Gamera

I think evolution created animals and the conditions under which they suffer.

Sickness is not the alternative to good health for bacteria. It's reversed for them. See your problem now? Ecosystems are complex, and yet they permit life and existence to flourish. Do you have an alternative that doesn't involve killing off organisms you don't like?

Fundies aren't Christians, so whatever they say isn't derived from the gospel. Historical Christianity has a much more complex view of "evil" such as hurricane katrina. The most obvious would be -- the disaster was caused by greedy exploitative people who let the poor live in substandard, exposed conditions subject to flooding because they don't love others Don't blame God for peoples greed and selfishness.

Gamera

Well, now we're getting somewhere. So if everything is a result of God's plan, then maybe we should inquire about the plan and see how the suffering fits in.

For instance, there would be no suffering if there were nothing. That's one way to avoid suffering. But I don't particularly like that. Certainly, if I were a parasite and your plan to avoid suffering was to nullify my existence, I might protest.

So what's the alternative? From what you've written you seem to be saying the alternative to suffering is nonexistence for some entities. Presumably, if you caused suffering during your life to others (and I'm willing to be you did), then following your logic, we should terminate your existence.

I see a problem with that. Do you? I think existence is preferable to nonexistence, even existence with suffering. And maybe that's the plan at work.

greyline

God could've made the parasites in such a way that they don't cause suffering. Simple as that.

Since I agree with you that "evolution created animals and the conditions under which they suffer", and I don't have time to play Devil's Advocate, I'll withdraw from the discussion insofar as it relates to the Creationist perspective.

Gamera

Not that simple at all. Your answer to suffering is to not have parasites, but some other creature. Like I say, that's calling for the nonexistence of parasites, which were I a tapeworm, I might resent. Not to mention a lion, a whale, a chimp, a praying mantis, etc.

It appears the world you posit as an alternative will have nothing in it but cows, and even they will have to be careful where they walk. No thanks. I'll take this universe, parasites and all.

But let's get back to you. You cause suffering in others. Are you willing to be "altered" so that you don't have the free will to cause suffering in others? I'm not. It would be a life not worth living to have no moral choice.

Good, we agree creationists are fools.

greyline

That's not what I said at all.

"God could've made the parasites in such a way that they don't cause suffering."

Gamera

Sorry, that means that they would not be parasites, but something else. Even God can't make a parasite that not a parasite. Honestly, you're quibbling.

I can't help noting that you keep mentioning parasites and not your own life and the suffering you cause. You haven't responded to what we (as God) should do about that. Please elaborate on what should be done to prevent you from causing suffering to others.

greyline

He can make a parasite that doesn't cause suffering or even that causes vastly less suffering. Even I can envisage that, so I'm sure God can too.


I didn't respond to it because for you, this follows from your previous assumption about parasites causing suffering and the only solution being to terminate their existence (or never create them in the first place). Since I don't agree with that, there's no point proceeding yet.

Gamera

You can and then it's not a parasite. Which was my point - to exclude suffering you are suggesting nonexistence for those who cause suffering, and if I were a happy parasite, I might take umbrage at that proposal.

You're sidestepping the issue by blaming my analysis. Give your own. You cause suffering. Tell us how you would as God avoid that result. It sounds like your resolution is that you'd have God create a greyline who couldn't choose to do bad things that harmed others. I.e., you would not have moral choice. You would be a robotically good entity. Of course, I think that would be a meaningless existence, much worse than nonexistence. And so if that's your proposal, I for one reject it and would rather keep my moral sovereignty even if it meant that your free will might lead to my suffering.

greyline

You can't conceive of a parasite that doesn't cause suffering, or that can go about its business and cause less suffering than "God" currently "created" it to make?

As I said, I can. Which means I know God can.

There are many other examples of suffering in the animal kingdom that could easily be reduced or eliminated by God, but he chose not to - the baby hyena thing comes to mind.


I don't require God to eliminate all suffering, particularly not for humans who as you point out, have free will. God could have reduced much of the suffering in the world, especially relating to non-human living things and the weather. This isn't about my free will and moral choices. It's about some very basic things God could have done and didn't.