wizwoz

NonContradiction, thanks for your response.

I really don't want to get hung up on semantics either but there is a real problem of understanding anything you say if you keep attempting to move the goal posts and by doing so, in someway or other, insist you have a point.

You say this.......Then you say this.....
I don't want to be picky but how can I possibly understand any of your more esoteric points if you do not adhere to that which you have previously declared.But to me there is no "glaring weakness", it is anything but. A complete lack of any evidence that there is or can be a higher priority is demonstrated by the observable fact that there could be less suffering than there is, without altering any greater order that humanity is subject to. Yesterday 500 people were killed in a Algerian Earthquake. A lot perished because they couldn't flee the buildings quickly enough. For instance, if there were no fatalities due to earthquakes or even if there were always n fatalities, then there may be a point to be examined in your higher priority claim. But it is apparent from your position that this "higher priority" relies upon a random lottery of death and suffering which God allows and indeed created, so that he can employ, according to your theory, a higher priority which is not at all evident. If random is the minimum suffering level that he can obtain then a 'random higher priority' may just as well also obtain to your theory and offers the strong possibility that there is no omnipotence and at best God is haphazard .
Haphazard or non existent is more evidential of pain and suffering.Blind acceptance of the above premise would be the only way of imagining how a cruel and selfish God could exist, especially when apparently he needn't be that way.
I am trying hard (particularly as I am a newy) not to make assumptions. Your points are such and are acceptable only as a blind faith. As soon as one wonders if patience requires pain and suffering to obtain, it is apparent that it doesn't and your assumptions remain just what they are.I think the doctors and nurses who are impatient with cancer pain and suffering and who complain that something must be done to eliminate it, bear testament to the fact that such will and does make the world a better place and any God worth its salt would have /should have done better. Unless of course he doesn't exist and there never was one.

rainbow walking

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I never said that over-indulgence of anything we indulge leads to addiction. I said that over-indulgenge of anything we indulge can be harmful and lead to anything from addiction to obesity and to death, like cancers caused by smoking. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, as in the case of water, I don't know if one can be harmed by drinking too much water. But it should also be noted that securing an adequate supply of potable water is becoming an increasingly burdensome problem for man.

philosoft: 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.

Some substances are more easily addictive than others. I, personally, have indulged in a number of drugs including crack and have not become addicted to any of them, (thankfully), but I can fully understand the attraction and how easy it would be to become addicted to them. My personal addiction is cigarettes. The addictiveness is in the chemical reactions that occur between the substance and our own chemical equilibrium along with our psychological state when indulging.

The problem with Lob's complaint is that we know these substances have addictive potential when we indulge. If it were the case that we were the first humans to indulge in them and were learning this the hard way, as I'm sure a number of people did initially, then his and your objections, that the role the will plays is minimal, would be justified. Now that we know, we indulge at our own risk.

The base chemicals in these substances are also the base chemicals in a large number of user-friendly substances which have not evolved into this unique composition. That these chemicals have been naturally assembled in cocaine and other natural ingredients such as those used in alchohol and tobacco products, is unfortunate but necessary to the effect the indulgent is seeking. And the indulgent knows this.

Now, assuming such a being exists and created this state of affairs, in order for the addictive qualities of these substances to have been negated would have required this being to create a different way in which chemicals interact...in other words, an entirely different physics all the way through nature from its inception. Had he done so, would evolution have still resulted in humans? Now if you and lob would like to entertain me with a detailed explanation, to support your assertion, of how this could have been effected and still provide for the arrival of a creature with the sentient capabilities equivalent to man's, I would be most attentive to your arguments.


Evolution is effected by limited resources and the competition for those resources. That competition comprises the single largest factor in speciation. The inter-action between man and nature, as he uses and abuses its limited resources has produced some amazing causes of pain and suffering, addiction being just one such cause. It is one of nature's ways of containing our indulgences. If a person continues to consume an addictive substance they die and the pressure on those limited resources is abated to some degree. One must remember that the rule of limited resources works both ways. While it may appear there is an unlimited supply of drugs and alchohol, (and there likely will be as long as there is a demand), it must also be remembered that these substances cost money and, unless the individual is very wealthy, it creates pressure in his life in all other areas when he commits his limited supply of funds to the purchase of one substance. The rule of limited resources cannot be negated.

