Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2013, 03:04 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
This "Kid" is wondering why he's suffering through this...just sayin.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(09-09-2013 03:04 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  This "Kid" is wondering why he's suffering through this...just sayin.

Because the Kid is either too dumb or too masochistic to just ignore the thread? Laughat

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
09-09-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(09-09-2013 03:05 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 03:04 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  This "Kid" is wondering why he's suffering through this...just sayin.

Because the Kid is either too dumb or too masochistic to just ignore the thread? Laughat

You got me!Weeping

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 03:09 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2013 03:14 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(09-09-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Not that you care, but I already have. Twice in fact. Here it is a third time.

Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V

If you posit an all powerful creator, who is also benevolent, then there is no reason for children (or anything else) to suffer. We live in a universe where children suffer needlessly. This would indicate a number of possibilities.

Either the creator lacks the power to make a universe without suffering, which makes it impotent.

How does exercising a prerogative not to do something detract from omnipotence? Again, god could have made one, two or eleven moons to circle the Earth, and chose one. Please explain why your resolution is logical.

Quote:Or the creator doesn't care to make a universe without suffering, which makes it malevolent.

You do know I’m arguing the Christian paradigm for this and not abstract theism? Obviously, in the Christian paradigm, Christians and Jesus alleviate suffering, absolve suffering, make meaning of suffering, requite suffering, even demand suffering for justice. It is not “malevolent” to make a paedophile suffer, it is appropriate, and Jesus was clear on this point.

Quote:Or the creator simply does not exists, absolving 'it' of all responsibility.

So something has to give because reality and the creator's attributes are incompatible. Since we can confirm that our reality is in fact this way, then the definitions of the creator must give, since they clearly do not fit in with reality. So the creator cannot be both all-powerful and benevolent, because of the clearly verifiable suffering that exists.

Yes, if you can demonstrate why suffering is “bad”. Still waiting.

Quote:To not acknowledge this is intellectually dishonest, and shows a supreme lack of imagination on the part of many theists. Just because you can't imagine a universe without suffering, doesn't mean an all-powerful creator could not create one. By it's very definition, it must have the power to do so. So it either doesn't have that power or doesn't care to. Once again, impotent, malevolent, or non-existent; it is as simple as that.

I have both imagined such a universe and offered to you several possibilities:

*In a universe with no suffering, no pain, no discomfort, “pleasure” has no meaning and cannot be enjoyed

*Atheists have proposed that god has no free will if he is omnipotent and cannot do evil, recognizing that evil and free will go together—in a universe with no suffering, therefore, the humans have no free will

I’ll leave it there for now, but again, I’ve given you two responses to the hypothetical universe with free will creatures who are unable to suffer. You cannot claim a debate victory unless you respond to my counter proposals to your de facto “win”.



The number of moons has fuck all to do with my point, and you know it. A being with unlimited power and who actually gave a fuck, would have done better than making this universe. That you can not, or refuse to get this, speaks only of your willful ignorance and abject lack of imagination. You've already shown before that you have this terrible habit of placing limits on your limitless god, because you can't seem to fathom what a limitless god would actually be capable of if it also cared.

Regardless of whatever bullshit prerogative you are assuming for your god, if he is omnipotent, then by definition he has the power to accomplish the same goal but WITHOUT the suffering. Therein lies the problem, suffering DOES exist. So either your god lacks the power, lacks the empathy, doesn't exist, or you lack the mental capacity and honesty to fathom such a concept. You are as dense as a brick.

Suffering
-the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

How about you try arguing that suffering is good? It seems every other sane person recognizes that suffering is bad, that is until you back a deluded god apologists into a corner and they start trying to defend the indefensible. Suffering is bad, and anything that could possibly be accomplished by imposing it purposefully or allowing it, could be accomplished some other suffering-free way by an omnipotent god; by his very definition he has to be able to do so. So once again, he either is not omnipotent, or he doesn't give a fuck.


Quote:*In a universe with no suffering, no pain, no discomfort, “pleasure” has no meaning and cannot be enjoyed

Bullshit, god could have made us so that we would enjoy such a universe. Try harder.

