The naturalist problem of suffering.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just to be clear……. (please answer with a simple yes or a simple no)

Are you denying that “simple solutions” are more likely to evolve than “complex solutions?”

For example a solution that requires one mutation, is more likely to evolve than a solution that requires 100 mutations………… do you deny this?

I just explained to you that this is a false comparison.
I gave the blind-spotted eye as an analogy.

The correct comparison is the likelihood of one path over another. Once you find yourself on a certain path, one can only move forward on said path and the other is excluded.

ok ini that case, the organge text is not granted...........I apologize if I missunderstood you earlier.

Why?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that once you are in the “path” the end result is unavoidable……..

I did not say that at all. It's you who is insisting on comparing "end solutions" in hindsight, not me.
I was just pointing out that if you are going to do that, then you have to look at the likelihood of ending up on the path that lead to that end-solution, instead of the entire path.

There are no "intended" end-goals in evolution. I said this from the beginning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“it is unlikely (but not impossible) that something complex that lacks selective pressure to favor it, would evolve (like consciousness and conscious suffering)………… just like it is unlikely (but not impossible) that God would allow so much evil and suffering in the world”

The bolded part is false and I'm baffled that you are still repeating this, since just about everyone in this thread has pointed out to you that this selective pressure most certainly exists. That pressure being: avoid injury / danger.

Anything that would help an organism to do that which wasn't previously present, would accomodate for that pressure. Including pain / suffering.

 

[leroy]

The bolded part is false and I'm baffled that you are still repeating this, since just about everyone in this thread has pointed out to you that this selective pressure most certainly exists. That pressure being: avoid injury / danger.

Anything that would help an organism to do that which wasn't previously present, would accomodate for that pressure. Including pain / suffering.

The bolded part is false

Maybe the bolded part in my last comment is false , but there is not a single word in your reply that justifies that assertion....

As usual you made assertion......and then randomly and arbitrarly changed the topic and tried to refute sonething unrelated to your original claim.



Just to make a summery
1 I said that complex things that lack selective preassure are unlikely to evolve

2 you claimed without justification that this statement is false.
(Changing the topic doest count as a valid justification)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe the bolded part in my last comment is false , but there is not a single word in your reply that justifies that assertion....

That single word is "pain". Pain accomodates for the selective pressure of avoiding injury / danger / death.

It's only been pointed out to you a bazillion times.

As usual you made assertion......and then randomly and arbitrarly changed the topic and tried to refute sonething unrelated to your original claim.

Nobody is changing any topic and plenty of people have explained this exact thing to you.
As usual you just ignore it and pretend it never happened.

Just to make a summery
1 I said that complex things that lack selective preassure are unlikely to evolve

Which is just an assertion that is neither here nor there.
And it has been pointed out to you how it's false because there IS selective pressure: avoiding injury / danger / death

2 you claimed without justification that this statement is false.

It was justified not only by me, but by countless people in this very thread.

Sticking your head in the sand won't win the argument.

(Changing the topic doest count as a valid justification)

Nobody is changing the topic here.

 

[viole]

Why is this problem for naturalism?

Because too suffer is a complex and useless mental state

Not really. Incidentally, something useless does not defeat naturalism.
99% of all species got extinct. Which means, they must have had something that was not only useless, but must have been actually detrimental to their further development.

Is that a problem for naturalism? Of course not. It actually confirms it, vs. a God supposed to design things better than that.
I tell you, if I had an engineer in my team designing things like God, I would have fired him long ago.

At any rate, considering that humans do not seem to be on the verge of natural extinction, any property that they have must be good enough.

By the way, why did God create beings who can suffer? What is the purpose of it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

That single word is "pain". Pain accomodates for the selective pressure of avoiding injury / danger / death.

It's only been pointed out to you a bazillion times.



Nobody is changing any topic and plenty of people have explained this exact thing to you.
As usual you just ignore it and pretend it never happened.



Which is just an assertion that is neither here nor there.
And it has been pointed out to you how it's false because there IS selective pressure: avoiding injury / danger / death



It was justified not only by me, but by countless people in this very thread.

Sticking your head in the sand won't win the argument.



Nobody is changing the topic here.

Nobody is changing the topic here.

