God’s benevolence vs. pain and suffering

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

All I can suggest is that you look clearly at the world as you believe it to be, and think clearly about your reaction to that world. Why do you suffer along with the pain and suffering in the world whether that suffering affects you or not? If this is the world, meaningless and uncaring and if we are a part of this world, why do you feel that something is wrong with suffering that happens on the other side of the globe?

Very simple: because that is how I was brought up, and I inherited certain tendencies from my parents. Both nature and nurture played an integral part in my development, just like with everyone else.

stella95:

If words like fair, unfair, good, evil have nothing to do with the world as it is, if there is no meaning in the world, why do we, all of us, speak as if things should be fair or unfair, good or evil? Why can’t any of us but sociopaths fit that meaningless reality around us, if it is the one reality that we belong to?

The sociopaths are not successful on the long run, though they might be successful for a short time.

stella95:

I used to study English lit at a time when deconstructionism was all the rage. Many of my professors believed passionately that words had no intrinsic meaning; that literature had no intrinsic value; that there were no universals. Yet these same professors went to great lengths to make their meaning clear, argued ad nauseum with one another about meaning, spoke more than one language, and communicated successfully about the impossibility of communication with other professors from different cultures.

That is a nice subject, one of my favorites. Though I am not a linguist myself, I speak several languages, and the concept of the “meaning” I found fascinating. But that would be really out of the scope of this discussion. Just one example. Consider the word “POLISH” - and the upper case here does not signify shouting. Stop here and pronounce it. There is a good chance that you would hesitate and probably make an error. You see, this word cannot be pronouced without a context: “The Polish guy did the polish”. How would this collection of letters have an intrinsic meaning? It gains meaning within the context.

stella95:

You remind me a little bit of these professors. You don’t believe there’s meaning in the world, yet you take the trouble to communicate your meaning to us. You don’t believe the universe cares about us, yet you care about others. You don’t believe in morality, yet you call the universe unfair, and you are probably outraged and furious when you see cruelty.

Yes, all of what you say it true.

stella95:

Don’t know…how did a miracle like you appear in a meaningless universe?

But I am not a “miracle”. I am just an everyday old guy, with a truckload of skepticism. If you look at humanity, you will see a few sociopaths, and few “saints” (not literal saints, just very good people), and a whole lot in-between. You see a beautiful bell-curve (Gaussian distribution). And that does not require a special creator, the mathematical theorem of “central distribution theory” explains it very well.

 

[stella95]

It doesn’t explain the cruelty of giving us the capacity of empathizing more than we need to in order to exist happily in a world that is full of pain and misery.

Which doesn’t mean everything’s nasty out there–my kids and their baby rats are very cute indeed

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

…What I was asking is that how can an omnibenevolent being allow the senseless pain and suffering we see arond us. Simple pain-avoidance is not what I am suggesting.

In reality, simple pain avoidance is indeed what you are suggesting. In your posts to the thread offering a solution to your dilemma, you reiterate that an omnibenevolent God would not allow even justifiable pain. (Justifiable/unjustifiable - necessary/unnecessary) Simply put, if pain exists - then God cannot be omnibenevolent. Since such pain does exist - He cannot be omnibenevolent. This is the crux of your argument when one takes all of your posts into collective consideration.

Hitetlen:

It depends on what you mean by the word “faith”. Yes, you are correct, I trust the so-called “experts” - but only to a degree, not absolutely. First, the experts must prove that they are worthy of this title. But that is not all, they have to prove it, over and over again, that they are still worthy.

This is unbelievable. You hold the experts to a standard that they must meet? When you read an article by a man of science you never heard before, you do a detailed background check of his credentials? You have, in previous threads, defended the “evidence” of evolution and the Big Bang as if they are irrefutable. Belive me, Hitetlen, nobody is going to believe you on this one.

Hitetlen:

If a doctor would give me a diagnosis, which I find suspicious, I would immediately go ask another one. This “faith” as you call it, is vey tenuous, and must be reinforced all the time.

If you had a pain in the head, and the first doctor told you it was the result of an ingrown toenail, you might have legitimate reason to be suspicious. If the second doctor told you that the cause of your pain was due to an inner ear infection, you might believe him fully. But what happens when the treatment cures the infection but the pain returns and no one can discern what the cause of the pain is? Have you not fully put your faith in the second doctor’s diagnosis even though he was wrong?

Hitetlen:

In science there is no trust, no faith, only facts and experiments. No one accepts anything on “faith” alone.

Not faith alone, but faith is there. Scientists “trust” there powers of reasoning and logic as you do. They have “faith” in their educational backgrounds and methods of testing. They have “faith” in their ability to discern facts as they see them. You are betraying a lack of understanding of humanity. You are proposing that men of science are such professional fact finders and experimenters that such qualities as faith and trust do not enter into the equation. Look at your own example…

When the famous “Fermat’s last theorem” was finally proved, no one accepted it unquestioningly. All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it.<<<

What you are saying is that when this theorem was proven to be factual, even then many questioned it and tried to disprove it. In other words, scientists, who are merely human, can err even where solid fact is present. Why? Because merely human scientists, have faith and trust in their abilities and theories, and no faith or trust in the abilities and theories of their rivals. Faith and trust are just as much a part of science as fact-finding and experimentation is.

more…

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

If and when a “miracle” will occur in a proper double-blind experiment, conducted by atheist stage magicians, then and only then will I take this miracle seriously.

This is the most hilarious statement you have ever made, and this is the second time you have made it. That the man who does not believe in God, resorts to the credibility of scientists - but only those who prove themselves time and again - would accept the expertise of “atheist stage magicians” is so ludicrous it merits an action on my part that I have never used before —>

Hitetlen:

There is no dichotomy. I am skeptical about the experts of science just as much as I am skeptical about the “experts” of religion.

This is a false claim. You have a “measure” of skepticism towards experts of science that is far leaner than the heavy skepticism you apply towards religion.

Sigh I explained it so many times before. “Want” has nothing to do with it. To believe or to doubt are not subject to volitional control. One either believes or not.

You have also said, in a previous thread, that choice was not volitional either. Choice, belief, doubt… are not volitional? I do not agree and I do not know anyone who would. People who believe something one day may freely choose to not believe it the next.

Hitetlen:

…But to accept that such a being (God) exists, only ironclad proof is sufficient, hearsay, old books, testimonials are not enough.

But once again, science, reason, logic, experiments, and even Hitetlen cannot produce life from inanimate material; which is what we are supposed to believe. We are told by science that the earth was once molten from pole to pole for a million years and then it cooled. (This does not constitute the agar dish so agreeable to the production of life, as science postulates, it constitutes sterility - an environment totally void of any life form.)

From the happenstance mixing of chemicals, elements, and the occasional thunderbolt or passing gamma ray - the first single cell life form emerges. Fine… reproduce this. You have al of the chemicals, elements, and energy forces available now. Yet science, with all of its grand theories and intellects, cannot repoduce the process we are suppose to believ happened merely by accident.

Hitelen, until you or science can produce life from lifelessness, YOU are the testimonial and the ironclad proof that God exists.

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

In reality, simple pain avoidance is indeed what you are suggesting. In your posts to the thread offering a solution to your dilemma, you reiterate that an omnibenevolent God would not allow even justifiable pain. (Justifiable/unjustifiable - necessary/unnecessary) Simply put, if pain exists - then God cannot be omnibenevolent. Since such pain does exist - He cannot be omnibenevolent. This is the crux of your argument when one takes all of your posts into collective consideration.

This is a misunderstanding. I have allowed for “justifyable” pain. I wonder what caused your remark, if you would quote the post, please.

Thal59:

This is unbelievable. You hold the experts to a standard that they must meet? When you read an article by a man of science you never heard before, you do a detailed background check of his credentials?

Of course not “everything” is subject to detailed scrutiny. But if my life would depend on it, yes, then it would be the prudent thing to do. Not to mention that the detailed scrutiny is there, but not performed by me, rather by the fellow scientists.

Thal59:

Not faith alone, but faith is there. Scientists “trust” there powers of reasoning and logic as you do. They have “faith” in their educational backgrounds and methods of testing. They have “faith” in their ability to discern facts as they see them.

The poor word “faith” has several meanings, and we seem to use different ones. The religious “faith” is to believe something on little or no evidence, or even contrary to evidence. The “faith” I am using is an approximate synonym to “reasonable expectation”.

