Conquer Club

so, if suffering occurs in nature, and humans follow the laws of nature, then how is god evil for allowing human suffering? you are implying that human suffering is bad, yet humans are no different from animals, which means that animal suffering is bad... but why? you think the laws of nature are evil?

your post is logically inconsistent.

it's possible that our universe is the best possible universe despite human suffering (which can be good). perhaps all human suffering occurs because the alternative is worse. think about this big picture.

john9blue wrote:so, if suffering occurs in nature, and humans follow the laws of nature, then how is god evil for allowing human suffering? you are implying that human suffering is bad, yet humans are no different from animals, which means that animal suffering is bad... but why? you think the laws of nature are evil?

your post is logically inconsistent.

it's possible that our universe is the best possible universe despite human suffering (which can be good). perhaps all human suffering occurs because the alternative is worse. think about this big picture.

if god is omnipotent, there is absolutely no justification for kids dying of hunger.
Unless he's also kind of a dick of course.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:so, if suffering occurs in nature, and humans follow the laws of nature, then how is god evil for allowing human suffering? you are implying that human suffering is bad, yet humans are no different from animals, which means that animal suffering is bad... but why? you think the laws of nature are evil?

your post is logically inconsistent.

it's possible that our universe is the best possible universe despite human suffering (which can be good). perhaps all human suffering occurs because the alternative is worse. think about this big picture.

if god is omnipotent, there is absolutely no justification for kids dying of hunger.
Unless he's also kind of a dick of course.

is there justification for an animal dying of hunger? do you think natural selection is "wrong"? not to say that it's the same thing as a child dying of hunger, but theoretically that can be justified.

let me put it this way: do you think that each and every child hunger death in the history of the world had the end result of making the world worse?

john9blue wrote:so, if suffering occurs in nature, and humans follow the laws of nature, then how is god evil for allowing human suffering? you are implying that human suffering is bad, yet humans are no different from animals, which means that animal suffering is bad... but why? you think the laws of nature are evil?

In all actuality I believe the universe and nature are neither good nor evil; however, if we want to look at the world through dualistic glasses, then suffering must be labeled as "evil" and non-suffering as "good". How is it that suffering can be good? That seems irrational to me. If you are talking about a "bigger picture" as you mention later in your post, I think that is total bs. "Bigger Picture", "God's Will", "God's Plan"...just a bunch of malarkey to somehow try to make regular people feel safe and secure in a very hostile world and universe. That is the reality of the situation. You do not sit safe in your home apart from the crocodile ripping apart the gazelle.

john9blue wrote:your post is logically inconsistent.

perhaps. My logic often rambles inconsistently...however, I think you can understand where I am coming from.

john9blue wrote:it's possible that our universe is the best possible universe despite human suffering (which can be good). perhaps all human suffering occurs because the alternative is worse. think about this big picture.

I would agree that this Universe is the best possible Universe...BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY UNIVERSE WE ARE LIVING IN! I still do not grasp your idea of how human suffering is "good". If God is "good", why does he just not eliminate suffering in the world. Yes, humans have free will; but the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs didn't. Really, the sense of "good" and "evil" is arbitrary; and is a matter of perspective at best.

One might say that using nuclear bombs on Japan was evil, while yet another will say if we didn't do so the loss of life would have been greater. But if God was real, and really gave a crap about humans, wouldn't he have formed the most perfect world government centuries ago to avoid any of these wars?

I am not trying to blame God for anything, I am merely looking for the evidence of His existence. I am only trying to point out that if God is a "good" God, then shouldn't he be protecting the innocent from the depraved?

Or does it all just fall into the giant kettle that is called "God's Will" or "Human Free Will" and such?

