Alix Nenuphar

Yguy:

Ummm... Annoying everyone? Exposing lies? You are going to get around to these things, right?

yguy

All rules need to be rejected in this case. They are meaningless.

No. Most suffering is gratuitous in that people don't learn from it. A consequence of the misuse of free will.

Swell. How do you know how much is required?

This is too convoluted for me to spend time unravelling it, but it is all patently speculative, not even as uselful as the computer models used by environmentalist wackos to justify their alarmism about global warming.

In my mind, there is a difference between making an assertion and pointing out the obvious. As for credibility, I'm not worried about it. If enough people get the idea that I'm an idiot, without regard to whether I really am or not, they'll stop responding. I'm OK with that.

Why would it? If suffering is to be the benchmark, why have any at all?

If, on the other hand, you accept the idea that SOME suffering is necessary, on what basis do you judge how much is necessary?

K

yguy:

Now you're catching on. An omnipotent God could make a universe with all the aspects He wants and absolutely no suffering. Unless, of course, He finds the suffering of His creations appealing.

Philosoft

I'll believe anything with sufficient support. What does that say about the quality of your evidence? I hope you're not attempting to impeach my skepticism.

I never said they were right. But why should we believe you, novice message board denizen, over millions of scientists?

Religious beliefs are extremely complex and nuanced. I don't think a "belief" in the probability of theories is at all similar.

Why would science be wedded to an incorrect and outmoded idea? Surely someone would have seen the light by now? What, in your opinion, would science gain by dropping the 'probability paradigm'? And what would they use instead?

Don't you think you should do better than "presume" before you blithely indict the entirety of science?

You sure do a lot of guessing for someone who has such a huge problem with a particular scientific doctrine.

Hmm. You don't think scienctists know that as well?
That's why its probably erroneous to call his model a "theory."

yguy

It says just what I said: I doubt it is sufficient to convince you. That is not meant to imply obstinacy on your part.

I leave that to you to determine.

In my mind, it's evidence of excessive faith in the value of rote learning.

How many times did stuff fall on people's heads before Newton thought to ask why the moon doesn't fall? How many centuries passed before anybody tested Aristotle's notion that heavier objects fall faster?

They would waste less time on theories which are given an artificially high value.

Insight. Intuition.

I'm sure this board doesn't lack for scientific minds able to correct me on any of this.

No doubt they know it intellectually. I suspect it introduces a bias they are not aware of.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by yguy :

Argument by assertion again. Please don't waste our time with these statements unless you give us some reason to believe them.

I don't think you understand what gratuitous suffering is yet. If it's a consequence of our having free will, and God allows the suffering because he wants the free will, then the suffering isn't gratuitous: it's necessary for a greater good, free will.

By the way, the free will defense is a failure for about ten distinct reasons, last time I checked. Here's one of the biggest: we don't have freedom of action right now. We're not allowed to, say, snap our fingers and thereby cause thousands of people to be tortured horribly. Natural laws are in place to prevent that. So God should have put natural laws in place to prevent more suffering than he did already.

I don't know the exact amount, but it seems pretty obvious that less than this amount wouldn't decrease the total goodness in the world. People could suffer 5% less from cancer, or 5% fewer children could die of starvation, and I can't see any obvious negative effects of those situations. If you think there are such negative effects, you bear a burden of proof.

In other words, you won't do me the service of actually trying to understand my rather simple explanation. I've tried to take you seriously in an effort to help you and other readers understand why theism is probably false. No leading philosopher of religion would even think of offering any of the defenses you've offered, but I consider myself to be doing a favor to you and to anyone else who might be tempted by them. Yet you don't even take the time to see where you go wrong. This is willful ignorance, and it shouldn't be surprising that you have failed to realize that God doesn't exist if you intentionally choose not to observe the evidence.

It's plausible that some suffering is required for some greater goods. It's just not plausible that this much is. There seems to be some genuinely gratuitous suffering.

Just thinking about things. Suffering could be reduced without any noticeable necessary negative consequences. I saw a story on TV the other day about a boy who was born with one leg a couple inches shorter than the other. He had to go through a long series of painful operations and adjustments until his legs were the same length. He'll have to do it again when he's 12. So we can imagine a world in which the boy's leg was only one inch shorter than the other, and he'd go through significantly less pain. That would make that world better than this one because there'd be less suffering. But the Christian must make it seem likely that there'd be some unknown bad effect from the boy not having to go through all that pain. I don't see any reason to think that, so it's your job to give me a reason.

Hawkingfan

How can you call us hypocritical for supposedly rejecting your "evidence" for god, and you do the same when someone else has "evidence" for Allah or their version of the J/C god?

yguy

I intend to continue saying what I think. If you don't like it, your options are to ignore me or try to get me banned.

It's not obvious to me. In fact, I would venture to say it's argument by assertion.

First of all, some people make the planet a better place by dying. Second, you appear to think that because God allows the suffering, it's His fault that it exists. That does not follow.

Which is better: 10,000 people leading tranquil, unchallenged lives, or one person developing extrodinary character through hardship? If the "greatest good for the greatest number" is good criterion, then perhaps the first option would be; but on what basis to be the good in the first instance to be greater than the good in the second? That is, X good times 10,000 people is 10,000X, but how do we determine that the value of the good to the lone person is less than that?

I don't think it would be a service to anybody.

Uh huh. Thanks for nothing.

I'm simply crushed.

Gonna save their souls from God, huh? Hey, I'll be happy to be your devil.

Sometimes one can see where one is ABOUT to go wrong - which I would if I tried to understand that nonsense.

I was brought up to believe He doesn't exist. Realization has happened, just not in the direction you care for.

And just how do you know how much is too much? Where is the objective criterion by which this is determined?

There could be a good effect from going through the pain. Without the Soviet gulags, we would not have had Solzhenitsyn, for instance.

Darkblade

yguy: Y god??? Y???????????? Y??????????????????????????????

yguy

Disbelief and rejection are not the same, as I'm sure some atheists will agree.