luvluv

Hobbs:

No, Hobbs. You took that quote out of context. We are discussing two primary issues at this point: a) the reason for human suffering and b) the implications of my belief that suffering is necessary on the concept of heaven. When I made the statement about trusting God, I was referring to the fact that I trust God enough to know that all human beings will have a fair chance to freely recieve the gospel.

As concerning the necessity of animal suffering, I gave you explicit reasons for why I thought that the animal suffering on this planet was necessary, and that every mechanism you have suggested to alleviate animal suffering would involve the creation either of an animal more susceptible to death or destruction or to constant supernatural intervention on God's part. That intervention would interfere with free will.

You have yet to define for me a the threshhold by which you rate God's goodness. If you admit that some suffering is necessary, can you define exactly how much that is? Also, can you explain to me how you know this? How did you come to discover that with 10 pounds of suffering a loving God is possible, but with 10.1, He is not?

To sum up, I never appealed to a passive faith to enable me to ignore human and animal suffering. I made several arguments about why I see the capacity to expereince pain to be a good thing that enables animals (and humans) to survive. I said that I trusted God to give each and every human being a fair chance to receive Him. So the conclusions you have drawn about my beliefs are wrong because you wrenched that quote out of context. I do not see more suffering on this planet than is necessary because I have no idea how much is necessary and how much isn't, and I have no idea how a human being could come to know such a thing.

ex-preacher

luvluv has invented his own religion which is detached from the Bible and impervious to logic.

Hi luvluv!

luvluv

Hobbs:

Is this really all you see? You don't see love? You don't see laughter? You've never known a moment of joy? You've never marvelled at a sunset? You don't see some of these same animals that experience pain also experiencing the joy of living? You see good, you are surrounded by good, yet you make the conscious choice, where the question of God is involved, to only see the suffering. And you have seen suffering, in your own life and in the lives of others, lead to a greater good. In fact, nearly all suffering has a good end in mind (again, as our ability to percieve pain is given to us primarily so that we can avoid the things that would hurt us). I would say that the opposite is true. Most of the suffering I've ever seen has a good purpose in the end. I've never seen any animal or event that seemed to be designed solely to suffer or to produce suffering (except for the things that humans have built). There's no such thing as a natural torture chamber, there is no natural phenomenon whose sole purpose is to cause suffering to living creatures except for the inventions of man. Given that, I need evidence to the contrary to suspect that any suffering is pointless or unecesary.

Perhaps God is aware that these people made the best guess as to their existence that they could and He is not judging them or withholding Himself from them because their culture or background prevents them from hearing the truth. They recognize a superior force, and they seek a relationship with it. Most of the adherents of the different religions are absoultely CONVINCED that they have made contact with something. Am I to assume they are all crazy? I don't.

McDarwin:

No, because part of benevolence is not forcing happiness upon the object of your affection if it does not want it. Goodness offers itself, it cannot force itself on others without ceasing to be good.

Malevolence has no such quandaries. It dominates and overwhelms without regard to it's object.


I think I would know what it meant to suffer. At any rate, a malevolent Omnipotent Sadist would have no moral quandaries about simply giving me the ability to percieve and experience pain to any degree it wished, even if that mean simply supernaturally implanting in me a frame of reference while never ceasing to administer punishment. This whole preamble of our independant and relatively fulfilling existence would be unecessary.

Besides which, just as God is restrained from doing or producing anything that is evil in and of itself by his own nature, so an Omnipotent Sadist would be restrained by his character from ever producing anything purely good. There are a number of things in our lives that are purely good as they are in nature, and are only evil when they are perverted. As C.S. Lewis says, there is no such thing as self-existent evil ( initially, of course, because existence itself is a good thing). All sins and evils are simply good gifts being used incorrectly or at the wrong time. (The good gift of sexuality being used to rape or to cheat on a partner, the good gift of imagination to lie, the good gift of our human intellect to devise ways to enslave and rob our brothers, etc.) All evil acts have good roots. The opposite could not be said, therefore there is not an Omnipotent Sadist.

Infinity Lover

Here's the thing with God... he's pretty much whatever you want him to be!

If you consider God to be something people believe in... there is a God (as long as there are believers; there's certainly the impact religion has on this world)

If you consider God to be a character in several books... there is a god... sam as there is a Spiderman.

But if you want God to materialize in front of you... have you ever read a bit of Bible? I wouldn't want to meet the creep. Would you?

ExTheist

If the god of the bible were real he would have noticed this forum. I propose that with the advent of this forum and the fact that millions of people can (potentially) view this on the net that there are right now more non-belivers having discussions and making jokes about the biblical god than any time in history. The fact that this jealous and violent god has not tried to hack into this site or smite us all is one bit of proof that god is a fiction.

luvluv

Unless, of course, you've read the New Testament.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

ExTheist

Old Testament=piffle
New Testament=piffle-lite

luvluv

Whoops I didn't see my main man ex-preacher! How's it going ex? If I'm gonna be insulted, I'm glad it's by the best.

I choose to believe that what you mean by this is that my beliefs are logical.

At any rate, I assume you are referring to the fact that I am an annihilationist, which is hardly a view I invented and at any rate there is biblical justification for it. As for everything I've said in this thread, it's pretty much straight up orthodoxy.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Hobbs

Oh, come on! Talk about blatant misrepresentation! Where the hell have I ever said that? Of course I recognize that there is much good in this life, lots of joy and laughter. That is obvious. I've never denied that. But unlike you, I also don't deny the bad stuff that is just as obviously here, and that is incompatable with a god that is both loving and powerful. The fault you think you see in me is actually in you: it is you who is the one denying an obvious part of reality. The existence of subjective experiences of joy and happiness is no problem in a godless, natural universe, so I have no problem admitting its obvious existence. The existence of pointless suffering is incompatible with the existence of an objectively existing, loving and powerful god, so you are trying desperately to avoid having to acknowledge the obvious existence of pointless suffering.