Thal59:

When the famous “Fermat’s last theorem” was finally proved, no one accepted it unquestioningly. All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it.<<<

What you are saying is that when this theorem was proven to be factual, even then many questioned it and tried to disprove it. In other words, scientists, who are merely human, can err even where solid fact is present. Why? Because merely human scientists, have faith and trust in their abilities and theories, and no faith or trust in the abilities and theories of their rivals. Faith and trust are just as much a part of science as fact-finding and experimentation is.Obviously you know very little about this. The proof is so complicated, that very few of the mathematicians know enough of the tools employed in this proof. The author spent close to TWENTY years in devising it. No wonder that doubt remains, whether he made some minor error in his deductions, it happened many-many times before.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

This is the most hilarious statement you have ever made, and this is the second time you have made it. That the man who does not believe in God, resorts to the credibility of scientists - but only those who prove themselves time and again - would accept the expertise of “atheist stage magicians” is so ludicrous it merits an action on my part that I have never used before —>

You just reveal your ignorace in this matter. Most miracles are the result of some trickery, and only the magicians are trained well enough to see through them. Just like a doctor is not qualified to build a bridge, and an engineer is not qualified to make a diagnosis. This is called specialization. Trickery and hoaxes are the specialty of the magicians.

Thal59:

This is a false claim. You have a “measure” of skepticism towards experts of science that is far leaner than the heavy skepticism you apply towards religion.

If that is true (and you have no way to know that), then it is the result of the fact that scientists have proved themselves over and over again, while religion has never been proved at all, not ever.

Thal59:

You have also said, in a previous thread, that choice was not volitional either. Choice, belief, doubt… are not volitional? I do not agree and I do not know anyone who would. People who believe something one day may freely choose to not believe it the next.

Try it, and when you can convince yourself that Santa Claus (or any fictional character of your choice) exists, then let me know about it.

Thal59:

But once again, science, reason, logic, experiments, and even Hitetlen cannot produce life from inanimate material; which is what we are supposed to believe. We are told by science that the earth was once molten from pole to pole for a million years and then it cooled. (This does not constitute the agar dish so agreeable to the production of life, as science postulates, it constitutes sterility - an environment totally void of any life form.)

From the happenstance mixing of chemicals, elements, and the occasional thunderbolt or passing gamma ray - the first single cell life form emerges. Fine… reproduce this. You have al of the chemicals, elements, and energy forces available now. Yet science, with all of its grand theories and intellects, cannot repoduce the process we are suppose to believ happened merely by accident.

Hitelen, until you or science can produce life from lifelessness, YOU are the testimonial and the ironclad proof that God exists.

That is called the God of the gaps. Since we don’t know how it happened - as of yet, therefore it must be God. Poor God, his realm of existence keeps diminishing with every new discovery.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

This is a misunderstanding. I have allowed for “justifyable” pain. I wonder what caused your remark, if you would quote the post, please.

This thread, your original post…

1. Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows unnecessary (or avoidable or justifiable/justified) pain and suffering.

Hitetlen:

Obviously you know very little about this. The proof is so complicated, that very few of the mathematicians know enough of the tools employed in this proof. The author spent close to TWENTY years in devising it. No wonder that doubt remains, whether he made some minor error in his deductions, it happened many-many times before.

We are not talking about the proof. We are talking about the human traits and motives of the scientists who disagreed with it. Here you state that there were obvious doubts because the proof was so complex. In other words, doubts were to be honestly and professionally expected. Yet compare this to your post when you first vrought it up…

Of course I would. When the famous “Fermat’s last theorem” was finally proved, no one accepted it unquestioningly. All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it. So far they failed in their attempts, but they keep trying.<<<

These people, who you defend later, are not merely trying to look for minor error in his deductions. They “Jumped” at it, doing their best to disprove it! Now, I know what you are going to say. That these scientists are simply doing their jobs by putting the theorem to the test of close examination and scrutiny to validate it. But your expression…"All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it" betrays their inner motives; jealousy and disbelief. Why? As I stated before, because they trust and have faith in themselves and their theories, but not in their rivals. Petty human rivalry.

True, the overall truth may come out in the end, but the fact remains that the truth is reached not merely with fact and experiment, but also with trust and faith…

The author spent close to TWENTY years in devising it.<<<

Why did he persist for 20 years? He had faith in his theory and trusted his ability.

Thal59

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Poor God, his realm of existence keeps diminishing with every new discovery

poor unbeliever, “woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry” (Luke 6,25).

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

You just reveal your ignorace in this matter. Most miracles are the result of some trickery, and only the magicians are trained well enough to see through them.