Quote:*Atheists have proposed that god has no free will if he is omnipotent and cannot do evil, recognizing that evil and free will go together—in a universe with no suffering, therefore, the humans have no free will

Freewill is impossible with an omniscient god anyways, as we're all just following our predetermined paths in god's plan. It can also be argued that we don't have freewill even now, considering that we don't actively control our own brain chemistry and we live in a deterministic universe. Freewill, or lack thereof, does not save your god concept.

Thank you for proving, once again, that you have a complete and utter lack of imagination. You 'possibilities' show only how terrible you are at making excuses for an omnipotent being that shouldn't need them if it really existed.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
09-09-2013, 10:34 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 12:12 AM by Skippy538.)
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(09-09-2013 02:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote: SNIP

SNIP

Quote:SNIP

I have nothing to lose here on moral grounds. My god is loving and also takes vengeance. My god is compassionate and assigns appropriate accountability. Guns don’t kill people, god kills people. And? So? Let’s say he is worse than 99% of humans as you wrote. That gives you the moral high ground when god judges you? How does that assist you in your time of need?

And if god is amoral as you put it, are you sure you cannot think of a good reason to end a life? Really? Are you sure you cannot think of anything a god might have done that brings you pleasure in life from “goodness”? Really? I don’t believe you.

Quote:Your God can do ANYTHING, including delight at the smashing of baby's heads on rocks. Again with the punishing of children for the sins of their fathers - he sure loves that doctrine of holding the wrong person responsible.

LOL. I taught on Ezekiel 18 yesterday in church, a chapter-long refutation on this point. Read that chapter-god says he judged individuals, not father-sons.

Quote:Please show me one more example where God's moral code is actually "superior" to the one he requires of his creation, besides the no makey sensy sacrifice of himself, to himself. Any one. I am of the opinion that the biblical god holds himself to a much lower standard of morality, and the true "mystery" of xianity is how xians have the ability to not only excuse his behavior, but to twist it in a sick and perverted way to make it HIGHER than the morality required of his believers. Cheers!

For one of a hundred such examples, it was Roman law that a soldier could press a Jew into service, interrupting their daily routine or whatever they were doing, to carry their heavy equipment and etc. up to a mile. Now we have context for Jesus’s statement, “If someone asks you to go with them a mile, go with them two.” There are hundreds of such examples of Christian kindnesses and OT mercies to others as a witness. We see this played out in the life and death of MLK, Jr. and many others.

Quote:[NOTE AND DISCLAIMER: All references to "god" in all posts mean, specifically, the god of the theist to whom I am responding and only in a metaphorical sense. No references to "god" should or can be construed to be an admission of the existence of said "god" but rather a reference to how the aforementioned theist's "holy book" describes the attributes of said party's supposed "god". Ahem.]

Great! You won’t lose your atheist club card, now. “Don’t leave home without it.” God forbid you might CONSIDER there’s a god, after all. Nonsense, and your need to show such disclaimers shows the atheists have an artificial peer pressure upon the marketplace of ideas here!

Is this what a death rattle sounds like? You keep pawing at the scraps that there may be some good thing, if only one, that is good that comes from suffering. If there is any, and I repeat any, suffering that is meaningless, as you already admitted there is, the point that God created this world with meaningless suffering unravels the idea of a loving god. I am out of practice on these points, as I haven't exercised these skills for almost twenty years. But at this point, I don't have to say anything more, you've said plenty.... and I thank you for that. I won't ever convince you of anything PJ, not one thing. I'm okay with that. Anyone reading this thread to this point can see where we ended. I just wish I was more responsible for the result. Cheers.

Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're an incredible slouch.

Martin Luther was the "father" of two movements - The Reformation and Nazism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 11:51 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
At St. Michael's elementary school, the children in grade 5 were putting on a play.
One of the children played the part of god as the other children read their lines.
A couple of the boys in rehearsal had argued about who was going to do the prayer.
In rehearsal the teacher had stepped in and selected one of two, but it didn't go as planned during the live show.