Of course, some suffering does lead to a greater good. As I've said before, I have no problem acknowledging that, and it is completely consistent with doubting that an objectively existing, loving and powerful god exists.

If that statement is true, then you agree with me. Even if nearly all suffering has a good end in mind, it is still only nearly all, and the allowance for some suffering that does not have a good end is enough to call into question the existence of a loving god who is powerful enough to do something about needless suffering.

You seem to think that even the slightest amount of good in this life is evidence that God is real. If by "god" you mean "there is some good stuff in life," then I agree with you, god exists. But don't think that this entitles you to conclude that this is the same as demonstrating the existence of the god of traditional theism, an objectively existing entity that is loving and powerful and that knows and cares about us.

Then you need to read up on parasites. Parasites are organisms that feed off their hosts, often in very painful ways, without providing any benefit for the host, i.e. it is "designed" to produce only suffering and detriment in its host. There are plenty of examples in nature.

Besides, it doesn't even have to be solely to suffer or to produce suffering. It only has to be a little bit of pointless suffering to call into question the existence of a loving and powerful god. You seem to be saying that if it is not the case that all suffering is obvioulsy unnecessary, that therefore none of it is. Or, that the fact that some suffering leads to beneficial results, that (along with the existence of some good stuff in life, such as subjective experiences of joy) is enough to prove that an objectively existing, loving and powerful god exists, and therefore it must be the case that no suffering is pointless. But the existence of even quite a lot of useful, beneficial suffering, even combined with the existence of quite a lot of joy and happiness, is compatible with the existence of even a smidgen of pointless suffering. And a smidgen of pointless suffering is all it takes to call into question the existence of an objectively existing, loving and powerful god.

As for evidence that there exists at least a little suffering that is pointless or unnecessary, how about what MrDarwin noted earlier about whereas some predators quickly and relatively painlessly kill their prey, other predators allow their prey to suffer lots of pain in the process of being eaten? Obviously, even if God was for some reason unable to create a world in which predation was not necessary (though I can't imagine why he couldn't have done so since, as I stated earlier, it is easy enough to imagine such a world), he obviously can create predators which can kill their prey quickly and relatively painlessly (this is, of course, granting for the sake of argument that God did indeed have something to do with their creation), so why didn't he create them all like that? What is the point of creating some predators that kill their prey in slow and painful ways when it is obvious that, if for some reason the existence of predators is unavoidably necessary, it is possible to create predators that kill their prey in quick and relatively painless ways?

Crazy? Does someone have to be crazy to be mistaken? Because they are not all crazy, therefore none of them is mistaken?

I have no doubt that they are convinced that they have made contact with something. I do not doubt that they have had deeply moving, profound experiences of joy and fulfillment. I've had such experiences myself. I used to interpret them as experiences of an objectively existing god. I now doubt that interpretation. The obvious existence of some pointless suffering is one of the reasons I doubt it.

The joy and fulfillment I have experienced is consistent with a belief in an objectively existing, loving and powerful god. But it is also consistent with a godless, natural universe in which we have evolved mechanisms to enhance our chances of survival, such as to experience subjective joy and fulfillment in living, and especially in living in ways that are conducive to living long and healthy lives (if only so we keep doing it at least long enough to produce viable offspring).

But the pointless suffering I see is not consistent with a belief in an objectively existing, loving and powerful god. And it is consistent with a godless, natural universe. You have asked how much pointless suffering it would take to be incompatible with God. If by "God" you mean an all-loving and all-powerful being, then any pointless suffering is incompatible with its existence. Now, I'll agree that at the margins it may be difficult to tell whether a given quantum of pain is pointless or not. But I don't see how it can reasonably be doubted that putting together all the parasites, viruses, slow-killing predators, etc, etc, etc, adds up to at least a little suffering that a loving and powerful god could have alleviated without violating his higher purposes.

So, a godless, natural universe is consistent with all this evidence, whereas an objectively existing, loving and powerful god is only consistent with parts of it and inconsistent with other parts. Of course, a powerful but uncaring god, or a loving but weak god, or maybe a god who isn't very bright, would also be consistent with all this evidence; are you positing the existence of a god like that?

I think you recognize that pointless suffering is inconsistent with an objectively existing, loving and powerful god, so you are trying desperately to find a way not to have to acknowledge the existence of pointless suffering. Or, since you seem to equate the existence of subjective experiences of joy and happiness with proof of (or at least strong evidence for) an objectively existing, loving and powerful god, you conclude that since such a god exists (as the reality of joy and happiness, on this view, demonstrate) the suffering that does exist must all be beneficial, even if some of it appears for all the world to be obviously utterly pointless. If you can recognize that joy and fulfillment, meaning and purpose, are subjective experiences that are possible for intelligent, emotional creatures who have evolved in a godless, natural universe, I think you could more easily recognize the power of the objection MrDarwin began this thread with.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Hobbs

By the way, luvluv, I'm enjoying this debate. You are doing a far better job than WJ could ever hope or dream to do. I hope I haven't come across as harsh or disrespectful in any of my posts to you. If I did, it was unintentional. (I won't talk about my intentions in some of my posts to WJ.) You strike me as an intelligent, good, caring, and likeable person. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see you eventually follow Rainbow Walking, ex-preacher, and many others in finding your way to move beyond religion.