Ice

Maybe he knows that we learn best by experience? And that some things have to be learnt the first time? Or are you arguing that God should have given us an intuitional feel of what is harm?

LOL, but the answer is yes. For example, I empathise better when I feel the same thing I think they feel. We cannot tell another of our pain and hope they can understand if they have no experience of pain (or that particular pain) is - mostly we assume we know what certain pain is like by extrapolating the feelings from other kinds of pain.

Zulu

That's exactly what I'm argueing. Surely it wouldn't be too great a difficulty for an omnipotent being to do just that.

Fair enough. Perhaps I ought to rephrase: Would you enjoy being violently beating? Would your extra empathy be worth it? But in any case, we mostly empathize with others exactly because of their physical pains.

I didn't say we shouldn't be without mental pains [ie; mild depression, etc]. My question regards things like pain from touching a burning stove. Surely if such a pain doesn't exist there is no advantage in gaining empathy from it [towards the very same thing which no longer exists]?

-Zulu

Ice

It wouldn't, but perhaps he saw it as a greater value than simply coding in an intuitional knowledge of pain (we do have that, in the sense of reflexive responses). Not all suffering/pain is bad in terms of the effect - we are able to better empathise. If we ask then for empathy to be intuitionalised as well, then we become less of an automous human being. Hope that made sense.

To the question: No I wouldn't enjoy being violently beaten. I would rather, like you perhaps, know what pain is/is like without having to experience it, but experience enriches the human IMO, and making it learnt rather than intuitional means everyone will personally experience certain pains and empathise with others by extrapolating from those experiences, instead of having to know/experience every single pain to be able to empathise.

Would my empathy be worth the violent beating? It depends on what relative values I place on that worth and empathy then. See above also.

Then it becomes a question of where do we draw the line on which pains should be intuitive and which not. Apparently, if God is all-mighty, he supposedly knows our limits and doesn't give us more than we can bear. To his mind, perhaps it's not the pain itself that is advantageous; it's the learning process.

Zulu

All those who stem from mental dilemnas or issues, or some variation of that. Therefore, all traditional pains [sprains, back aches, pain from burns] could be easily replaced with a superior intuitive form of knowledge. This doesn't take away form our empathy towards others at all...because they too won't feel this pain.

As an aside:

Evolution isn't an 'astronomical chance'. It's the logical continuation of any accepted science of genetics. Mutuations are known to occur, therefore evolution is present--it's tautological in nature. If you want to argue that the chance of various mutuation leading precisely to human beings in unlikely you're going to run into anthropic arguments. Not too mention that there are things far less 'likely' that happen all the time. Saying that evolution is unlikely is really fallacious statistical reasoning.

-Zulu

alek0

Just curious, if god provided this "great system" so that you would know when there is something wrong with the body, why didn't he provide similar warning system so that you would know when you are commiting a sin, i.e. when there is smth. wrong with your soul? Why would it be more important to provide a warning system for damage to physical body which has a short lifetime anyway, and no warning system for damage to the soul which is supposed to be eternal?

I am also curious why christians think that this is a great system? If it was designed, surely it could have been designed better?

Ice

In that point, I probably agree. However, perhaps it's part of God's design for us to better appreciate good health/etc?