An Argument for God (cont.)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:06 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 10:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So its your opinion that God should have created the world without any pain and suffering whatsoever....not even a hang nail?

Yes, he could and should have. If he couldn't, well then... Round the MerryGo round we go.

I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 12:49 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:06 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Yes, he could and should have. If he couldn't, well then... Round the MerryGo round we go.

I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.

Um, your argument sounds reasonable but not when omnipotent god is making the rules. It's a worthy concept of argument in philosophy but you don't need pain to know pleasure in the realm of an omnipotent God if he chooses to give it that way.

In the conception of Adam&Eve. They known pleasure and enjoy it presumably quite well before sin. They didn't need punishment to know the garden was pleasurable.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
04-04-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:09 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Projecting love on an abuser is a terrible flaw in human nature. I see loving a god who makes children suffer no different than loving a spouse who physically and emotionally abuses you.

I agree, mostly. Projecting love on abusers is not human nature, save the fact that it's often a survival tactic. For instance, the child with an abusive parent must project love onto the parent in order that he might achieve some relief from the abuse. This also serves as a way to avoid the knowledge that he is not loved.

Humans need to feel loved, so much so that infants in orphanage who are deprived of human contact but have their biological needs met often die.

Christianity is merely an extension of that infantile defense mechanism onto the world and the story it tells is exactly the same story told by those who have suffered severe abuse and neglect as infants. The parallels are remarkable...

God works in mysterious ways but he always provides for me - The neglectful parent shows no affection but miraculously, is there to feed and bath the infant when necessary.

God is the light, who appears out of the ether in my time of need. - The neglectful parent appears out of nowhere, brings light to the darkness and tends to the child's needs.

Though I am born sinful, God shows me mercy. - The neglectful parent punishes arbitrarily and often tells the child he is worthless, and sometimes also affords the child a modicum of affection.

God is a perfect and moral being. - The neglectful parent must be made to seem moral and caring, lest the child admit his true nature.

Satan seeks to tempt me with sin/The world is full of evil people - The abused and neglected child must see the entire world as an evil place in order that the tiny amount of affection he receives from the parent seems larger.

The parallels are endless and are shared among all religions. But from a psychological perspective, all religions have their genesis as grandiose fantasies concocted by abused children as defenses.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like bbeljefe's post
04-04-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:06 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Yes, he could and should have. If he couldn't, well then... Round the MerryGo round we go.

I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.

If I had to spend all eternity with members of my family (like my parents, grandparents, cousins) that would be suffering to me. It would be akin to a personal hell. I always had a hard time understanding the concept of heaven.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:06 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Yes, he could and should have. If he couldn't, well then... Round the MerryGo round we go.

I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.

Taken to its logical conclusion your argument dictates that we should...

Suffer an infant to starve, so that he appreciates the food we give him.

Force children to sleep in the cold so that they appreciate the warmth and comfort of their beds.

Allow our children to suffer infections and injury so as to increase their appreciation of health.

Deprive our children of compassion and empathy so that they will better appreciate the same.


The above is a list of ingredients needed for the creation of a psychopath. This is what you advocate.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
04-04-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 12:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:09 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Projecting love on an abuser is a terrible flaw in human nature. I see loving a god who makes children suffer no different than loving a spouse who physically and emotionally abuses you.

I agree, mostly. Projecting love on abusers is not human nature, save the fact that it's often a survival tactic. For instance, the child with an abusive parent must project love onto the parent in order that he might achieve some relief from the abuse. This also serves as a way to avoid the knowledge that he is not loved.

Humans need to feel loved, so much so that infants in orphanage who are deprived of human contact but have their biological needs met often die.

Christianity is merely an extension of that infantile defense mechanism onto the world and the story it tells is exactly the same story told by those who have suffered severe abuse and neglect as infants. The parallels are remarkable...

God works in mysterious ways but he always provides for me - The neglectful parent shows no affection but miraculously, is there to feed and bath the infant when necessary.

God is the light, who appears out of the ether in my time of need. - The neglectful parent appears out of nowhere, brings light to the darkness and tends to the child's needs.

Though I am born sinful, God shows me mercy. - The neglectful parent punishes arbitrarily and often tells the child he is worthless, and sometimes also affords the child a modicum of affection.

