Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Show me an example of the non-benevolence of God?

Read the OT. God “boasts of” intolerance, jealousy, hatred, he orders and commits genocides… “benevolence”? Bah, humbug!

Show me a specific example. Can you do that or not? Once you do that it will be explained to you. My guess is that you have no interest in getting explanations, but are only interested in hating God. That is the way of the atheist. Blind hatred of “God as other than me!”

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
I realize your holy book is the dictionary, but it’s a VERY unworthy reference for revealed truths.

There are no “revealed” truths.

That’s a bold assertion. How does it stack up against my assertion that there is revealed truth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Like a rat in a maze.

Insults like this will not earn you respect even from your peers. It earned a spot on my ignore list. If I had read it sooner, I would not have wasted my time on answering your posts at all. Done talking!

Of course you run away when faced with the truth. That too is the way of the atheist.

Best too you Rodentius Maximus!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Expounding on my previous post. I made a generic comment about the Bible without quoting specific passages. I was told that I should have quoted chapter and verse, so here it comes:

Numbers 31:15-18

Quote:
“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

We all know what was the fate of women captured in war. They were subject to the humiliation of rape and sexual slavery.

That bolded part does not imply rape. It implies not killing the girls so that they may be absorbed into the population through marriage/concubinage.

You impute the worst of human nature to those who may well not deserve it. God says only to “not kill them”, which is hardly a COMMAND to rape!

In those days it was considered quite “wasteful” to destroy the “population producing” part of society (as the girls would become a part of the society) by needlessly killing them.

 

[ateista]

Really? What “fact” leads you to this conclusion? What lasting impact does any of it have?

That is the only life they have. Give me a proof to the contrary. Do you really mean that “this” life does not matter? That the fact we are mortal makes this life irrelevant?

You chided another poster for being hypocritical in trusting that despite outward appearances God could create good from the tragedy of this world. You too, are hypocritical and you dont need to claim to be omnibenevolent to be hypocritical.

Why so? If I claimed to be omnibenevolent and did not fulfill the necessary actions to support my claim, then I would be a hypocrite. But I have no such claim. I help when I can, as much as I can, which is precious little. Still infinitely more than the direct help they get from God, who only needs to “will” it.

Hint: They dont need rain, Ateista, they need help from you and me.

Rain could help them to sustain themselves. Not much to ask for from the omnipotent God… just a little rain when necessary. Even if we could help all of them, which is not likely, to be forced to rely on other people’s charity is demeaning.

I am sure you heard the ancient adage: “Don’t give a starving man a fish. Teach him how to fish, and he will be able to support himself.”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
Really? What “fact” leads you to this conclusion? What lasting impact does any of it have?

That is the only life they have. Give me a proof to the contrary. Do you really mean that “this” life does not matter? That the fact we are mortal makes this life irrelevant?

You are quite right, and quite wrong.

This IS the only life they have, and that life is invaluable (to them and us) because it sets the conditions for the life to come.

Life is valuable ONLY BECAUSE it is short!

If you had your way your “God” (read: YOU) would make “all things perfect” (no suffering) and life would last forever, as it’s just “wrong” to end such a good thing as life.

And because conditions are not like that, you assert (without proof [which you SAY you rely upon but which you never supply to support ANYTHING you say]) that God qua God (though possibly “god” as “demon”) can’t and doesn’t exist.

This is exactly like saying that because you haven’t read, and thereby don’t understand the “meaning of”, a book, the author of that book doesn’t exist.

But, given your basic “theories” as to how the universe works, it’s perfectly understandable how you see the world as a “random walk” without any coherent meaning.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
You chided another poster for being hypocritical in trusting that despite outward appearances God could create good from the tragedy of this world. You too, are hypocritical and you dont need to claim to be omnibenevolent to be hypocritical.

Why so? If I claimed to be omnibenevolent and did not fulfill the necessary actions to support my claim, then I would be a hypocrite.

God does not CLAIM to be omnibenevolent. He simply IS such.

You don’t understand what “omnibenevolent” means. Actually, your basic problem is that you don’t know what “benevolent” means, and who the object of that benevolence is.

You think “benevolence” means “sparing from suffering”, while it really means “giving of what is best for human advancement”.

Just as “learning”, so as to be more FIT to be within human society, can be “a suffering”, what you so blithely call “unjust suffering” (of which there is no such thing by the way) is a “learning” which is rewarded by God.

But I have no such claim. I help when I can, as much as I can, which is precious little. Still infinitely more than the direct help they get from God, who only needs to “will” it.

Your idea of why the universe exists is hillarious!

Since you think that there is no meaning to the existence of the universe, all suffering is just “accident”, including that given by the environment necessarily due to it’s inherent mechanics (which you call "God’s unjust ALLOWANCE of suffering) as well as that given (inflicted) by men (since it is men’s NATURE to be “cruel”).

Atheists believe (faithfully) that it is good to behave “ethically” and “morally” because it causes fewer personal problems (greases the interpersonal “wheels”) for them. As soon as it’s advantageous to act with more “cruel” ethics and morals to them personally, they invariably do so.

God DOES allow suffering, and all suffering is “paid back” with joy.

Why? Because in the “performance” of suffering lessons are taught and learned by some (the so-called “chosen”), which is the reason why the universe exists.

Why would God short-circuit His purpose for the universe by disallowing the one thing that ensures that His purpose is fullfilled?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philthy
Hint: They dont need rain, Ateista, they need help from you and me.

Rain could help them to sustain themselves. Not much to ask for from the omnipotent God… just a little rain when necessary.

So, YOU know when rain is necessary in the “greater scheme of things”!?

Do you also pronounce judgement on God as “EVIL” because leaves fall in the autumn? So, “autumn” proves that God doesn’t exist because leaves die needlessly?

Even if we could help all of them, which is not likely, to be forced to rely on other people’s charity is demeaning.

I am sure you heard the ancient adage: “Don’t give a starving man a fish. Teach him how to fish, and he will be able to support himself.”

And that is precisely what God is doing. He is teaching mankind to “fish” for that which is MOST necessary for their “betterment” in our vastly greater life than only that small portion on earth.

This doesn’t mean that suffering is to be tolerated. Quite to the contrary. It means that we are all to be the TEACHERS, having gotten our syllabus from divine revelation, to those who need to be taught.

To use the scenario of “starving african children”,
*) those who can help them need to LEARN to help them,
*) the starving need to learn that their suffering is helping mankind LEARN to help,
*) the starving need to learn that their suffering is not only not wasted but will PERSONALLY be rewarded,
*) and those who don’t help need to LEARN the reward of their NOT helping.

 

[ateista]

You don’t understand what “omnibenevolent” means. Actually, your basic problem is that you don’t know what “benevolent” means, and who the object of that benevolence is.

You think “benevolence” means “sparing from suffering”, while it really means “giving of what is best for human advancement”.

No, I don’t think so. Those words you put in my mouth, maybe - out of misunderstanding. I agree that benevolence means to do what is the best for the subject - even if the subject cannot understand it.

This principle is too vague, however. Just to say that some negative experience may lead to some greater good is not enough.

And that is the point. To allow some person “A” to experience some suffering, if that suffering is logically necessary for “A” to obtain some greater good is perfectly acceptable.

What is not acceptable to allow this person “A” to experience some suffering, which is not necessary to obtain some greater good. What is also not acceptable to allow more suffering than absolutely necessary. Think about it as a precise mathematical equation. And what is definitely not acceptable to allow person “A” to suffer, just so that a person “B” will receive some greater benefits.

With these caveats the principle of necessary suffering can be agreed upon.

Now, it is your turn to show that every suffering will fulfill these criteria.

To say that because of our lack of omniscince we cannot make a value judgment is unacceptable. After all you make value judgments and you are also not omniscient.

To say that maybe there is some unspecified greater good is not acceptable. If you wish to argue about the necessity of some suffering, you must present arguments, why is that suffering logically necessary, and what greater good it will facilitate.

To say that a seemingly unnecessary suffering will be “rewarded” in heaven is not acceptable. Later “rewards” do not retroactively justify prior suffering.

You pride yourself being intellectually superior, to the extent that you dared to compare me to a rat in the maze. Well, I give you this opportunity to earn that title. So, get down to business.

You can start with the hunger and diseases in Africa. Show me how those starving and dying children will benefit some greater good, for which their hunger and their illnesses are logically necessary.

You talked the talk. Now do you walk the walk?

Go ahead… make my day.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I agree that benevolence means to do what is the best for the subject - even if the subject cannot understand it.

This principle is too vague, however. Just to say that some negative experience may lead to some greater good is not enough.

I don’t SAY that “some negative experience” (suffering) may lead to some greater good. GOD says so, and as He is God, defined as God and not as “god”, meaning in this case “the all-loving” (omnibenevolent), any experience that a person has is for their MOST BENEFIT which is the greater good that utterly surpasses ANY negativity (“suffering-ness”) of that experience.

And that is the point. To allow some person “A” to experience some suffering, if that suffering is logically necessary for “A” to obtain some greater good is perfectly acceptable.

What is not acceptable [is] to allow this person “A” to experience some suffering, which is not necessary to obtain some greater good.

How do YOU (the god of what is necessary, apparently) decide the necessity of a case of suffering?

What is also not acceptable to allow more suffering than absolutely necessary. Think about it as a precise mathematical equation.

God allows only the amount of suffering necessary to effect His “lesson”, and always rewards any suffering in massive excess. That you choose not to believe this is simply you once again proclaiming loudly that you have no idea what “God” means!

And what is definitely not acceptable to allow person “A” to suffer, just so that a person “B” will receive some greater benefits.

Person “A” is excessively rewarded for their suffering. Person “B”, should they accept the gift of the benefits of the suffering of others, is excessively rewarded for their empathy to the suffering of another.

What is wrong with that?

With these caveats the principle of necessary suffering can be agreed upon.

Now, it is your turn to show that every suffering will fulfill these criteria.

It is axiomatic that every suffering fulfills these criteria!

Why!? Because NO act of an all-loving omnipotent being (God) can be anything BUT ALL-LOVING, which precludes by definition “unnecessary suffering”.

You CAN’T agree to this unless you agree that God is God qua God as revealed by God, which you won’t, not can’t, do.

Your “arguments” will always fail because you refuse to face the question of God qua God! It is THE singular answer to how creation exists, why that existence exists, and how existence itself is not EVIL.

You replace God with “the universe in it’s laws”, and under that basis the universe is in fact evil, because it shows you (as you have SAID you observe it) that unnecessary suffering (an “evil-doing”) exists, and the only “thing” to “blame” for it is “the universe in it’s laws”.

You choose to live in a world where your “universal power” is evil!

I don’t.

Best to you.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

To say that because of our lack of omniscince we cannot make a value judgment is unacceptable. After all you make value judgments and you are also not omniscient.

Your “argument” is that God inflicts unnecessary suffering. Only a being capable of knowing EVERYTHING can make the value judgement that ANY SUFFERING is not rewarded (necesssary for the advancement of person).

Are YOU capable of knowing everything, and thus capable of making that judgement?

To say that maybe there is some unspecified greater good is not acceptable. If you wish to argue about the necessity of some suffering, you must present arguments, why is that suffering logically necessary, and what greater good it will facilitate.

God is the “allower” of suffering. He presents His “arguments” as He sees fit, which are (coincidentally) presented in the most loving and most wise way possible because He is the All-Loving and the Omnipotent (most wise in regards to efficacy).

It’s not my job to do God’s job, though you seem to arrogate to yourself God’s job, which I would suggest you refrain from doing, as it tends to make you look rather silly.

To say that a seemingly unnecessary suffering will be “rewarded” in heaven is not acceptable. Later “rewards” do not retroactively justify prior suffering.

Certainly reward (which is ALWAYS later!) can BE THE RESULT (your “justify”) of prior suffering!

In fact, it basically always HAS to be. What is “pro-active” reward?

Since you believe that earthly life ends in utter oblivion at death (which you supply no evidence for by the way), then you “set the scene” such that there is no possibility of reward after earthly-death.

That allows for “uneccessary suffering”.

Once you accept (or even provisionally hold for as an experiment) that you are wrong in that view of what life is, and accept God as God and not “god”, does “wasted suffering” become an impossibility.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You pride yourself being intellectually superior, to the extent that you dared to compare me to a rat in the maze. Well, I give you this opportunity to earn that title. So, get down to business.

