe you wouldn’t decide to quit your job and move to another city, if it wasn’t for the tornado

Now, my point is that naturalism has similar problems, for example you can´t explain the origin of consciousness ether all you can do is speculate and hope that the answer is somewhere (you just can´t see it now)

So if speculations are valid excuses, then the theist has a valid excuse, if speculations are not valid then both naturalist and theist have the same problem
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You dont have to respect my rules if you dont whant.......

Don't worry, I won't.

all I am sayin is that I will not respond to any of your post unless you quote my words and start your comment with:

"I think that this claim is wrong because......"

Your pathetic dodge and borderline blackmail is noted.

I will not fall in to your dishonest games, your strawman arguments nor your attemts change the topic
tenor.gif



This is a new low, even for you
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
interesting but you didnt granted nor refuted the post that you are quoting...........

There is no need as your example which serves as an illustration of the premise for your bs argument is refuted by pointing out that the fear in fear of heights is related to the belief that pain and thus suffering will be the result of falling from said height. The fear is not of the height itself. It's of the potential consequences of falling down from such heights.

why dindt you started you post with
"Yes leroy I agree with the claim in the post.......... but I will add something else that has nothing to do with the post "

Because I don't play your silly bs games. You don't get to dictate how people post.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I understand and grant that you are presenting a good argument that I can’t dispute with nothing but unsupported speculation.....I also grant that theist tend to minimize this problem…… it obviously seems unlikely that a loving God would create a world with this amount of suffering

Only if you make a whole load of assumptions about said god, though.

But it is logically possible that suffering is the only way to achieve that particular good………….. maybe you wouldn’t decide to quit your job and move to another city, if it wasn’t for the tornado

Now, my point is that naturalism has similar problems

It doesn't and I have explained multiple times now why it doesn't.
Once more: a god has options. A god makes design decisions. A designer will weigh pros against cons and consider the implications and consequences of design decisions in the long run.

Evolution does not.
Evolution only moves forward with whatever works well enough in the moment.
Pain is a method that works well enough for the purpose of survival and actively avoiding injury and alike.
It needs no more explanation then that.

Not so with designers. There you can ask "it works well enough, but other methods also work well enough, so why make the conscious design choice of a pain method over some other method that might work as well without the pain aspect?".

This is a question you can't ask about a natural process which has no end-goal in mind.

This isn't any different from the example I already gave concerning the eye.
Why do we have a blind spot? Why is all the wiring in front of the lightsensitive cells?
An eye with a blind spot is more complex then an eye without such a blind spot, after all...
An eye with no blind spot does not require additional neurological processes in a brain to "fill in the blanks" in the image to "fool" the individual into thinking there is no such blind spot.

You could ask such questions about an ENORMOUS amount of traits in all kinds of species.
And they would have the same answer: "because that's how it happened to evolve and it worked well enough".

A designer however, who supposedly consciously decides to use such systems over other systems, would have to have actual reasons underpinning such decisions.

This seems an aspect of this entire topic that you simply refuse to acknowledge.
I brought it up multiple times, and you never directly addressed it.

You called it a "strawman" without explaining why and your latest way of avoiding to address it was the most ridiculous I have every encountered on any forum: the demand of a specific posting format where I apparantly first have to copy paste a certain sentence before you will even read the post.

As I said, that is absolutely a new low. Even for you.


Oh well..... I don't expect the outcome to be any different this time.

Happy dodging.

, for example you can´t explain the origin of consciousness ether all you can do is speculate and hope that the answer is somewhere (you just can´t see it now)

So if speculations are valid excuses, then the theist has a valid excuse, if speculations are not valid then both naturalist and theist have the same problem

No speculation required.
Pain as a system works very well to motivate individuals to actively avoid injury and danger.
 
Top