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:so, if suffering occurs in nature, and humans follow the laws of nature, then how is god evil for allowing human suffering? you are implying that human suffering is bad, yet humans are no different from animals, which means that animal suffering is bad... but why? you think the laws of nature are evil?

your post is logically inconsistent.

it's possible that our universe is the best possible universe despite human suffering (which can be good). perhaps all human suffering occurs because the alternative is worse. think about this big picture.

if god is omnipotent, there is absolutely no justification for kids dying of hunger.
Unless he's also kind of a dick of course.

is there justification for an animal dying of hunger? do you think natural selection is "wrong"? not to say that it's the same thing as a child dying of hunger, but theoretically that can be justified.

let me put it this way: do you think that each and every child hunger death in the history of the world had the end result of making the world worse?

god is omnipotent => the world could be exactly the way it is now with or without any kids dying of hunger throughout the whole of history.
god is omnipotent => we could all not even require food for sustenance
god is omnipotent => we could all have spontaneously poofed into existence without the now largely harmful evolutionary emotional vestiges that lead to genocide, crime and rape

and so on and so forth.

the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die? it's not unrealistic to think so.

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die?

See, you don't seem to be grasping the ramifications of *omnipotent*.

omnipotent = he could have saved the kid, make it so that he's adopted by a rich family so he doesn't need to steal, make the convenience store owner win the lotto and make me find a 20 dollar bill on the ground without braking a sweat

No matter what the goals, omnipotent = he can achieve those goals AND eliminate suffering
Therefore, if there is an omnipotent god, he actively wants, or at best is indifferent to our suffering. Therefore, he is kind of a dick.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die?

See, you don't seem to be grasping the ramifications of *omnipotent*.

omnipotent = he could have saved the kid, make it so that he's adopted by a rich family so he doesn't need to steal, make the convenience store owner win the lotto and make me find a 20 dollar bill on the ground without braking a sweat

No matter what the goals, omnipotent = he can achieve those goals AND eliminate suffering
Therefore, if there is an omnipotent god, he actively wants, or at best is indifferent to our suffering. Therefore, he is kind of a dick.

you're ignoring the consequences again. for starters, the store owner winning the lotto means someone else doesn't win the lotto, or wins less money from the lotto, which also has consequences and suffering.

what are the consequences of earth having a species like ours that has a great deal of suffering? are they worse than the consequences of earth having a species that has no suffering?

calling god a dick because of human suffering is like a child calling their parent a dick because the parent won't let their child eat ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. except, with that case, the child is much closer in knowledge to the parents than we are to an omniscient god (if he exists)

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

as an example: a child dies of hunger in the streets of chicago. had he not died, he would have stolen from a small, struggling convenience store every day for the next month. this would be just enough to put the convenience store out of business. the owner of the store would turn to robbery himself in order to get by. he ends up mugging and killing a young man who would have become the leader of *insert something important here*... and so on... you get the idea.

would an omnipotent god let that child die?

See, you don't seem to be grasping the ramifications of *omnipotent*.

omnipotent = he could have saved the kid, make it so that he's adopted by a rich family so he doesn't need to steal, make the convenience store owner win the lotto and make me find a 20 dollar bill on the ground without braking a sweat

No matter what the goals, omnipotent = he can achieve those goals AND eliminate suffering
Therefore, if there is an omnipotent god, he actively wants, or at best is indifferent to our suffering. Therefore, he is kind of a dick.

you're ignoring the consequences again. for starters, the store owner winning the lotto means someone else doesn't win the lotto, or wins less money from the lotto, which also has consequences and suffering.

what are the consequences of earth having a species like ours that has a great deal of suffering? are they worse than the consequences of earth having a species that has no suffering?

calling god a dick because of human suffering is like a child calling their parent a dick because the parent won't let their child eat ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. except, with that case, the child is much closer in knowledge to the parents than we are to an omniscient god (if he exists)

Seriously, OMNIPOTENT.
consequences are for us, with our limited foresight and abilities. an omnipotent being can by definition do anything while avoiding all negative consequences. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

give me an example of one thing that an omnipotent being couldn't achieve without inflicting suffering. That question is pretty much self-contradictory. If such an example existed, the being wouldn't be omnipotent.