God is a perfect and moral being. - The neglectful parent must be made to seem moral and caring, lest the child admit his true nature.

Satan seeks to tempt me with sin/The world is full of evil people - The abused and neglected child must see the entire world as an evil place in order that the tiny amount of affection he receives from the parent seems larger.

The parallels are endless and are shared among all religions. But from a psychological perspective, all religions have their genesis as grandiose fantasies concocted by abused children as defenses.

Yes and that places most people into a couple different categories. Forced helplessness, where the child simply endures the abuse knowing nothing will change. And codependency where the child continues the pattern of searching for approval and someone to give their lives sanction for being.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:06 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Yes, he could and should have. If he couldn't, well then... Round the MerryGo round we go.

I don't think He should have. Because I can cry, laughter is so much more the better. I don't like the idea of heaven being a place without any pain or suffering.

But see, If God is Omnipotent, you can laugh more, appreciate things more, and all the other stuff without the need of going through pain. With an omnipotent God, you can have all of the good things you claim come from pain, without the pain. Thus, with an omnipotent God, pain is redundant and therefore cruel. Thus we go around the MerryGo round and right to option 2 on Doctor X's post.

In fact, with an Omnipotent Deity, there is no such thing as "Neccesary Suffering" because God could produce the world in such a way where you can get the benefit of suffering (which I believe is a ducking rarity anyways) without ACTUALLY SUFFERING.

The reason there is evil in the world is a strike against a loving, all poweful Deity.

Naturally, you are forced to choose any of the Options on Doctor X's post to justify it.

None of the options are all that flattering.

Either an Incompetent God, a Malicious God, a irrelevant God, or a non existent one are the choices you are going to have to make to justify evil.

You can't justify a all-caring, all poweful Deity with evil in this world.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
04-04-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 11:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 09:44 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I think it's tragic that some people are drawn to abusive behavior. We throw our own in prison for crimes against children. But when it's god, well, he's divine, so we smile and say "Hey, that's just god." Why not let the criminals run free, Heywood? God will punish (or maybe forgive) them, right? They'll add to our suffering and make the afterlife better, right?

By the way, if heaven is perfect, how do you increase your appreciation of it through suffering? Are you saying those who don't suffer (and there are people who suffer very little in this life) will not enjoy heaven as much as those who do suffer? Are there different levels of enjoyment in heaven? Do the dead children get their own special table at dinnertime? Please explain, as the bible is unclear on this subject.

You'll receive 10 bonus points if you somehow include the devil in your explanation.

I wasn't talking about an afterlife but the current life. You are introducing a straw man.

I saw the afterlife as your justification for suffering in this life and requested clarification, that's why I included it... but as you wish. I don't want to argue a strawman any more than you do.

Please explain unjust suffering in THIS life, and do not refer to an afterlife when doing so. My satan bonus points are still on the table.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
(04-04-2013 12:46 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 11:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I wasn't talking about an afterlife but the current life. You are introducing a straw man.

I saw the afterlife as your justification for suffering in this life and requested clarification, that's why I included it... but as you wish. I don't want to argue a strawman any more than you do.

Please explain unjust suffering in THIS life, and do not refer to an afterlife when doing so. My satan bonus points are still on the table.

"Unjust suffering" is just a value judgement. You can't prove the suffering is just or unjust. Calling it "unjust" appeals to certain emotions but doesn't add anything to a rationale argument.

That being said, Doctor X has it in his capacity to end that little girls suffering by killing her. Since he won't prevent the little girls suffering does that make him guilty of it? Of course not. Preventing or curing the suffering is a red herring. The real question is why did God create a capacity to suffer? Perhaps God created humans capable of suffering so that we would use our intellect to prevent it. Perhaps God gave us problems to solve because we take satisfaction in solving problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: An Argument for God (cont.)
Heywood, . . . . . . do you think you will be able to recall that "life pain" when a billion years have gone by in Heaven . . . . when everything is peaches and cream? . . . . . . . . . . And when you long since stopped caring about the screams of those in eternal torment [Lazarus and the rich man]? Because you can't have bliss when you care about suffering people in hell, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: