Dr Rick

It is not valid to assert premises about a "logical impossibility" and "limitations" and then claim them as conclusions.

Where is your logical proof?

rainbow walking

Hi Lobstrosity,
I think you are mistaken, here's why:

lob: If you're the omnipotent being who created the world and mankind, why did you make addictions in the first place?


rw: What makes you assume this being created addictions? What are the causes of addictions? Are they forced upon man? Or a matter of a man's will?


lob: If you want people to have free will, you sure have a funny way of showing it considering the fact that addictions specifically act to inhibit your ability to make free choices.


rw: And if such being had altered creation to make it impossible for addictions to occur then men would have what impetus not to over-indulge? And if man lives in a world of limited resources, over indulgence serves what purpose?

lob: It's like you set humans up for failure by creating them with weaknesses that they would then specifically have to ask you to help them overcome. That is evil, and that's a problem for a diety who claims to be benevolent.

rw: And if men can, by the force of their own will, overcome such weaknesses how does that force them to come to me? If they know their mis-fortune is a result of their own choices, why would they come to me? If I know these things about them why would I respond to their pleas? Am I therefore being blamed for creating a world of limited resources? Should I then have created a magical kingdom where anything man desired would magically poof into existence in any quantity he so desired? And if this brought harm to man?

lob: I think this is a pretty poor example. The better example would be that you're the guy who knowingly got your friend addicted to drugs by giving him heroin. Had you been a "good" friend, your pal wouldn't be addicted in the first place and you wouldn't have to deal with the moral choice to either cut him off or continue giving him the drugs.

rw: I think your idea of justice has been perveted by your worldview in relation to this one particular subject.

wizwoz

Definition is always a stumbling block I must agree. So let's have the whole definition instead of just a part of it which you chose to rely upon. Here is an Oxford English Dictionary definition of Patience:
1 ability to endure delay, hardship, provocation, pain, etc. 2 perseverance. 3 solo card game.
•1calmness, composure, endurance, equanimity, forbearance, fortitude, resignation, restraint, self-control, serenity, stoicism, tolerance, toleration, colloquial unflappability. 2assiduity, determination, diligence, doggedness, endurance, firmness, perseverance, persistence, pertinacity, tenacity.

Wow now hang on here, patience used in context, like most things, is the key. Plenty of nouns here attached to patience which do not require suffering to be contingent.

If patience is ONLY synonymous with suffering as you deem it to be (OED doesn't appear to think it is), then why not simply say "If God prevents pain and suffering, then he precludes the possibility of people obtaining the virtue of [patience] pain & suffering.Why use the word patience at all? Unless you intend by restricting the word patience to requiring suffering, it somehow introduces a virtuousness to otherwise unnecessary cruel and pointless suffering. Gives God a chance to partly redeem what appears an unnecessary nasty mistake perhaps.I think it indeed can be called just that very thing.
Here is another Dictionary definition (WordWeb) Patience: emphasizes calmness, self-control, and the willingness or ability to tolerate delay. Tolerate: Allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibitingI remain with the understanding that you don't NEED to suffer to know patience. My example stands as reason why an omnipotent God does not NEED to allow suffering to show patience - or anything else for that matter (including evil, pain or suffering). If it is ‘maybe’ needed for a greater purpose then he should come straight out with a reason.’Maybe I will give you a million dollars if you worship me’ is not a convincing idea. Considering the circumstances it would at least be the decent thing to do. If he can't then he isn't omnipotent. If he doesn't want to he is cruel. Or more likely, all this God idea is a man made bogus scam and patience is ONLY a card game.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by NonContradiction :

The atheologian only needs demonstrate that there is probably more suffering than the minimum required to maximize goodness, which does not require a commitment to a desire for a perfect world. All we need is to show that God could probably have reduced suffering to some degree.

Your response must be that virtues such as patience, sympathy, and compassion would not be developable if there were any less suffering in the world. And my response back is that God could have given us greater powers of empathy and a greater propensity to develop patience, and reduce the amount of suffering in the world proportionally. We'd end up with the same virtues in the end, just as a result of less suffering conjoined with greater emotional ability.

NonContradiction

Could you please elaborate on how I am doing that.

