Is there necessary suffering?

[R_Daneel]

Yes.

You object to suffering because you think God could use a better method. What better method is there? What else teaches you to look outside of yourself?

That is easy. You say that your suffering created a bunch of changes in you. For me those changes are the modifications in your neural system, some connections broken, and new connections established. For you it might be some modifications in your soul. The precise details are not available to us, and they don’t really matter. What does matter is the fact that those changes do not constitute a logically impossible state of affairs, and thus they could have been made by God, directly, without resorting to the suffering part.

In one sense, you cannot win this argument in a positive way. For you to defeat the benevolence of God, you would have to show that there is a positively better way than suffering to accomplish the stated goals. It is practically impossible for you to demonstrate this, because you simply cannot analyze data on that scale.

Almost correct. But I don’t have to show all that much. It is sufficient if I can show that in one instance, a minute lessing of the suffering would also get the same result. However, you would retort that I cannot show even that, on account of insufficient information - and you would have been right. That is why I changed the scenario in this thread. I do not ask from you to show that ALL the possible sufferings are logically necessary. Only one example will suffice.

However, in a more general, less syllogistic way, we can discuss whether or not any other options seem to be a better alternative. What alternate method of education would you propose? Having seen the beneficial effects of suffering in my own life, I can conclude that suffering as a method worked in my case. What other way do you propose to result in the same effect in me?

As I said above. To create the very same changes in you directly. An example. There are some people who assert that the world is really only about 6000 years old. (I know you are not one of them.) They say that all the evidence, for example the radioactive carbon decay method could have been “faked” by God. There were no dinosaurs, God simply “implanted” the bones, to “confuse us”. Of course neither of us takes it seriously. But, theoretically God could have done it. As long as there is no logical contradiction invloved, God’s omnipotence could do anything and everything.

 

[Sarpedon]

That is easy. You say that your suffering created a bunch of changes in you. For me those changes are the modifications in your neural system, some connections broken, and new connections established. For you it might be some modifications in your soul. The precise details are not available to us, and they don’t really matter. What does matter is the fact that those changes do not constitute a logically impossible state of affairs, and thus they could have been made by God, directly, without resorting to the suffering part.

You are making a couple of assertions here:

1. That a free personhood can be entirely composed of neural connections, which are entirely at the control of God. You say that these details are not available to us.
2. Just because it might be possible for us to exist in a form different from what we are doesn’t mean that suffering is not logically necessary in light of what we are. The fact of the matter is that we exist in a certain way. Suffering may be necessary in light of how we exist. While you can speculate on what would be necessary if we existed in a different way, you still haven’t shown that such a different form of existence is superior to the one we have. Maybe there are more important considerations than suffering which comes into play.

As I said above. To create the very same changes in you directly. An example. There are some people who assert that the world is really only about 6000 years old. (I know you are not one of them.) They say that all the evidence, for example the radioactive carbon decay method could have been “faked” by God. There were no dinosaurs, God simply “implanted” the bones, to “confuse us”. Of course neither of us takes it seriously. But, theoretically God could have done it. As long as there is no logical contradiction invloved, God’s omnipotence could do anything and everything.

I notice that you switch from an example of personality to an example of nature. Nature lacks a personality. Nature has no free will and no intellect. Therefore, God can easily make whatever changes He wants in nature (although He chooses to not deceive us, as in your example). In people, though, things are different. We have a free will and an intellect, and the capacity to direct our own formation by using that will and intellect. People have the capacity to influence how their own minds develop- hence, the parental concern over what children are exposed to.

The example I gave (to fulfill your requirement) is an example of free will and intellect. Responsibility and diligence are traits that stem from choice initially, which then becomes habit. Suffering provided me with the opportunity to develop those habits by consciously directing my free mind. This is entirely different than your example of impersonal nature, so you have not yet told me how God could have effected the same changes in me without using suffering.

 

[petr]

This smells like bait. But,

Marriage. Ideal example.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are making a couple of assertions here:

1. That a free personhood can be entirely composed of neural connections, which are entirely at the control of God. You say that these details are not available to us.

I only mentioned this as one of the options. I left the other one open for you.

1. Just because it might be possible for us to exist in a form different from what we are doesn’t mean that suffering is not logically necessary in light of what we are. The fact of the matter is that we exist in a certain way. Suffering may be necessary in light of how we exist. While you can speculate on what would be necessary if we existed in a different way, you still haven’t shown that such a different form of existence is superior to the one we have. Maybe there are more important considerations than suffering which comes into play.

Maybe yes, maybe not. But maybe is not an argument.

I notice that you switch from an example of personality to an example of nature. Nature lacks a personality. Nature has no free will and no intellect. Therefore, God can easily make whatever changes He wants in nature (although He chooses to not deceive us, as in your example). In people, though, things are different. We have a free will and an intellect, and the capacity to direct our own formation by using that will and intellect. People have the capacity to influence how their own minds develop- hence, the parental concern over what children are exposed to.

There is a difference, but in this respect it is not relevant. Suppose God wanted everyone to be good in mathematics. One method is to go to school, and learn, whatever you can learn. Takes a lot of effort, and for most people it is not fun (some even suffer). The other method is to implant the necessary knowledge directly into us. It would decrease the “suffering” of going to school to learn math, and free up the time for other uses, like listening to music, or enjoying each other’s company. Where is the downside?

The example I gave (to fulfill your requirement) is an example of free will and intellect. Responsibility and diligence are traits that stem from choice initially, which then becomes habit. Suffering provided me with the opportunity to develop those habits by consciously directing my free mind. This is entirely different than your example of impersonal nature, so you have not yet told me how God could have effected the same changes in me without using suffering.

The point is that God is not able to create logically contradictory states of affairs. But anything else is part of omnipotence, be it impersonal or intelligent. I make no other assumptions.

 

[Sarpedon]

Maybe yes, maybe not. But maybe is not an argument.

Theists are not making an argument out of suffering. We do not prove God by suffering. You are trying to disprove God by suffering.

There is a difference, but in this respect it is not relevant. Suppose God wanted everyone to be good in mathematics. One method is to go to school, and learn, whatever you can learn. Takes a lot of effort, and for most people it is not fun (some even suffer). The other method is to implant the necessary knowledge directly into us. It would decrease the “suffering” of going to school to learn math, and free up the time for other uses, like listening to music, or enjoying each other’s company. Where is the downside?

We already know that we ought to be good. We know that from the very beginning. However, simply having knowledge of something is not sufficient for acting on that knowledge. We need to have the will to act upon that knowledge. Suffering provides the impetus to act upon the knowledge we already have, which then in turn paves the way for future intellectual improvement.

My anxiety disorder did not teach me that being moral is good. Rather, it required my immediate action, which caused be to develop the habit of acting upon the knowledge I already had. Can you provide an example that goes beyond mere factual knowledge and encompasses a freely trained will?

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

R Daneel,
Looking through this thread it occurs to me that you are taking up two contradictory positions. On the one hand you do not want anyone to suggest spiritual scenarios, as when you say “let’s keep this down to earth.” At the same time if someone comes up with a fitting example you point out that God could have induced the good result without the associated suffering. How can you forbid theology and then use it to cast aside reasonable answers?