I am revealing my ignorance? What do you know of miracles? You know nothing, Hitetlen. And this is because you would never accept any evidence to the contrary, even the most valid medical testimony; including x-rays. This evidence exists.

Hitetlen:

Just like a doctor is not qualified to build a bridge, and an engineer is not qualified to make a diagnosis. This is called specialization. Trickery and hoaxes are the specialty of the magicians.

You infer that all miracles are nothing more than trickery and hoaxes. Yet again, you have absolutely no knowledge of miraculous events. Therefore, you must resort to something as laughable as “atheist stage magicians” to support your point of view. But what if one atheist stage magician, who for lets say monetary gain, fooled the atheist stage magician that you relied on to prove the validity/invalidity of the first magician’s miracle. Your “expert” returns to you and testifies that the miracle was legitimate. This is your idea of acceptable empirical evidence? Of course, you can always fall back on the usual line… “Well, I would then submit the first magician’s claim to the scrutiny of even more atheist stage magicians until one of them caught onto the first magician’s trick and exposed it.”

You know nothing of miracles. You have obviously never studied an accredited event. You biasly label all miracles as trickery and hoaxes. You then resort to “magicians,” which you can, of course, pull endlessly out of a rabbit’s hat until one of them supports your position.

Yet, you continually demand “scientific” proof of God. Hitetlen, if you cannot see the bottomless pit you stepped into with this one, all hope is lost for you.

Hitetlen:

Try it, and when you can convince yourself that Santa Claus (or any fictional character of your choice) exists, then let me know about it.

I have already deemed that you are a fictional character. You say you are an atheist, but you have never proven to me that you really exist. I have come to the conclusion that you are really my mother typing these goofy replies from a kiosk at the library just to irritate me… Hey mom, knock it off, will ya’?

Hitetlen:

That is called the God of the gaps. Since we don’t know how it happened - as of yet, therefore it must be God. Poor God, his realm of existence keeps diminishing with every new discovery.

This is not a gap, this is an unbridgeable gulf. Science can travel to the moon, decode DNA, build atomic bombs… but it cannot repeat the random mixing of chemicals, elements and energy to create an ameoba. You then finish off with a silly remark inferring that whenever science makes a discovery it somehow diminishes God’s existence???

How many atheist scientists do you think there are?

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

This thread, your original post…

1. Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows unnecessary (or avoidable or justifiable/justified) pain and suffering.

I am sorry, but what is the problem? The double negative could be somewhat misleading, I admit. “God does not allow unnecessary pain” simply means that “God only allows necessary pain”.

Thal59:

We are not talking about the proof. We are talking about the human traits and motives of the scientists who disagreed with it. Here you state that there were obvious doubts because the proof was so complex. In other words, doubts were to be honestly and professionally expected. Yet compare this to your post when you first vrought it up…

Of course I would. When the famous “Fermat’s last theorem” was finally proved, no one accepted it unquestioningly. All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it. So far they failed in their attempts, but they keep trying.<<<

These people, who you defend later, are not merely trying to look for minor error in his deductions. They “Jumped” at it, doing their best to disprove it! Now, I know what you are going to say. That these scientists are simply doing their jobs by putting the theorem to the test of close examination and scrutiny to validate it. But your expression…“All the capable mathematicians jumped at it, doing their very best to try and disprove it” betrays their inner motives; jealousy and disbelief. Why? As I stated before, because they trust and have faith in themselves and their theories, but not in their rivals. Petty human rivalry.

With the exception of the red highlighted text you are absolutely correct. Yes, scientists are petty and jealous, They want the fame and “glory” of proving such an incredibly difficult problem to be associated with their name, not their rival’s name. It has nothing to do with having “faith” in themselves and lack of faith in their rivals.

Now, I did not describe all the events about this particular discovery: before the mathematicians tried to dissect the proof, they opened champage all around the Earth to celebrate. What can I say: typical humans.

>>>The author spent close to TWENTY years in devising it.<<<

Why did he persist for 20 years? He had faith in his theory and trusted his ability.

Yes, in one very good sense of the word “faith”. However I suspect that he is a very stubborn person, too.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

That is called the God of the gaps. Since we don’t know how it happened - as of yet, therefore it must be God. Poor God, his realm of existence keeps diminishing with every new discovery.

This is called “invincible emptiness”.
Jer 17, 5: “Thus says the Lord: Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings, who seeks his strength in flesh, whose heart turns away from the Lord.”