Lobstrosity

They are forced upon man and have nothing to do with his will. Organisms other than man suffer addictions. It's a built-in flaw in our "creation" (specifically an instability) for which our "creator" bears sole responsibility.

This is a non sequitur. Addiction is not the result of over-indulgence and does not serve to prevent man from over-indulging in things. You can eat as many crackers as you want and not get addicted to them. You can drink as much water as you want and not become "addicted" to it. You have it backwards--over-indulgence is the result of addiction. If God had not created the phenomenon of addiction, people would not feel compelled to over-indulge.

rainbow walking

]They are forced upon man and have nothing to do with his will. Organisms other than man suffer addictions. It's a built-in flaw in our "creation" (specifically an instability) for which our "creator" bears sole responsibility.

rw: Oh really, then how is it that it's over-come by a force of will? What are these other organisms you're referring to? And there are many unstable chemical compounds from which we derive some usefulness. Is this too a built in flaw?


Lob: This is a non sequitur. Addiction is not the result of over-indulgence and does not serve to prevent man from over-indulging in things.


rw: Wrong on both counts. Not all things are addictive, this is true. Some things are more addictive than others...like gambling and pornography. But they all begin with an " over-indulgence" meaning a conscious act of will. Some things only require a miniscule amount of indulgence to qualify as over indulgence, like crack. Other things require more of an indulgence before they become addictive. Some addictions are psychological only, others, involving chemical compounds, can become physical.


Lob: You can eat as many crackers as you want and not get addicted to them. You can drink as much water as you want and not become "addicted" to it.


rw: So? I never said you could nor did I say that over-indulgence led to addiction in all cases. But over-indulgence can have harmful effects in all cases if carried too far. Addiction is just one example. Obesity is another. It's up to each individual to determine what he can indulge in and how much.

Lob: You have it backwards--over-indulgence is the result of addiction. If God had not created the phenomenon of addiction, people would not feel compelled to over-indulge. [/B]

rw: I repeat my initial claim. Your bias has distorted your sense of justice. Are we to infer from this that you believe a god created everything? I thought you were an atheist?

Philosoft

It doesn't make any sense to talk about willful "over-indulgence" as a prerequisite for addiction, then go on to indict the entire continuum of indulgence. Either over-indulgence indicates some excess or it doesn't. If I can get physically addicted to crack after smoking it twice, it seems that my will has a lot less to do with my crack habit than the addictiveness of crack.

Lobstrosity

Right, as rw implies himself, it has merely to do with varying levels normal indulgence, something that is by no means "wrong" (i.e. it has nothing to do with coping with finite resources or some other such crap). Addiction is a function of the substance coupled with your own physiological/psychological state, not simply how much you indulge something. As you point out, addiction to crack is due to some chemical predisposition to crack addiction in humans, not over-indulgence. Addiction serves no beneficial purpose and it certainly doesn't function as a deterrent to over-indulgence.

NonContradiction

Nobody is saying that patience is synonymous with pain and suffering.

Look, we could split hairs on the definition, but that isn't what I want to get hung up on. I don't really care what you call the virtue of somebody keeping a level head about himself when all hell is breaking loose. If you don't want to call that virtue "patience," then tell me what you want to call it.

The PoE fails to obtain because of a glaring weakness in one of its premises, namely, that God doesn't have a higher priority than preventing pain suffering, which would necessarily preclude Him from preventing pain and suffering.

If God wanted to prevent pain and suffering, then He would have created all human beings in a heavenly, perfect world. Obviously, we are not in heaven. It's not about what God could or could not have done, and it's not about what God should or should not have done. Yes, some people may argue that He could have taught us the meaning of pain, suffering and patience without us actually experiencing pain and suffering.

Perhaps, they have a point, but their point is neither here nor there. God wanted all human beings to know what pain and suffering is by actually experiencing it. He also wants people to have patience, and He also wants to enter people into paradise for having patience. If some people think that God, if He does exist, is evil for that, so be it. Whether they like it or not, they are here on this earth, so they might as well get used to it and have patience instead of complaining. It's not the people who are complaining, anyway, that are going to make the world a better place to live.