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Seriously, OMNIPOTENT.
consequences are for us, with our limited foresight and abilities. an omnipotent being can by definition do anything while avoiding all negative consequences. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

give me an example of one thing that an omnipotent being couldn't achieve without inflicting suffering. That question is pretty much self-contradictory. If such an example existed, the being wouldn't be omnipotent.

Maybe he's so omnipotent that you can't fathom the ways of his omnipotence because he's omnipotent and stuff.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

Silly me! Rape away!

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Seriously, OMNIPOTENT.
consequences are for us, with our limited foresight and abilities. an omnipotent being can by definition do anything while avoiding all negative consequences. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

give me an example of one thing that an omnipotent being couldn't achieve without inflicting suffering. That question is pretty much self-contradictory. If such an example existed, the being wouldn't be omnipotent.

why are you so stuck in the mindset that suffering = wrong?

suffering is a chemical reaction in the brain.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

oh no! turns out our species is going to wipe out another, cooler species in a nearby star system in the year 9001! or, we would have, if some dude hadn't committed genocide in the year 2500 and wiped out the distant ancestors of the dude who spearheaded the "kill the aliens" program. thank goodness for genocide, eh?

What is this... I don't even?

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote: Seriously, OMNIPOTENT.
consequences are for us, with our limited foresight and abilities. an omnipotent being can by definition do anything while avoiding all negative consequences. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent.

give me an example of one thing that an omnipotent being couldn't achieve without inflicting suffering. That question is pretty much self-contradictory. If such an example existed, the being wouldn't be omnipotent.

why are you so stuck in the mindset that suffering = wrong?

suffering is a chemical reaction in the brain.

This is going to a definitional thing.
Wrong from whose PoV and so on( I don't believe objectively wrong exists ).

However, that's not really the point.
We are conscious beings. We don't generally like death, pain, suffering and such.
God is omnipotent. No matter what his purpose it is not necessary for him to inflict suffering.

So why do it?
I'm not saying it's necessarily "wrong", whatever that means.
I'm saying it's in the same category as a kid letting his fish starve to death cause he's too lazy to feed them. Kind of a dick move.

Strife wrote:What is this... I don't even?

Reassuring to see not much has changed round these parts, isn't it?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
This is going to a definitional thing.
Wrong from whose PoV and so on( I don't believe objectively wrong exists ).

However, that's not really the point.
We are conscious beings. We don't generally like death, pain, suffering and such.
God is omnipotent. No matter what his purpose it is not necessary for him to inflict suffering.

So why do it?
I'm not saying it's necessarily "wrong", whatever that means.
I'm saying it's in the same category as a kid letting his fish starve to death cause he's too lazy to feed them. Kind of a dick move.

if suffering isn't wrong, or wrong doesn't exist, then why is it mutually exclusive with a benevolent god?

the kid has limited knowledge and only lets his fish starve due to selfishness. that's completely different.

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
This is going to a definitional thing.
Wrong from whose PoV and so on( I don't believe objectively wrong exists ).

However, that's not really the point.
We are conscious beings. We don't generally like death, pain, suffering and such.
God is omnipotent. No matter what his purpose it is not necessary for him to inflict suffering.

So why do it?
I'm not saying it's necessarily "wrong", whatever that means.
I'm saying it's in the same category as a kid letting his fish starve to death cause he's too lazy to feed them. Kind of a dick move.

if suffering isn't wrong, or wrong doesn't exist, then why is it mutually exclusive with a benevolent god?

the kid has limited knowledge and only lets his fish starve due to selfishness. that's completely different.

if objective wrong/right doesn't exist an objectively benevolent god cannot exist either, cause there's nothing by which to judge his benevolence or malevolence (which is pretty much what I believe).
That leaves a subjectively benevolent god as a possibility, i.e. benevolent from our PoV. This one , I've been arguing, clearly doesn't exist.

So I guess the only tenable position is if an objective right/wrong does exist, this morality is completely foreign to ours (i.e. suffering = cool) and god is benevolent according to this foreign objective morality. Is this what you're saying?

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

oh no! turns out our species is going to wipe out another, cooler species in a nearby star system in the year 9001! or, we would have, if some dude hadn't committed genocide in the year 2500 and wiped out the distant ancestors of the dude who spearheaded the "kill the aliens" program. thank goodness for genocide, eh?

After you've finished your journeys across intergalactic space, time, and I guess space-time, lemme know when you've returned to this actual world. =P

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
if objective wrong/right doesn't exist an objectively benevolent god cannot exist either, cause there's nothing by which to judge his benevolence or malevolence (which is pretty much what I believe).
That leaves a subjectively benevolent god as a possibility, i.e. benevolent from our PoV. This one , I've been arguing, clearly doesn't exist.

So I guess the only tenable position is if an objective right/wrong does exist, this morality is completely foreign to ours (i.e. suffering = cool) and god is benevolent according to this foreign objective morality. Is this what you're saying?

pretty much, yes.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

oh no! turns out our species is going to wipe out another, cooler species in a nearby star system in the year 9001! or, we would have, if some dude hadn't committed genocide in the year 2500 and wiped out the distant ancestors of the dude who spearheaded the "kill the aliens" program. thank goodness for genocide, eh?

After you've finished your journeys across intergalactic space, time, and I guess space-time, lemme know when you've returned to this actual world. =P

this actual world sucks tho...

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:the problem here is that you both are trying to determine what is good and evil from your extremely limited perspective as apes on a lonely planet orbiting a lonely star in the arm of a random galaxy.

It might a bit of stretch to say this, but genocide and rape aren't morally correct actions.

oh no! turns out our species is going to wipe out another, cooler species in a nearby star system in the year 9001! or, we would have, if some dude hadn't committed genocide in the year 2500 and wiped out the distant ancestors of the dude who spearheaded the "kill the aliens" program. thank goodness for genocide, eh?

After you've finished your journeys across intergalactic space, time, and I guess space-time, lemme know when you've returned to this actual world. =P

this actual world sucks tho...

I'm glad you've made it back!

Anyway, about genocide and rape on this actual world. I think you were trying to make the case that these actions can't be shown to be morally incorrect? Would you care to morally justify those acts?

BigBallinStalin wrote:
I'm glad you've made it back!

Anyway, about genocide and rape on this actual world. I think you were trying to make the case that these actions can't be shown to be morally incorrect? Would you care to morally justify those acts?

just because something can't be shown to be wrong doesn't mean that it is able to be justified. the burden of proof is on both parties to show why something is morally good or evil.

plus, expecting someone to "prove" anything in morality is a tall order...

There's vulgar subjectivism, and then there's subjectivism. Vulgar subjectivism tends to make claims like "genocide and rape? well, that can't shown to be immoral, for morality is subjective." To me, vulgar subjectivism is a warped stance. That moral code grants such actions the possibility of being morally good actions.

john9blue wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
if objective wrong/right doesn't exist an objectively benevolent god cannot exist either, cause there's nothing by which to judge his benevolence or malevolence (which is pretty much what I believe).
That leaves a subjectively benevolent god as a possibility, i.e. benevolent from our PoV. This one , I've been arguing, clearly doesn't exist.

So I guess the only tenable position is if an objective right/wrong does exist, this morality is completely foreign to ours (i.e. suffering = cool) and god is benevolent according to this foreign objective morality. Is this what you're saying?

pretty much, yes.

And now we descend into the realm of which beliefs are worth having.

Like I said, that position seems tenable, it also seems pretty unfalsifiable. We can only perceive the world through our own subjective viewpoint, it seems unreasonable to me to believe in theoretically tenable but practically untestable things such as an invisible pink unicorn or a foreign objective morality with its own god attached.

Also, related but even more empirical viewpoint on which beliefs are worth having: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_belie ... periences/