NonContradiction

I will solve this problem very easily. Forget the word patience. Let X= the capacity to endure hardship, difficulty, or inconvenience without complaint. Problem solved. Now, can you obtain X without hardship, difficulty, or inconvenience?

Now, the objection becomes if God is Omnipotent, then He could have taught us to have X without pain and suffering.

Wiploc

Even if you couldn't (and I see no reason to think you couldn't, regardless of whether it would take a miracle) why do you think it is better not to complain about pain than not to have pain?
crc

NonContradiction

I see what you are saying. Good point. Sometimes it may be necessary (for example, visiting a medical doctor about a problem) to complain about some pain and suffering.

Let X= the capacity to endure hardship, difficulty, or inconvenience without unnecessary complaint.

Philosoft

Well, if your point was not that addictions are caused by, or at least prefaced by, willful over-indulgence (whatever it is), then we have no disagreement.

But by doing this, you inject uncertainty into your indulgence --> addiction causal chain. All I have to do is point out a counterexample - perhaps there is a person who doesn't know anything about crack who becomes addicted after smoking twice - then the willful act becomes inconsequential.

NonContradiction

The PoE revolves around what God WANTS, not what He could have, should have, or would have.

> The PoE: If
> 1. God knew everything, including that humans suffer, and
> 2. God were absolutely able to do anything he wanted, and
> 3. What he wanted more than anything else (or at least as
> much as anything else) was to prevent human suffering, then
> 4. There would be no suffering.
> 5. Since there is suffering, such a god does not exist.

The God described here doesn't exist. However, that doesn't prove that a God who wants us to experience pain and suffering, wants us to have patience, and wants to reward us if we do have patience, doesn't exist. God wants all of those three things. Perhaps, if God ONLY wanted us to experience pain and suffering would you have an argument that God is evil for not preventing pain and suffering. However, that isn't the case here. The AfE doesn't prove anything, but it does fit the bias that many people have. Prejudice is difficult to rationally justify, but it's easy to rationalize anything.

Wiploc

No, you missed my point.

Let's take another example:

Vomiting is unpleasant, but it can be a good thing if it gets rid of poison. But the fact that it can be good in this way does not mean we should take poison.

Similarly, we don't like having to be patient, but patience can be good as a way of coping with hardship. But the fact that patience can be good in this way does not mean we should like the hardship.

There is no point in taking poison in order to throw up if the alternative is not needing to throw up because you aren't poisoned. And there is no point in suffering hardship in order to learn patience if the alternative is not needing the patience because you aren't suffering the hardship.

crc

7thangel

NC, your example can be likened unto the state of the promised heaven. Heaven is a place of people who learned, thus we are being given knowledge and understanding. Heaven is where God will eliminate death, not really of pains and sufferings. Our senses are still preserved by which gives us the purpose of living, thus we could live without boredom. As you can see, patience cannot be explained without knowledge of "difficulty," or "hardship," or "inconvenience," or any negative that we want to eliminate, that makes us to wait of that positive outcome.

What wiploc actually argue as a good state of existence is actually meaningless to just exist as it is. Before we be in such state, is that we "need" to acquired all the possible knowledge about it, which the PoE proponents seems not to understand. And that to gain knowledge of all these things require experience "first."

rainbow walking

Philo: Well, if your point was not that addictions are caused by, or at least prefaced by, willful over-indulgence (whatever it is), then we have no disagreement.


rw: I would describe it as a viscious cycle. The affect derived from the initial indulgence leads to over-indulgence which leads to addiction which leads to further indulgence. But by the time it reaches the addiction stage it can be described as over-indulgence or addiction. Either one would apply.

Philo: But by doing this, you inject uncertainty into your indulgence --> addiction causal chain. All I have to do is point out a counterexample - perhaps there is a person who doesn't know anything about crack who becomes addicted after smoking twice - then the willful act becomes inconsequential.

rw: Yes, it isn't written in stone that everyone who indulges in addictive substances will become addicted. It also isn't written in stobe that every addict will die from his addiction or continue to feed it for the duration of his life. It can be willfully circumvented...which is a good thing.

But then there's the case of crack babies to contend with.