Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[ateista]

So CAN God exist as “not good”? (To you, of course.)

It is possible, but very unlikely, that some highly advanced being (you call it God) exists, who played an instrumental role in the development of the world. Based upon our observations such a being cannot be called “good”, at best it could be indifferent.

It is often good for an adult to cross a busy street by himself.
It is seldom good for a toddler to cross a busy street by himself.

It is never good to be burn to death alive.

(( How’s it going Agnostheist!? ))

It is going pretty good, thank you.

Is it really wise to be so literal, and think you know precisely what you’re talking about when your use of words is obviously flawed?

It is good to be precise, and my usage of the words is not flawed at all. Your saying so does not make it a valid argument.

 

[ateista]

That is why those who claim (but can’t truly believe) that there is no revelation from God are so angry, despairing and hopeless.

Please don’t make such assumptions. Such ad hominems only lower the value of your arguements.

They demand instant perfection when all that is available is reality. A very frustrating situation for worshippers of “instant perfection”, who can’t deal personally with reality.

I deal with reality just fine. Simple logic says that a perfect God would only create a perfect world. What would be the point of creating something less than perfect? And one of the attributes of perfection is that it stays perfect, and cannot be destroyed.

 

[ateista]

It is simply axiomatic that if the suffering IS allowed by God, then it is necessary suffering, and rewarded by God when He sees fit.

This is a serious mistake! Nothing is axiomatic when discussing God.

Let’s reformulate what you said: “It is simply axiomatic that heavy objects all fall upwards when released. If we see that they fall down, it is merely due to our lack of knowledge.” Do you see how silly such “arguement” is?

At best it is a hypothesis that God exists. At best it is a hypothesis that God is “good”. If all the actual evidence points to the other direction, to maintain the validity of the hypothesis is intellectually dishonest.

If their suffering is caused by the culpable sin of others (or another) then those others need to repent of their sin and be forgiven or have their sin drag them to hell.

Irrelevant. The punishment of the guilty cannot not serve as a compensation for the injustice allowed.

You are over formulating.

Nope, I am being precise.

If one is innocent, and suffers, then one is rewarded as an innocent who suffered.

If one is innocent, and doesn’t suffer, then one is rewarded as an innocent who didn’t suffer.

This is a very serious logical mistake. According to the apologists, the suffering must be a necessary prereqisite to the greater good in order to be justifyable. It does not work in the other direction.

That would lead to the absurdity that a father who beats his child just a little (but for no good reason) can give that child a small candy bar as a “compensation” or reward. If, however, that father would beat that child to half dead, then giving him a Cadillac would be the adequate “reward”.

No reward can justify retroactively an injustice. As such the suffering of innocent children due to starvation or diseases cannot be “justified” by later rewards.

All innocents are rewarded, period. Their actual reward is ALWAYS the most merciful and loving reward.

Irrelevant. If the suffering is not a logical prerequisite, it was not necessary.

Now a little more of the precision, which you seem to dislike. The absolutely necessary amount of pain in order to achieve some greater good is a mathematical quantity. Even one iota of pain over and beyond that amount is already unnecessary.

An example of the pain of touching a hot surface. A little burning would be a necessary pain to teach that touching a hot surface is useful - to avoid later, more serious burning. But the fact is that sometimes children do not escape with a “little” burn, they get seriously burned. That extra amount of pain cannot be justifyed as a “teaching tool”. As such it is unnecessary - and therefore morally unjustifyable.

You seem to be beating about the bush to prove SOMETHING! What is that “something” you’re trying to prove?

I leave that for you to figure out.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It is often good for an adult to cross a busy street by himself.
It is seldom good for a toddler to cross a busy street by himself.

It is never good to be burn to death alive.

It is certainly good for some animals to be burned alive, or boiled alive, or eviscerated alive if that is what is best for them to be of most value to us as food!

Just as it is best for them to be eaten alive, which is the normal condition of their deaths, when they eat each other.

Once again, you confuse persons with non-persons.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
That is why those who claim (but can’t truly believe) that there is no revelation from God are so angry, despairing and hopeless.

Please don’t make such assumptions. Such ad hominems only lower the value of your arguements.

That is not an ad hominem attack. It is simply an observation by me of those who claim there is no revelation from God. Those people do indeed tend to be quite angry, despairing and hopeless in their outlook of the world they live in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
They demand instant perfection when all that is available is reality. A very frustrating situation for worshippers of “instant perfection”, who can’t deal personally with reality.