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

You infer that all miracles are nothing more than trickery and hoaxes.

Careful, buddy. I explicitly said that “most” so called miracles are hoaxes, not that “all” of them are. Maybe there are some truly astonishing miracles out there. But to separate the wheat from the chaff, you need the experts, yes, those magicians.

Thal59:

Of course, you can always fall back on the usual line… “Well, I would then submit the first magician’s claim to the scrutiny of even more atheist stage magicians until one of them caught onto the first magician’s trick and exposed it.”

Naturally. If something can be repeated via everyday, natural methods, it could not have been a miracle in the first pleace, could it? None of them could actually “prove” that a miracle happened, but they could make it very probable that it did happen.

Thal59:

Yet, you continually demand “scientific” proof of God. Hitetlen, if you cannot see the bottomless pit you stepped into with this one, all hope is lost for you.

Of course I do. There is no pit here, only a lot of (well meaning, but) unfounded assertions.

Thal59:

I have already deemed that you are a fictional character. You say you are an atheist, but you have never proven to me that you really exist. I have come to the conclusion that you are really my mother typing these goofy replies from a kiosk at the library just to irritate me… Hey mom, knock it off, will ya’?

Hehe, ok well, then you can stop replying, and I will not address you (personally) any more. It will probably be a mutual loss, but your free will is respected by me.

Thal59:
This is not a gap, this is an unbridgeable gulf. Science can travel to the moon, decode DNA, build atomic bombs… but it cannot repeat the random mixing of chemicals, elements and energy to create an ameoba. You then finish off with a silly remark inferring that whenever science makes a discovery it somehow diminishes God’s existence???You are too impatient. Real science has barely started a few hundred years ago. (To say that the original appearance of life will “never” be explained, requires omniscience, and surely you don’t want to claim that).

Thal59:

How many atheist scientists do you think there are?

Most of them!

 

[stella95]

Why would discovering more about the way nature works diminish God in any way? We’re discovering more about the world He created. This adds to our knowledge; has no effect on Him or His power.

Hitetlan is going back to the 19th-20th century atheists/agnostics/sceptics who believed that human beings created gods because that was the only way they could ease their fear of the unknown. However that is historically far from the truth, isn’t it?

Take past beliefs about the way the human mind works. In the Middle Ages educated people believed that the human personality was created mechanically, through the action of various humors. The theory is nonsense, obviously, but they didn’t know that. They believed it. They believed that they had figured out, mechanically, medically, with no intrusion of spirituality or the soul in any way, how our personalities develop. This didn’t stop them from believing in God, and quite rightly, too, because whether the humors or study of the brain tell us something about the way our personality works has nothing to do with the existence of God.

OK, Hitetlan, I am curious: if scientists suddenly discovered a way to make us all immortal; if they perfected space travel so that we wouldn’t have to be sterilized because of population worries and were free to spread all over the universe, if they found ways of feeding us so that no one went hungry; if medicine and science advanced to such a level that disease, natural disasters, accidents no longer killed or maimed…After all that do you think there would be fewer broken hearts? Fewer people doing nasty things? Less Corruption? Less cruelty? Fewer people dissatisfied with their existence for reasons they could not explain? Fewer people standing by the ocean, longing for things they could not verbalize?

I think scientists may be able to do that for us over the next few thousand years, maybe sooner. I think all that will make us more comfortable and take away many worries, but I don’t think we’ll be any nicer or more satisfied with out lot as a result of their labor.

 

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

Why would discovering more about the way nature works diminish God in any way? We’re discovering more about the world He created. This adds to our knowledge; has no effect on Him or His power.

But you say something different. The usual “god-of-the-gaps” states that some things could not have happened on their own, so some type of “god” is necessry to explain them - which is claiming omniscience.

stella95:

OK, Hitetlan, I am very curious: if scientists suddenly discovered a way to make us all immortal; if they found ways of feeding us so that no one went hungry; if medicine and science advanced to such a level that disease, natural disasters, accidents no longer killed or maimed…do you think the individuals on this earth would be any happier than they are now? Do you think there would be fewer broken hearts? Fewer people doing nasty things? Less Corruption? Fewer people dissatisfied with their existence for reasons they could not explain? Fewer people standing by the ocean, longing for things they could not verbalize?

