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.