Yes you are changing the topic, and making straw man falsies.

the claim is that You can´t explain conscious suffering naturally (yet), because there is not a naturalistic theory (evolution or something else) or even a good hypothesis that explains the origin of consciousness. (and I supported the claim with literature)

What is so hard about understanding this?

If you disagree then You have to start your next reply with

.* No you are wrong I do have a theory that explains consciousness (and then quote or explain that theory)

That single word is "pain". Pain accomodates for the selective pressure of avoiding injury / danger / death.

It's only been pointed out to you a bazillion times.

You have been told multiple times that you don’t need consciousness to have “pain”

I agree, pain, has selective benefits , but pain does nothing to explain the origin of consciousness (nor conscious suffering)

You might disagree with me, but why don’t you deal with my reply, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again?

 

[leroy]

By the way, why did God create beings who can suffer? What is the purpose of it?

Ciao

- viole

I have no idea, and I grant this this is a problem for theism……

In the same way current naturalistic theories can´t explain consciousness (which would include conscious suffering)

So both views have a problem with “suffering”

 

[Koldo]

I have no idea, and I grant this this is a problem for theism……

In the same way current naturalistic theories can´t explain consciousness (which would include conscious suffering)

So both views have a problem with “suffering”

The existence of consciousness is not incompatible with a naturalistic perspective of the world though. Whereas, suffering is incompatible with an omnimax god.

 

[leroy]

The existence of consciousness is not incompatible with a naturalistic perspective of the world though. Whereas, suffering is incompatible with an omnimax god.

I disagree , logically speaking suffering is compatible with both theism and naturalism…………. Just hard to explain in both cases.

It is logically possible that ombi God would allow suffering for a greater good………….. just like it is logically possible that chemical reactions in our brain (the thing we call consciousness) evolve through natural selection ….. but in both cases it is hard to explain

 

[Koldo]

I disagree , logically speaking suffering is compatible with both theism and naturalism…………. Just hard to explain in both cases.

It is logically possible that ombi God would allow suffering for a greater good………….. just like it is logically possible that chemical reactions in our brain (the thing we call consciousness) evolve through natural selection ….. but in both cases it is hard to explain

As I have already explained before, the existence of omnipotence precludes the existence of a greater good achievable only through suffering. It is the equivalent of saying God is omnipotent and yet needs to use stairs to get to the second floor of a building.

 

[Bird123]

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.

Does adversity and suffering serve no purpose? Is it really useless??? Is your view only one sided?

People get sick and it hurts. Look back in history. How much has mankind learned around sickness? Without the adversity and pain of sickness, would mankind have acquired any medical knowledge at all? Worry not. Cancer will be cured in time. When cancer is cured, something else will pop up. That's the next lesson.

Tornado and hurricanes, has mankind learned anything about weather at all?

Sure everyone wants to have it made, however, if you do have it made you would just sit back and enjoy the ride. There would be no need to learn anything at all. Wanting to have it made is the driving force that pushes us all on the road to Learn, Grow, and seek Resolution.

Can you really see no purpose now? There is purpose to Everything!! It stares us all in the face. Instead of looking at the cause, look at the changes that occur around us all. There is a lot to see!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[leroy]

As I have already explained before, the existence of omnipotence precludes the existence of a greater good achievable only through suffering. It is the equivalent of saying God is omnipotent and yet needs to use stairs to get to the second floor of a building.

Disagree, logically it is possible that the best possible outcome, includes some suffering.

Take for example Mr scourge , he did suffered during the visit of these 3 gohst , but this suffering was necesary to obtain the best possible outcome being Scourge noticing that he was wrong and that he has to be good for other people.

 

[leroy]

Does adversity and suffering serve no purpose? Is it really useless??? Is your view only one sided?

People get sick and it hurts. Look back in history. How much has mankind learned around sickness? Without the adversity and pain of sickness, would mankind have acquired any medical knowledge at all? Worry not. Cancer will be cured in time. When cancer is cured, something else will pop up. That's the next lesson.

Tornado and hurricanes, has mankind learned anything about weather at all?

Sure everyone wants to have it made, however, if you do have it made you would just sit back and enjoy the ride. There would be no need to learn anything at all. Wanting to have it made is the driving force that pushes us all on the road to Learn, Grow, and seek Resolution.

Can you really see no purpose now? There is purpose to Everything!! It stares us all in the face. Instead of looking at the cause, look at the changes that occur around us all. There is a lot to see!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

When I say that stuff is useless, I mean it in te context of evolution and natural selection.... natural selection has no mind, it cant say "hey huracanes cause a lot of suffering I will evolve larger brains, so that humans can build houses that would stand after a huracane.

 

[Koldo]

Disagree, logically it is possible that the best possible outcome, includes some suffering.

Take for example Mr scourge , he did suffered during the visit of these 3 gohst , but this suffering was necesary to obtain the best possible outcome being Scourge noticing that he was wrong and that he has to be good for other people.

Do you mean to tell me that an omnipotent being can't make someone have a change of mind instantly?

 

[Bird123]

When I say that stuff is useless, I mean it in te context of evolution and natural selection.... natural selection has no mind, it cant say "hey huracanes cause a lot of suffering I will evolve larger brains, so that humans can build houses that would stand after a huracane.

There is always more involved. Ask yourself the question; Are the fittest really only ones surviving? Sure, evolving or adapting will always go on, however where has survival of the fittest gone? If one looks at the total picture, it has never been about random chance. Evolution and Natural selection are just a small part of something much larger and more complex. Judgment calls without all the information often end up wrong.

Like you said. The Real answers will add up completely.

Eternity has purpose. Should not purpose be considered in any observation? Of course, that might lead some to where they do not want to go---The Truth!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[leroy]

Do you mean to tell me that an omnipotent being can't make someone have a change of mind instantly?

Sure he can....God could have used painless magic to cause amnesia to Mr Scourge or give him false memories of him being a good man, so that he can contue with that path.

but in this case, the best possible scenario was one where Scourge reflected about his past and present life (and possible future) So that he can see why was he wronng and descided to act differently. (Even if this scenario requires sime suffering)

 

[Koldo]

Sure he can....God could have used painless magic to cause amnesia to Mr Scourge or give him false memories of him being a good man, so that he can contue with that path.

but in this case, the best possible scenario was one where Scourge reflected about his past and present life (and possible future) So that he can see why was he wronng and descided to act differently. (Even if this scenario requires sime suffering)

First, you need to establish that's indeed the best possible scenario. Second, you need to establish why this scenario has to involve some suffering.

 

[leroy]

First, you need to establish that's indeed the best possible scenario.

Nope, all I have to do is show that there is a possibility (even if small) thst this scenario is the best....... you are the one who has to show with 100% certanity that a scenario without suffering would be the best.

Second, you need to establish why this scenario has to involve some suffering.

Suffering is part of the scenario that I proposed.

 

[Koldo]

Nope, all I have to do is show that there is a possibility (even if small) thst this scenario is the best....... you are the one who has to show with 100% certanity that a scenario without suffering would be the best.

Then show there is a possibility that this scenario is the best.

Suffering is part of the scenario that I proposed.

But it is possible to imagine the same scenario where suffering is not present. You need to explain why your scenario with suffering is superior to one without.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes you are changing the topic, and making straw man falsies.

the claim is that You can´t explain conscious suffering naturally (yet), because there is not a naturalistic theory (evolution or something else) or even a good hypothesis that explains the origin of consciousness. (and I supported the claim with literature)

So you are mixing up topics then.
You should decide what you are going to ramble against: pain / suffering, or consciousness.

Call me when you make up your mind.

We happen to have consciousness for whatever reason (to throw you a bone), so whatever else we experience, we will experience it consciously. Be it suffering, happiness, love, etc.

What is so hard about understanding this?

If you disagree then You have to start your next reply with

.* No you are wrong I do have a theory that explains consciousness (and then quote or explain that theory)

Again with this bs on trying to dictate to me in what format I should post?
How arrogant can you get?

You have been told multiple times that you don’t need consciousness to have “pain”

But we do have consciousness.

So please decide what you wish to ramble against: pain or consciousness.

I agree, pain, has selective benefits , but pain does nothing to explain the origin of consciousness (nor conscious suffering)

It also doesn't explain the origins of sexual pleasure.
Different topics.

You might disagree with me, but why don’t you deal with my reply, instead of repeating the same thing over and over again?

Because you are all over the place. I try to bring it down to a single point to avoid chaos.