As the boys fought on stage in front of all the parents, a teacher began to run out on stage to break up the fight, but was stopped by the young student who was playing god. The young student screamed at the teacher, making more of a commotion than the two young boys fighting.

As it happened, one boy pushed the other boy off the stage, causing him to fall, hitting his neck on the ground with a thud.
The boy ended up paralyzed and in the end, the teacher had to ask the young child who was playing god WHY he had stopped her from breaking up the fight.

The young boy said "In rehearsal, neither of them believed I was god, so I wanted to see them suffer. That's why I stopped you. One of them will suffer in body from being paralyzed. The other will suffer mentally from the pain he caused the other boy when he lashed out in anger."

Teacher "And you think by doing this, you will make them believe that you are god"
Boy "It's not my actions that will make them believe, it's what I don't do, that will cause them to have faith"

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
10-09-2013, 12:04 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(06-09-2013 02:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I’ve given over a dozen reasons for suffering, but the atheists here won’t even admit it’s good when a paedophile suffers! That’s a moral compass mis-heading, isn’t it?

Please summarize. I decline to read through your extensive posts. Point form will be fine. And what gives you the right to decide when a fellow human being should suffer ? The legal system is supposed to deal with paedophiles, but it sounds like you think they should be burned at stake ?

Quote:The logical fallacy you guys are making? That you argue with a straight face that a loving god doesn’t make a Heaven when suffering on Earth is compensated for?

Resolved: An omnipotent, loving god makes people suffer than die and go to the dust forever. Ridiculous on its face.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I asked if all suffering has a purpose in your view of the world, since you had already implied that some suffering was meaningless. If it is meaningless, then de facto, by the standard meaning of the word, God is evil. Heaven and hell don't enter into it.

Carry on weaseling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
10-09-2013, 12:38 AM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
(09-09-2013 11:51 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  At St. Michael's elementary school, the children in grade 5 were putting on a play.
One of the children played the part of god as the other children read their lines.
A couple of the boys in rehearsal had argued about who was going to do the prayer.
In rehearsal the teacher had stepped in and selected one of two, but it didn't go as planned during the live show.

As the boys fought on stage in front of all the parents, a teacher began to run out on stage to break up the fight, but was stopped by the young student who was playing god. The young student screamed at the teacher, making more of a commotion than the two young boys fighting.

As it happened, one boy pushed the other boy off the stage, causing him to fall, hitting his neck on the ground with a thud.
The boy ended up paralyzed and in the end, the teacher had to ask the young child who was playing god WHY he had stopped her from breaking up the fight.

The young boy said "In rehearsal, neither of them believed I was god, so I wanted to see them suffer. That's why I stopped you. One of them will suffer in body from being paralyzed. The other will suffer mentally from the pain he caused the other boy when he lashed out in anger."

Teacher "And you think by doing this, you will make them believe that you are god"
Boy "It's not my actions that will make them believe, it's what I don't do, that will cause them to have faith"



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 03:41 AM
Re: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
I'm confused by PJ.. Doesn't he believe Adam and Eve had no suffering in the garden of Eden?

I've never heard a proclamation that Adam and Eve had no pleasure in the garden. If Eden is pleasureless, why do people desire that ideal destination.

"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
10-09-2013, 01:30 PM
RE: Why Must Children Suffer? [The Astonishing Sequel]
We’ve been chatting a lot, so I read all you wrote and assert you are right except for where I’ve quoted you. Thanks.

Quote: On the contrary, you have not demonstrated anything at all, and this is extremely frustrating. You've PROPOSED quite a few purposes and outcomes that the suffering might have been used to achieve. Yet for every last one of these, you have failed to explain, no matter how many times I ask the question, why an omniscient, omnipotent God would be unable to discern some other way of achieving the same ends WITHOUT suffering, or what God's purpose in choosing the option with suffering over one without might be. (That God would have an alternative, and be aware of it, is implicit in the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence.) ALL your proposals have floundered in the face of this question, and the fact that you keep putting forward proposals subject to the same weakness, despite having it spelled out to you, even when I pretty much reduced it to a fill-in-the-blank counterargument, tells me that you don't comprehend it in the slightest.