I’m not intellectually superior. I’m informationally superior.

I have the truth, and those who don’t are inferior in that regard. The truth comes from God, and unless you know who God is you have only a very “odd” and perverse access to truth.

Your polluted information is why you are so easy to deal with.

I’m sorry I have an advantage over you in this matter, but you brought a pen knife to an nuclear-bomb fight.

You can start with the hunger and diseases in Africa. Show me how those starving and dying children will benefit some greater good, for which their hunger and their illnesses are logically necessary.

You talked the talk. Now do you walk the walk?

Go ahead… make my day.

Suffering is a motivator to act humanely. Can’t you see that?

What is the greater good? To make humanity more humane (and more human).

Why is this “extreme suffering” necessary? Apparently, because it simply IS, because if it weren’t that suffering wouldn’t have been allowed. If you think that you can pronounce any suffering as unnecessary, then you must be God as only God can make that judgement, and your doing so is utter blaspheme.

But, you are most likely not culpable for your blaspheme because you haven’t been informed of that. Until now. Now you are in abject mortal sin, and will find hell impossible to let go of, until you do by the means of the Church.

The all-loving God will not waste the suffering of anyone. You would prefer that He would do so?

 

[davidv]

No, I don’t think so. Those words you put in my mouth, maybe - out of misunderstanding. I agree that benevolence means to do what is the best for the subject - even if the subject cannot understand it.

This principle is too vague, however. Just to say that some negative experience may lead to some greater good is not enough.

And that is the point. To allow some person “A” to experience some suffering, if that suffering is logically necessary for “A” to obtain some greater good is perfectly acceptable.

What is not acceptable to allow this person “A” to experience some suffering, which is not necessary to obtain some greater good. What is also not acceptable to allow more suffering than absolutely necessary. Think about it as a precise mathematical equation. And what is definitely not acceptable to allow person “A” to suffer, just so that a person “B” will receive some greater benefits.

With these caveats the principle of necessary suffering can be agreed upon.

Now, it is your turn to show that every suffering will fulfill these criteria.

To say that because of our lack of omniscince we cannot make a value judgment is unacceptable. After all you make value judgments and you are also not omniscient.

To say that maybe there is some unspecified greater good is not acceptable. If you wish to argue about the necessity of some suffering, you must present arguments, why is that suffering logically necessary, and what greater good it will facilitate.

To say that a seemingly unnecessary suffering will be “rewarded” in heaven is not acceptable. Later “rewards” do not retroactively justify prior suffering.

You pride yourself being intellectually superior, to the extent that you dared to compare me to a rat in the maze. Well, I give you this opportunity to earn that title. So, get down to business.

You can start with the hunger and diseases in Africa. Show me how those starving and dying children will benefit some greater good, for which their hunger and their illnesses are logically necessary.

You talked the talk. Now do you walk the walk?

Go ahead… make my day.

A couple of thoughts.
I don’t think you are a rat in a maze.

However I believe that at least one of the premises of your position is flawed or incomplete.

The first is that the of the “greater good” being basis for necessary suffering. Any suffering that I can think of I can trace to a cause in some human decision. As I see it this makes suffering a logical necessity as it is the natural consequence of some action or inaction. And, as such, all suffering is logically necessary unless the laws of nature are suspended.

Your thoughts?

 

[ateista]

It is axiomatic that every suffering fulfills these criteria!

Why!? Because NO act of an all-loving omnipotent being (God) can be anything BUT ALL-LOVING, which precludes by definition “unnecessary suffering”.

You CAN’T agree to this unless you agree that God is God qua God as revealed by God, which you won’t, not can’t, do.

That is an incorrect logical reasoning, also known as circular reasoning.

God’s alleged omnibenevolence is only a hypothesis, not an axiom. It is logically incorrect to use the hypothesis also as an argument.

If you wish to substantiate God’s benevolence, you must use independent arguments. That is why you fail. You see, contrary to what you said before, I am willing to entertain the alleged benevolence of God - but never as an axiom, only as a hypothesis. And your only “argument” is to declare the hypothesis an axiom.

Mene, tekel, ufarsin!

 

[ateista]

However I believe that at least one of the premises of your position is flawed or incomplete.

The first is that the of the “greater good” being basis for necessary suffering. Any suffering that I can think of I can trace to a cause in some human decision. As I see it this makes suffering a logical necessity as it is the natural consequence of some action or inaction. And, as such, all suffering is logically necessary unless the laws of nature are suspended.

Your thoughts?

The so-called “problem of evil” is summarized as this:

A benelovent God only allows necessary suffering. Necessary suffering is defined as a logical prerequisite to achieve some good, which is

1. desirable, and
2. which cannot be achieved without the suffering (God’s omnipotence notwithstanding), and
3. which is not excessive (that is the good could not be achieved is the suffering would be lessened).

Any suffering which does not fulfill these criteria is gratuitous or unnecessary suffering.

This is not my definition, it is what theologians and philospohers all agree upon. It is a highly logical definition, too. We must distinguish between gratuitous and necessary suffering, and the criteria above do precisely that.

What you said is different. A suffering which is the result of a bad decision is not “logically necessary” in the sense I delineated above. It may be the unavoidable consequence of a decision, but that is neither here nor there. (And I really cannot see how a hurricane, a tsunami or a drought can be attributed to a bad decision made by a human.)

If God allows any suffering that does not fulfill the criteria above, then God is not benevolent.

As for “suspending” the laws of nature, isn’t that what God is supposed to do when he performs miracles?

 

[davidv]

The so-called “problem of evil” is summarized as this:

A benelovent God only allows necessary suffering. Necessary suffering is defined as a logical prerequisite to achieve some good, which is

1. desirable, and
2. which cannot be achieved without the suffering (God’s omnipotence notwithstanding), and
3. which is not excessive (that is the good could not be achieved is the suffering would be lessened).

Any suffering which does not fulfill these criteria is gratuitous or unnecessary suffering.

OK.
I still don’t see, given my understanding of what suffering is, that there is any suffering that does not meet the criteria as stated.

This is not my definition, it is what theologians and philospohers all agree upon. It is a highly logical definition, too. We must distinguish between gratuitous and necessary suffering, and the criteria above do precisely that.

What you said is different. A suffering which is the result of a bad decision is not “logically necessary” in the sense I delineated above.

Obviously I don’t understand “logical necessity”. Can you enlighten me.

It may be the unavoidable consequence of a decision, but that is neither here nor there. (And I really cannot see how a hurricane, a tsunami or a drought can be attributed to a bad decision made by a human.)

Why not? Who chose to live where these events occur? Who chose to disregard warnings of the upcoming event?

If God allows any suffering that does not fulfill the criteria above, then God is not benevolent.

As I see it any and all suffering is necessary.

As for “suspending” the laws of nature, isn’t that what God is supposed to do when he performs miracles?

Yes, but what does this have to do with suffering?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It is axiomatic that every suffering fulfills these criteria!

Why!? Because NO act of an all-loving omnipotent being (God) can be anything BUT ALL-LOVING, which precludes by definition “unnecessary suffering”.

You CAN’T agree to this unless you agree that God is God qua God as revealed by God, which you won’t, not can’t, do.

That is an incorrect logical reasoning, also known as circular reasoning.

Quite true. It is presicely as circular as the assertion that “1” is smaller than “2”.

That’s why it’s an axiom.

God’s alleged omnibenevolence is only a hypothesis, not an axiom. It is logically incorrect to use the hypothesis also as an argument.

To you God is a hypothesis. To me He is an axiom.

That is your axiomatic belief, which is asserted axiomatically just like mine.

So, who wins that “battle of assertions”?

If you wish to substantiate God’s benevolence, you must use independent arguments. That is why you fail. You see, contrary to what you said before, I am willing to entertain the alleged benevolence of God - but never as an axiom, only as a hypothesis. And your only “argument” is to declare the hypothesis an axiom.

So, you are willing to entertain an axiom as a hypothesis but not as what it is, which is an axiom?

To deprive an axiom of it’s axiom-ness is to de-axiom-nate the axiom, which does neither of us any good, now does it?

One either accepts the axiom that God is all-loving (omnibenevolent) or not.

You choose not to, even as an experiment to “get into the head” of one who DOES believe that. That’s fine. But it doesn’t help you understand me, or me help you understand me.

I’ve BEEN where you are. I know your “arguments” backwards, forwards, sideways. They are perfectly sensible, logical and rather simple to understand.

But they are simply wrong, because they are based on false premises, false axioms.

There ARE absolutes, and one of those absolutes is God qua God, as opposed to “God” qua “god”. I’ve condescended to believe as you do, and doing so now doesn’t help you understand what you are (supposedly) here to learn about, which is what “God” means.

We all KNOW what “god” means, and no one is arguing about that meaning.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

The so-called “problem of evil” is summarized as this:

A benelovent God only allows necessary suffering.

Agreed!

Necessary suffering is defined as a logical prerequisite to achieve some good, which is

1. desirable, and

How can a “good” not be desirable. We have to remember that the “Desire-er” is no one other than God.

1. which cannot be achieved without the suffering (God’s omnipotence notwithstanding), and

Agreed!

1. which is not excessive (that is the good could not be achieved is the suffering would be lessened).

The only “judge” of what is excessive is God, so any non-God “judge” is not competent to make any judgement of excessiveness.

God, being all-loving, is not capable of being not-all-loving which is the definition of “one who allows excessive suffering”.

Any suffering which does not fulfill these criteria is gratuitous or unnecessary suffering.

Agreed!

This is not my definition, it is what theologians and philospohers all agree upon. It is a highly logical definition, too. We must distinguish between gratuitous and necessary suffering, and the criteria above do precisely that.

And BY DEFINITION God is not capable of being what He is not, which is not-all-loving, which is what one must be to allow gratuitous suffering.

What you said is different. A suffering which is the result of a bad decision is not “logically necessary” in the sense I delineated above. It may be the unavoidable consequence of a decision, but that is neither here nor there. (And I really cannot see how a hurricane, a tsunami or a drought can be attributed to a bad decision made by a human.)

God has created our environment (the universe) as a somewhat dangerous place. Great loss of life (and/or property) is sometimes the consequence of the “natural movement” of this environment.

Those killed, or deprived, thus by these movements are well rewarded for their “trouble”.

The way that sin is connected with these “dangerous movements” of our God created environment is that if we (humanity, aka Adam and Eve) had not sinned (the original one) then our environment would not have “fallen” with us (the intitution of “death” into the world) and would not have BEEN dangerous to us (mankind).

If God allows any suffering that does not fulfill the criteria above, then God is not benevolent.

And, as you can clearly see above, God can’t allow “gratuitous suffering”, so we’re now agree that God is “permitted” (by you, the new convert) to be all-loving (omnibenevolent) and actually God-like qua God, right?

As for “suspending” the laws of nature, isn’t that what God is supposed to do when he performs miracles?

He doesn’t SUSPEND the laws of nature! He simply displays a law of nature that you wrongly claim is NOT a law of nature.

 

[ateista]

OK.
I still don’t see, given my understanding of what suffering is, that there is any suffering that does not meet the criteria as stated.

Well, you certainly made me very curious. Explain it to me, please, preferably with examples. Say, the victim is crushed in an Earthquake and dies in a slow and painful manner. How can you justify it as a necessary suffering? What kind of “greater good” can come out for her - which is the direct, logical consequence of her death and especially the manner of her death?

I cannot accept positing some “greater good” which might befall on someone else.

Obviously I don’t understand “logical necessity”. Can you enlighten me.

Sure thing. I will give a few examples.

Scenario #1: A doctor and a friend take a field trip, and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. Suppose the only available method to save the friend’s life is an amputation of a finger. Painful procedure, but the greater good is saving his life. Result: justifyable or necessary suffering.

Scenario #2: Same premise, but the doctor happens to have the proper antidote. Administering the antidote is sufficient to save the life. Result, as above.

Scenario #3: Same premise, the doctor has the anitdote, but still does the amputation. This is not a justifyable or necessary suffering! The life is saved, but the suffering was not logically necessary.

Scenario #4: Someone needs a kidney transplant. The only available donor does not volunteer to give up his kidney. A doctor neverthless performs the operation. A life is saved, but the price is paid by someone, who did not want to pay it. Regardless of the morality of the donor’s refusal, the doctor’s decision cannot be justified.

Are these examples sufficient? If not, let me know.

Why not? Who chose to live where these events occur? Who chose to disregard warnings of the upcoming event?

Unfortunately events like that cannot always be predicted. And even if they are, not all people have the wherewithal to move to “safer” ground.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
OK.
I still don’t see, given my understanding of what suffering is, that there is any suffering that does not meet the criteria as stated.

Well, you certainly made me very curious. Explain it to me, please, preferably with examples. Say, the victim is crushed in an Earthquake and dies in a slow and painful manner. How can you justify it as a necessary suffering? What kind of “greater good” can come out for her - which is the direct, logical consequence of her death and especially the manner of her death?

I cannot accept positing some “greater good” which might befall on someone else.

So, to you, God can’t exist if anyone’s suffering is not rewarded IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH?

1. Suffering is rewarded in the larger portion of life in a more glorious way than could possibly be in this smaller portion of life on this planet.
2. The “greater good” FOR HER is the admiration of those who learn from her suffering in the larger portion of life.
3. The “greater good” FOR others is that they were given the opportunity TO learn, and took it.

I fail to see how “reality” as set up by your frustrations that you see (wrongly) “unnecessary/wasted suffering” is SUPERIOR to our actual reality created as it is by God, and structured so that “wasted suffering” can’t possibly exist.

Do you actually PREFER the fantasy of “absence of God and rampant wasted suffering” over the reality we’ve described?

Why?

 

[ateista]

Quite true. It is presicely as circular as the assertion that “1” is smaller than “2”.

Nope, that is not circular. It is just an axiom, based upon reason.

To you God is a hypothesis. To me He is an axiom.

That is your axiomatic belief, which is asserted axiomatically just like mine.

So, who wins that “battle of assertions”?

Actually, no. It is not axiomatic at all. God’s existence and benevolence are simply a hypothesis, and the available “measurements” do not support it. I am willing to contemplate that the hypothesis is correct and God really is benevolent, but it must be supported by rational arguments, not by faith. And so far there was not one argument.

Of course, if you hold it as an axiom, everything follows, and all the “seemingly” contradictory measurements are simply “measurement errors”. That follows not from reason, but a dogmatic belief. And try as you might and assert it as many times as you want, it will not amount to one iota of argument, much less a convincing one.

So, you are willing to entertain an axiom as a hypothesis but not as what it is, which is an axiom?

To you it may be an axiom, but that is not the deciding factor. You might consider it axiomatic that God is really the Easter Rabbit in disguise, but your belief does not make it axiomatic.

As a matter of fact, an axiom cannot be denied. That is why it is an axiom. And God’s existence and benevolence can be reasonably doubted, based upon the millions of events we all can observe. You choose to disregard them, I don’t. And you cannot support your position by rational arguments.

 

[ateista]

So, to you, God can’t exist if anyone’s suffering is not rewarded IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH?

I did not say that.

If you wish to assert that she will be rewarded in heaven, you must do two things. One, present an argument that she ***will ***“end up” in heaven. (She might be in the state of unrepented mortal sin.) But more importantly you must present an argument that without being slowly and painfully crushed to death she would not “end up” in heaven. If she just died quickly and painlessly, she would not get to heaven.

The justifiable pain and suffering must be a logical precursor to the reward.

1. Suffering is rewarded in the larger portion of life in a more glorious way than could possibly be in this smaller portion of life on this planet.

Not acceptable. You cannot defend the principle that later rewards (no matter how “glorious” they might be) can retroactively justify the prior suffering. You agreed that the suffering must be logically necessary in order to be justifiable.

1. The “greater good” FOR HER is the admiration of those who learn from her suffering in the larger portion of life.

Nonsense. She might have died unknown to everyone else.

1. The “greater good” FOR others is that they were given the opportunity TO learn, and took it.

That is a horrible degradation of her suffering turning into a “teaching material”.

Do you actually PREFER the fantasy of “absence of God and rampant wasted suffering” over the reality we’ve described?

Why?

Because you only described your own beliefs, which have precious little to do with reality.