I deal with reality just fine. Simple logic says that a perfect God would only create a perfect world. What would be the point of creating something less than perfect? And one of the attributes of perfection is that it stays perfect, and cannot be destroyed.

Your “simple” logic is just that. Simple, and simplistic, and needlessly incorrect.

Since you have a faulty definition, understanding, of God qua God, which means God AS God, ANY conclusion you come to based on your (mis)understanding of God is highly likely to be incorrect.

For example, an omnipotent God, which is God as God is, is not FORCED to create His creation in any way He doesn’t find most best, meaning He is not FORCED to create a creation that is “perfect according to Ateista”!

Could it be that God’s perfection as regards the universe is not YOUR so-called “perfection”?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It is simply axiomatic that if the suffering IS allowed by God, then it is necessary suffering, and rewarded by God when He sees fit.

This is a serious mistake! Nothing is axiomatic when discussing God.

Let’s reformulate what you said: “It is simply axiomatic that heavy objects all fall upwards when released. If we see that they fall down, it is merely due to our lack of knowledge.” Do you see how silly such “arguement” is?

At best it is a hypothesis that God exists. At best it is a hypothesis that God is “good”. If all the actual evidence points to the other direction, to maintain the validity of the hypothesis is intellectually dishonest.

Once again, I don’t argue such things with those who don’t believe in revelation, as there is no way through such “armoring of the mind”.

I’ll just leave you to the implications and results of your beliefs.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
If one is innocent, and suffers, then one is rewarded as an innocent who suffered.

If one is innocent, and doesn’t suffer, then one is rewarded as an innocent who didn’t suffer.

This is a very serious logical mistake. According to the apologists, the suffering must be a necessary prereqisite to the greater good in order to be justifyable. It does not work in the other direction.

That would lead to the absurdity that a father who beats his child just a little (but for no good reason) can give that child a small candy bar as a “compensation” or reward. If, however, that father would beat that child to half dead, then giving him a Cadillac would be the adequate “reward”.

No reward can justify retroactively an injustice. As such the suffering of innocent children due to starvation or diseases cannot be “justified” by later rewards.

You seem incapable of accepting that God simply CAN’T do an injustice!

Since that idea is not allowed in any “logic” you string together to so-called “justify” your conclusions, I’ll leave you to deal with your “ideas” and hope that they don’t bend your mind any more than is only slightly unhealthy for you.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

An example of the pain of touching a hot surface. A little burning would be a necessary pain to teach that touching a hot surface is useful - to avoid later, more serious burning.

But the fact is that sometimes children do not escape with a “little” burn, they get seriously burned. That extra amount of pain cannot be justifyed as a “teaching tool”. As such it is unnecessary - and therefore morally unjustifyable.

I’m terribly sorry that you were “overly burned” as a child. I shall pray that you get over your misplaced resentment toward God, and realize that you don’t need to “know everything” to not be angry with the world.

 

[minkymurph]

Only persons who aren’t non-incarnate God can be victims, of course. And only persons who aren’t God can be victimizers.

The victim of an abusive and evil act of sadism on an animal is the non-God person who does such a thing. God is simply incapable, axiomatically, of doing evil, and is capable of being a victim only in His incarnation.

I don’t really understand what this quote means.

I’m not really sure what your post is investigating. I’m not sure I agree with the post here. Christ, as the Incarnation chose to be a victim which is more or less said here, but those that chooose to follow him may also be victims. Are humans victim due to what God chooses for them despite the fact they are not Incarnate? You ask about animals. I don’t know that has been revealed yet. I have ofte questioned nature, as God is present in nature, sustaining all living things, what is the purpose? I don’t know. What I do know is everthing has a purpose.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I don’t really understand what this quote means.

I’m not really sure what your post is investigating. I’m not sure I agree with the post here.

Christ, as the Incarnation chose to be a victim which is more or less said here, but those that chooose to follow him may also be victims.

Those who choose to follow Christ are not victimized by God, in any of His persons, but by other human persons (and to some extent by demonic-persons as well, of course).

God NEVER victimizes, and was only a victim of victimizers once, during His incarnation.

Are humans victim due to what God chooses for them despite the fact they are not Incarnate?

God does not victimize. Full stop. This is an axiomatic statement. It is always true.

That God allows an individual “the cross” of some suffering by either being victimized by non-God persons or by our placement within our environment is our opportunity to “bear our cross” so as to bring ourselves and mankind closer to God and our (us individually and mankind’s) ultimate salvation.

You ask about animals. I don’t know that has been revealed yet. I have ofte questioned nature, as God is present in nature, sustaining all living things, what is the purpose? I don’t know. What I do know is everthing has a purpose.

Nature, which is creation which was created FOR US, has the purpose of being where we are to do what we are to do to perfect ourselves so as to have what God wants for us.

It has no other purpose. It does not exist for any benefit but ours, and what truly is a benefit to us is that which gets us closer to choosing God over all else by obeying Him.

 

[Benadam]

In order to experience pain, one needs a nervous system. Plants have no nervous system, but animals do. A tree does not feel pain, if one of his branches is broken or it is uprooted by a hurricane. A spider feels pain if one of its legs is torn off. The difference is the nervous system, which allows to feel pain and pleasure.

So life became a victim of damage to it caused by random events as the nervous system developed.

Why in your view would a refined ability to sense damage caused by random events be the reason that those random events must have a just cause for inflicting the damage?

This reasoning draws the conclusion that damage caused by God to life with a nervous system possesses more dignity thereby making damage inflicted on it by God, subject to human judgement.

Are these rules of justice yours or do they come from somewhere else?

Where and why would the nervous system aquire and possess such a higher dignity?

The only difference I see is Christians cannot judge absolutely but subjectively draw that line at the place within us that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of good and evil.

That line for Christians is drawn at the intellect rather than the nervous system.

the existence of the nervous system does not offer the ability to feel victimized. This experience requires intellect.

You draw that line at the ability to feel pain. With that division of just pain from unjust pain as a basis.

You conclude that the existence of the nervous system within life proves the God that Christians believe doesn’t exist because the human intellect can’t discern a just cause for it.

Ateista when I dissect the grounds of your assertion I find it far from able to draw conclusions about God’s existence.

 

[ateista]

It is certainly good for some animals to be burned alive, or boiled alive, or eviscerated alive if that is what is best for them to be of most value to us as food!

Good for them? You are weird. In my eyes, to kill an animal for food is natural. But only to kill as painlessly as possible. Not in some elaborate, torturous way, even if that would make them tastier.

 

[ateista]

That is not an ad hominem attack. It is simply an observation by me of those who claim there is no revelation from God. Those people do indeed tend to be quite angry, despairing and hopeless in their outlook of the world they live in.

Total BS. How many atheists do you know personally? I know many, and somehow none of them is angry, despairing and hopeless.

Since you have a faulty definition, understanding, of God qua God, which means God AS God, ANY conclusion you come to based on your (mis)understanding of God is highly likely to be incorrect.

Don’t be so condescending. I learned Latin. And I only claim to understand the human concept called God, not the hypothetical being this concept is supposed to represent.

For example, an omnipotent God, which is God as God is, is not FORCED to create His creation in any way He doesn’t find most best, meaning He is not FORCED to create a creation that is “perfect according to Ateista”!

Who talked about “forced”? I said that it is illogical to create an inferior world, unless of course God wanted a playground? Certainly a self-sufficient being would never create anything.

 

[ateista]

You seem incapable of accepting that God simply CAN’T do an injustice!

That is merely your opinion. Of course if you define “just” as whatever God does, then you are correct. However, if justice is to have any meaning, it would be defined independently and would apply to humans and gods equally. “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi” is just a Latin nonsense.

Since that idea is not allowed in any “logic” you string together to so-called “justify” your conclusions, I’ll leave you to deal with your “ideas” and hope that they don’t bend your mind any more than is only slightly unhealthy for you.

Your consescending tone is getting tedious. It certainly does not qualify as argument.

 

[ateista]

I’m terribly sorry that you were “overly burned” as a child. I shall pray that you get over your misplaced resentment toward God, and realize that you don’t need to “know everything” to not be angry with the world.

Again, psychoanalyzing is not an argument. And you know practically nothing about me or my disposition toward the world. You did not answer my arguments, and blabbering about my alleged anger is just a usual cop-out of those who are unable to answer the points I brought up.

 

[ateista]

So life became a victim of damage to it caused by random events as the nervous system developed.

Why in your view would a refined ability to sense damage caused by random events be the reason that those random events must have a just cause for inflicting the damage?

This reasoning draws the conclusion that damage caused by God to life with a nervous system possesses more dignity thereby making damage inflicted on it by God, subject to human judgement.

Are these rules of justice yours or do they come from somewhere else?

I am not sure exactly what is your point. Justice is a simple concept: “innocents should not be punished”. That is all.

Life with a nervous system (which is capable of experiencing pain and pleasure) is very different from life without it. There is no dignity involved here; most people find it abhorrent to inflict useless pain on innocent beings - obviously understanding that they do not want pain inflicted on them.

If we view the world as atheists, then the burning of animals in some natural disaster is a sad, but natural phenomenon. It would be nice if it did not happen, but to avoid it beyond our means. If we see a burning stable we open the door so the horses could escape unharmed, don’t we?

If one believes in a benevolent deity, the picture is quite different. The concept of “goodness” or “benevolence” excludes the existence of random, gratuitous pain and suffering. The whole thread is about to prove that some of the pain and suffering cannot be justified on a moral ground. Therefore the existence of a benevolent deity is an incorrect hypothesis.

The only difference I see is Christians cannot judge absolutely but subjectively draw that line at the place within us that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of good and evil.

That line for Christians is drawn at the intellect rather than the nervous system.

the existence of the nervous system does not offer the ability to feel victimized. This experience requires intellect.

Sure, but that is beside the point. Whether one is able to intellectually understand to be victimized or simply feels the pain is irrelevant.

You conclude that the existence of the nervous system within life proves the God that Christians believe doesn’t exist because the human intellect can’t discern a just cause for it.

I will reiterate it for you:

1. If the pain inflicted is necessary to achieve some greater good for the one who experiences the pain, there is no problem. But of course the pain but be precisely equal to the necessary level to achieve this greater good.
2. If the pain is inflicted on someone who agrees to the pain, in order to get some greater good for someone else, there is no problem again.
3. The problem comes if the pain is inflicted on an unwilling and innocent being who will not benefit from it. Whether someone else will benefit from it, or not is of no relevance. To allow an innocent being to suffer if unjust and cruel. To squabble about the inferiority of the animals is just a cop-out.

Example: there are many animal-experiments conducted in medical and cosmetological research. One can argue that such experiments will increase the well-being of the people who will benefit from the gained medical of cosmetic products. I say that such research cannot be justified on moral or ethical grounds…

They can be “justified” on the grounds that we are superior to the animals and we have the “right” to inflict pain on them. But that is just the same old “might makes right” argument. If a superior race of beings would come from a distant planet, they could use the same reasoning to use us as food or experimental subjects. And that would be quite annoying, wouldn’t it?

But my original problem is even simpler: the painful aspect of death of animals in a wildfire is totally without any use or necessity. Even if their death would serve some greater purpose, (which could be argued), the way they die (burning to death) does not add any extra benefit.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I’m terribly sorry that you were “overly burned” as a child. I shall pray that you get over your misplaced resentment toward God, and realize that you don’t need to “know everything” to not be angry with the world.

Again, psychoanalyzing is not an argument. And you know practically nothing about me or my disposition toward the world.

It’s quite obvious what your “disposition toward the world” is, and I’ve gotten quite enough “data” to draw the conclusion I have.

You did not answer my arguments, and blabbering about my alleged anger is just a usual cop-out of those who are unable to answer the points I brought up.

This is your “argument”:
“But the fact is that sometimes children do not escape with a “little” burn, they get seriously burned. That extra amount of pain cannot be justifyed as a “teaching tool”. As such it is unnecessary - and therefore morally unjustifyable.”

Your proposition is that God (our agent of pain-infliction) applies an unnecessary amount of pain to an innocent person as a “teaching tool” and is immoral in doing so.

This is incorrect in these ways:
*) God does not apply the pain.
*) The entity being taught is not ONLY the innocent person.
*) God simply CAN’T be immoral, axiomatically.

All “happenings” happen to teach mankind something. The learning from these teachings is necessary because every “happening” is generated as a consequence of mankind’s original sin.

Bad things happen to good (innocent) people for the betterment of mankind in ways sometimes ONLY known to God Himself.

For someone who doesn’t believe in God to be angry at God for doing what He won’t and doesn’t do, so that he can PROVE in an irrational way that all “God Believers” are fools, which he doesn’t succeed in ever doing because he’s perfectly transparently irrational, is a bit sad.

Your “high school” philosophizing is pathetic, but that’s not your fault, as it is fed to vulnerable children who oft times are hurting very badly and deeply from childhood traumas, and will grasp at any straw available, no matter how weak, to try to lure fellow victims near to them to commiserate with.

(Or, more likely, just to annoy their elders and betters.)

 

[CatsAndDogs]

If we view the world as atheists, then the burning of animals in some natural disaster is a sad, but natural phenomenon. It would be nice if it did not happen, but to avoid it beyond our means. If we see a burning stable we open the door so the horses could escape unharmed, don’t we?

If one believes in a benevolent deity, the picture is quite different. The concept of “goodness” or “benevolence” excludes the existence of random, gratuitous pain and suffering. The whole thread is about to prove that some of the pain and suffering cannot be justified on a moral ground. Therefore the existence of a benevolent deity is an incorrect hypothesis.

Not the “concept of goodness or benevolence” but GOD excludes the existence of random gratuitous pain and suffering!

There is no random gratuitous pain and suffering.

All pain and suffering is for man’s benefit, much of the time in ways only God knows.

The pain and suffering of non-persons is repaid to those beings in ways unknown to us, but since, axiomatically, God is all-just and all-merciful those non-persons are treated with all justice and mercy due them.

You are quite right in coming to the conclusions that you do with the absurd assumptions you start with. Your absurd assumptions lead you to where your desires are fulfilled. To live in a world where your suffering is meaningless, and your Father is expelled to the dustbin of unnecessity.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Example: there are many animal-experiments conducted in medical and cosmetological research. One can argue that such experiments will increase the well-being of the people who will benefit from the gained medical of cosmetic products. I say that such research cannot be justified on moral or ethical grounds…

Animal testing for cosmetics is NOT (in my opinion) a justification for the coursening of those who do such testing.

But much animal testing is indeed quite justified.

They can be “justified” on the grounds that we are superior to the animals and we have the “right” to inflict pain on them. But that is just the same old “might makes right” argument. If a superior race of beings would come from a distant planet, they could use the same reasoning to use us as food or experimental subjects. And that would be quite annoying, wouldn’t it?

I’m not sure what universe you’re living in, but my universe trumps your hypothetical one.

The entire universe was created for man. Now, should we come to find that there are beings who can hop from livable ecology to livable ecology and get here, then they will most likely be,… wait for it… MEN!

My hypothesis is as good as yours, at least.

Now, should they decide that we are “sub-men” then they would be no different than many other men of our planet, who errantly consider themselves to be GODS whose might makes right.

And what do we call men like these? So-called ATHEISTS!

 

[Equites_Christi]

I’m not sure people are really seeing what ateista is saying, so I figured I’d give it a whirl.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that ateista is saying that:

1. Pain is a mechanism that is good for teaching organisms about things to avoid
2. Useless pain, or pain that occurs but does not teach an animal (in the case of death, where the animal will have no chance to learn from the experience) is evil.
3. God is benevolent
4. Yet useless pain occurs in the world, and God does not intervene against the evil therefore God = non-benevolent or non-existant.

However, I do not agree with this argument.
For one, it asserts that there is right and wrong, with which I agree, but find it curious for an atheist to do (yes, I know there are moral atheists, but it all boils down to having no real reason to be so).

Aside from that, I think it is important to consider the nature of animals, at least as I believe the church sees it:
They do not have souls. They are unthinking. Yes, they feel pain, but I don’t think they really comprehend the pain, if that’s the right word. However, we should not senselessly inflict pain upon anything.
Now, the examples ateista gave, such as the wildfire, dealt with nature. I think nature has some ‘good’ and ‘bad’ outcomes, but the thing itself is morally neutral. If a lion eats a zebra, it isn’t a sin. Now, I don’t think God would inflict senseless pain on an animal, but I don’t think He goes out of His way to scoop it up out of the path of the fire either. I think the benevolence of God means He does not inflict senseless pain and deals with His attitude toward souls, and since animals don’t have souls, it doesn’t really seem to matter. And while plants can’t feel pain and animals can, in terms of the soul they are both equal. Sure, you could say God is all-powerful and could save all the animals, but…we cannot know the mind of God, and to me it just seems senseless.