Let me try a metaphor. (I have few hopes of this working, but I'm not ready to give up on you just yet.) Let us say God is an everyday person (for this metaphor) and one of His loved ones is about to walk out into the street and, unknowingly, in front of a speeding car. He grabs her and proceeds to beat her halfway to death. When she, or a bystander, demands to know why He just spontaneously attacked her, He answers, "Well, I wanted to stop her from being struck by that car! It worked, didn't it? It's for the greater good, that car would have killed her, or hurt her worse than I did!" On the surface, this may seem to you like a valid justification. It inflicted suffering, but did so with the purpose of preventing worst suffering. But then she wails that He could have simply pulled her away, or cried out a warning. That would be enough, so why did He also have to beat her? The presence of an alternative way to accomplish the proposed purpose, an alternative in which no suffering is inflicted, completely negates the justification that the suffering was needed for the described purpose. It even suggests the question, "what was God's purpose in choosing the method with suffering, over the method without?" Why would God beat his loved one rather than just pulling her out of the way? Your proposed purposes are not actually purposes for suffering at all, UNLESS no alternative could be found without suffering, any more than preventing someone from being hit by a car is justification for beating her halfway to death.

And if God could not find a way to achieve a world without suffering AND achieve all His other aims, then he is either not omnipotent, or not omniscient, or both. (Unless one of his aims is suffering itself, in which case achieving His goals without suffering would be a logical contradiction potentially beyond omnipotence, but also grounds to question the "loving" part.)

I understand the metaphor. The issue is the Bible lists over 30 good, positive uses and reasons for suffering and atheists transform suffering into bitterness. Your metaphor, however, is moot, because you are making a subjective question of an objective reality. If I reversed the question to “Why does a loving omnipotent god allow pleasure? Why couldn’t god have made a world with no pleasures in it?” you’d say, “Because pleasure is good because it feels good [and suffering is bad because it feels bad…]” However, human altruism is based on doing what is ethically right despite one’s personal pleasures or feelings. So if an atheist’s positivist ethic insists on altruism despite feelings, why should god’s own altruism be based on human feelings?

Quote:As for a skeptic's explanations of why the Nazis were wrong, which flavor would you prefer? "Humanist", "Utilitarian", "Veil of Uncertainty", "Ethic of Reciprocity", or "Don't Commit Genocide for the Sake of Religion Because Both Genocide and Religion are Shitty and Combined They Are Exponentially Shittier"?

So you are saying that you hold to an ethic of reciprocity, like many atheists do, and yet the idea of reciprocity for suffering inflicted [in Hell] and suffering endured [in Heaven] does not solve the issue you’ve raised?

Quote:It is not relevant to THIS discussion, because it has no effect at all on the logical construction of the inconsistency arising from "omnipotent, omniscient, loving, but suffering exists". Being just does not explain the suffering, nor does being wrathful, nor do either of these defuse the inconsistency. (And I could easily propose reasons why a cruel God would make all of those, but a cruel God is not a lynchpin to the argument, because it works even with a God that is indifferent to suffering instead of outright cruel.)

Then let’s take just out of the discussion and put free will back in. If people are free will agents, then a paedophile who uses their free will should be caused to suffer IMO. You seem to imply that an omnipotent and loving god would either 1) not allow paedophiles to suffer 2) not allow paedophiles to exist. Please explain how your omnipotent god would remove this type of suffering while not removing free will.

Quote:Can't say I feel like looking up a reference right now, I'll leave the point of whether it is comprehensible aside, it's not really relevant. But your point was that warning people about Hell and its suffering was a justification for inflicting suffering. I would suggest, first, that other, more merciful and less ambiguous forms of warning could be given instead (which would be just as effective or moreso, if God is omnipotent), second, that this whole explanation smacks of racketeering, because presumably God created Hell, and the system by which people are damned to it, along with everything else. It boils down to, "I have to have this suffering in order to warn people about this other, BIGGER suffering that I stuck in here," which doesn't BEGIN to explain why there's any suffering at all.