I am not a prophet, as I am sure you know, but I can give you my view. Whether they will be happier (etc.) is possible. That is all: possible. To quote and paraphrase an old saying: “Money can’t buy you happiness and love”, and my addition: “but the lack of money does not bring you happiness and love either”. When one is cold, hungry or sick, it is much less probable that he or she will be “happy”. With basic necessities fulfilled at least people will have a better chance.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

You are too impatient. Real science has barely started a few hundred years ago.
Most of them!

Curious, funny, ridiculous: The unbeliever does not believe in God but believe in man. Would be impossible for him to live without giving importance to things they do not have it.

 

[jimbomill]

Definitions:

1. God, if exists, must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
2. Omniscient means that God knows everything that can be known.
3. Omnipotent means that God can perform everything but logically contradictory acts.
4. Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows unnecessary (or avoidable or justifiable/justified) pain and suffering.

Corollary:

1. God is logical. This follows from omniscience. Logic is knowable.

Problem: What is necessary pain and who should decide if a pain is necessary or not. This is the fundamental question, probably subject to contention. Here is the problem: in order to decide if a pain was necessary, one must be aware of the “good” side effect, and one must decide if the pain leading to that side effect was “worth the price, or not”.

1. To be aware of an alleged good outcome, one needs relevant knowledge (preferably omniscience, though it is not strictly necessary). Since we lack omniscience, it seems that only God is qualified to decide if there is a “good enough” outcome stemming from the pain and suffering. God does not inform us of these “possible” good outcomes, so we must make our decisions based upon what we know. Since God could choose to inform us about the alleged “goods” and chose not to, essentially we are left to our own devices, and are authorized to make value judgments according to the available information.
2. Who is qualified decide if the pain was worth the alleged good outcome? It cannot be God, since he is not the sufferer. Only the being affected by the pain and suffering is qualified to make that decision. That brings up two different categories of sufferers:

a) Animals, young children and mentally retarded people, who lack the sufficient bra(name removed by moderator)ower to make such decisions.

b) Sufficiently developed adults, who are able to make such decisions.

Of these two categories, the adults who are subject to pain and suffering, must decide for themselves if the pain was “worth it” – based upon what they know about the alleged “good outcome”. If they consider that it was “worth it”, then there is no problem, the pain is justified. If they decide that it was not, then it was not and the pain is unjustified. One cannot argue that “IF” we had been given the necessary information, then we “would have” deemed it necessary. Maybe yes, maybe no. What may be a sufficiently good reason for one person, may be woefully inadequate for someone else.

Also we cannot make those decisions for someone else; that would bring up the ludicrous picture of someone “enduring” someone else’s pain and suffering. More specifically, God cannot make these decisions for us. Since God is not a corporeal being, he cannot introspectively experience pain, which is a fully physical phenomenon, even if he would “know” about our pain, due to his omniscience. Even another human being cannot experience someone else’s pain as if it were his own. We all experienced a headache (for example) but that is not enough to subjectively experience someone else’s headache, even if it is qualified as a “horrible, splitting headache”.

The problem of the animals, children and retarded persons is more complex. Since the parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children, the “burden” of justifying the pain and suffering perpetrated unto their child falls on their shoulders. If the parents agree that the child’s suffering is justified by the outcome, again there is no problem,** the pain is justified**. If the parents decide that the suffering was too much, then it was too much, and the pain is unjustified.

Since we do not “own” the wild animals and do not have responsibility for them (the Bible’s vague assertion notwithstanding – after all there are far too many of them to “take care” of each and every animal), it is a simple question. No amount of pain and suffering of animals can ever be justified (a quick and painless killing may be justified). They are not moral beings; they are not responsible for their actions. The same applies to the mentally retarded people.

(continued)

Why must God be Omnibenevelent (or any other omni-) to that definition? It seems rather anthropomorphic to me, more mirthful than compelling.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I am not a prophet, as I am sure you know

your own definition: “My consciousness (mind) is just the electro-chemical working of my brain, which will cease to function at my death.”
bad news: unbelievers are going to be “thrown into the pool of fire.” forever. But do not worry: keep thinking that your “opinions” are wiser than the wisdom of God.

 

[Hitetlen]

jimbomill:

Why must God be Omnibenevelent (or any other omni-) to that definition? It seems rather anthropomorphic to me, more mirthful than compelling.

Oh yes, that is absolutely correct. All the gods are very anthropomorphic.