I have to disagree with both of your points. I don’t find present suffering an ambiguous way of understanding future suffering. I think offering a sip of Coca-Cola to someone who has never drunk soda is the most expedient way to show them what Coca-Cola tastes like. If you can think of a superior way to understand Coca-Cola without drinking it, I will agree with your first point.

As for explaining why there is suffering in Hell, we would need to agree to disagree as we both have heard Jesus died and rose to expiate sin and that biblically, Hell is a punishment for sin.

Quote: If there was an actual God unambiguously showing up, that'd be very different than the present scenario. It also wouldn't explain why the frailties of the human body allow punching to be harmful in the first place. In my view of the world, the assailant is primarily responsible. But the person who equipped the assailant with the capacity to cause pain, KNOWING that he would, shares some degree of accessory responsibility.

I’ve elsewhere explained that the fragility of humans actually reduces our capacity for suffering, besides ensuring mortality [then the judgment of the soul]. And yes, God bears accessory responsibility for giving people free will. Again, I understand that you find a god would be incompetent because there must be
“some way to not suffer” however, your alternative would need to include the gift of free will. Again, Jesus Himself said “Everyone will suffer” and every person ever has had some measure of it.

Quote: You seemed to be proposing that it would be impossible for God to create a world with people in it that did not also include suffering. You didn't outright say this, but it was the only way your proposal actually served as an explanation of suffering. I asked two questions. First, whether this inability would render God no longer omnipotent, because there was something He could not do. And second, is it possible to have people somewhere (even in Heaven) without having suffering? I asked a bit later whether this connection between people and suffering was a natural law, as a rhetorical device to suggest that it still wouldn't present an obstacle to God.

I propose it’s not impossible to create people who don’t suffer, but it’s illogical to do so while still giving them free will. I’m glad I’m not a robot, and the Bible seems to explain that humans are now separating into those who choose Heaven and Hell of their free will. Further, it’s been my experience that children who suffer [as this thread is based upon] sharpens the discussion and draws people closer to god [or further in some cases].

Quote: ... except you're still not addressing it, unless you explain how suffering would be the ONLY way to heighten their context. How beating a loved one senseless is the ONLY way to keep them from wandering into the street.

For example, a child who dies in their youth and goes to Heaven, who misses growing up to be an axe murderer. True, they could die without suffering in their sleep… but I believe I understand the reasons why some do and some don’t.

Quote: As I've said several times, I'm not CLAIMING that causing suffering for no purpose is wrong, or evil, at least not in relation to your argument that the suffering inherent in God's creation is justified. (The tangents you introduced, I think we may have gotten into that, but not the core argument.) I could, and I do think that, but we'd go off on a huge tangent that would needlessly complicate the discussion at best, and drag it into unresolvable disagreements at worst. Instead, I'm claiming that inflicting suffering for no good reason (and yes, we're also arguing about whether there's any good reason or not) is not the act of a LOVING being.

We do not seem to be moving towards an agreement. In particular, you are not convincing me of your original argument, that there are reasons why an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God (and if you insist, also just, wrathful, and soprano) would have the world such that there is suffering. You asked for feedback on your logic, I have provided it, you have disputed it. I have not convinced you that these holes exist in your argument and you have not convinced me that they do not, and no change seems to be just over the horizon. Where do we go from here?

Well, I wish you would claim that. What you call cruel from god is also called cruel and sadistic from people. There were Nazis who followed orders of execution and Nazis who raped and tortured victims before executing them, and that would be causing suffering for no discernible purpose. I wish you would claim that is wrong so we can define terms and know why we accuse god of being sadistic!

Where do we go from here? I’d love for you to provide an understanding for me of:

*Why suffering is wrong and pleasure is right so we can accuse god rightly

*How we’d understand pleasure without suffering or discomfort, how the elimination of one doesn’t cancel the other

*Why if you’re comfortable as a naturalist with suffering as natural, you still feel the obligation to point out the “error” with suffering to theists

*How you came to understand that altruism is “right” and say, genocide and inflicting suffering are “wrong”—from a naturalist’s perspective rather than philosophy would be great

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: