It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God"

[SentientMeat]

Every so often I dip into the SDMB just to see whassup. This thread piqued my interest, which in theological discussions is generally only reserved these days to instances where people consider my atheistic position to be inconsistent in some way, as here.

straggler, your first issue seems to be concerned with the philosophical/rhetorical operation known as reductio ad absurdum. This is where you argue that your opponents position contains some absurdity or inconsistency by saying if that’s true, then how come …? For example, Galileo did not simply say “the Earth moves and that’s that”, he asked if Psalm 93:1 is literally true, how come we can see the phases of Venus (and, centuries later, the parallax of distant stars)? A prosecution lawyer does not say “The defendant was at the crime scene, case closed”, they ask how come your alibi is contradicted by witnesses? There is no inconsistency in temporarily accepting the truth of any statement in order to show its consequences.

As to those particular consequences here, the existence of suffering does cast strong doubts on the existence of a god that is both all-good and all-powerful, as Abrahamic tradition stipulates. There were 13.6 billion years between the point at which the universe started changing (or was created ex nihilo under said traditional doctrine) and the evolution (or creation, under said dogma) of anything like human beings. God had plenty of scope to create beings who couldn’t suffer, or make “wrong” choices which resulted in their suffering. Yet he decided to allow suffering as a possibility, despite the obvious statistical inevitability of that suffering actually occurring given the sample size.

Now, god could still be all-good if he could simply shrug his shoulders and say “hey, I don’t make the rules! Evil and suffering MUST exist and there’s nothing I can do about it.” (This appears to be the position you take when you say that rewards MUST be earned, when an atheist would simply ask what kind of loving being offers only rewards, not unconditional gifts.) But that would, if anything, make such a being even less Supreme than an all-powerful but suffering-tolerant god. There would effectively be fundamental laws which even he must obey and be contingent upon. You say that this does “seem strange”: is that not another way of saying yes, I recognise that there is a logical inconsistency here, which atheists are bound to point out in debate?

Finally, you seem to be well-versed in Christian and Abrahamic doctrine and your argument seems to originate in a sense of indignation that atheists are setting forth an argument that you just don’t like, yet you maintain that you’re just “independent” here and don’t even own a Bible. Is this really true, or are you actually a reasonable Christian who wants to engage in rigorous debate with (hopefully) reasonable atheists? I’m not accusing you of dishonesty or anything, it’s just that I feel the debate could move along more productively if your overall worldview was more clearly set out.

Don’t know whether I’ll get chance to reply here chaps - all the best if not.

[hotflungwok]

@cosmosdan

Incorrect. How do we, not being omniscient, argue what is needless in comparison to a being that is omniscient? We can accurately say, “I don’t see any purpose in this suffering” and that’s all. We can’t logically claim God can’t possibly have one.

But the point is that a omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being couldn’t cause that kind of suffering. They have the power to make whatever it is they’re doing without the suffering. If there’s some kind of process that we’re going through to get to some goal, he could snap his fingers and bam we’re all there, no needless suffering. If the god wasn’t omnipotent, then you couldn’t say this. But since god can do anything and knows everything and loves everything absolutely, they would have to find another way…

Not being omniscient I couldn’t say. You seem to be assuming that it’s not voluntary and God makes spiritual beings experience the torture of being human against their protests. Their’s no reason to assume that. Why do humans want to simulate being gangsters or bloody wars that they wouldn’t want to be “real”?

We also have no evidence whatsoever that it is voluntary. You’re trying to just speculate the problem away. Humans simulate things like that for the perceived thrill without the suffering involved.

Here’s where the mixing of perspectives makes these conversations derail.
I asked before, if your kid wants to experience something and you know they can’t really be hurt {since they are spiritual beings not physical ones} and the perfectly safe experience will teach them something about perspective, in what way would it violate the principle of omnibenevolence?

So the kid is learning something, but it might hurt him? That’s suffering with benefit. Working out, recovering from surgery, struggling to learn something, etc all have benefits, and the suffering is not needless. What benefit does a child who is raped a killed get? If an omnibenevolent god knew about the rape & murder, and could do something about, they would have to. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

Incorrect. How do we, not being omniscient, argue what is needless in comparison to a being that is omniscient? We can accurately say, “I don’t see any purpose in this suffering” and that’s all. We can’t logically claim God can’t possibly have one.

Here’s where you’re wrong - we can logically claim that God can’t possibly have one. Here’s how:

P1) God, being omnibenevolent, cannot allow any purposeless suffering that he is aware of.
P2) God, being omnibenevolent, cannot have suffering as an end goal.
P3) God, being omnipotent, can achieve anything, without any preconditions.
P4) God, being omniscient, cannot be unaware of any suffering, anywhere.
P5) By definiton, if suffering isn’t a precondition to some other end, or the end itself, it is purposeless.

All the above are determinable by definition. So:

C1) To god, suffering can never be a precondition, because he can achieve his ends without it. (From P3)
C2) To god, all suffering is purposeless (from C1, P2, and P5)

Note that C2 is the disproof of “We can’t logically claim God can’t possibly have [a purpose in this suffering]”. Now, to conclude the proof:

C3) God cannot allow any suffering he is aware of (from C2 and P1)
C4) God cannot allow any suffering, anywhere.

And there you go - the POE in a fairly formal logical nutshell.

@cosmosdan

Not being omniscient I couldn’t say. You seem to be assuming that it’s not voluntary and God makes spiritual beings experience the torture of being human against their protests. Their’s no reason to assume that. Why do humans want to simulate being gangsters or bloody wars that they wouldn’t want to be “real”?
Here’s where the mixing of perspectives makes these conversations derail.
I asked before, if your kid wants to experience something and you know they can’t really be hurt {since they are spiritual beings not physical ones} and the perfectly safe experience will teach them something about perspective, in what way would it violate the principle of omnibenevolence?

It violates omnibenevolence because in this scenario God doesn’t care about us - he only cares about “spiritual beings”. This is equivalent (if not synonymous) to if we are video game avatars, who are merely being puppeted by our spirits - we may be screaming in real, horrific agony that we’re really experiencing in our frame of reference, while our spirits are placidly marking down points of damage on our character sheets. This is all well and good, if you only care about the spirits - much the same way that putting live hamsters in microwaves is okay if you don’t care about the hamster. But omnibenevolence, it ain’t.

The god you describe is something to be feared and hated. Maybe not by our spirits, but certainly by us, because to us it is an apathetic and destructive monster.

[cosmosdan]

@hotflungwok

But the point is that a omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being couldn’t cause that kind of suffering. They have the power to make whatever it is they’re doing without the suffering. If there’s some kind of process that we’re going through to get to some goal, he could snap his fingers and bam we’re all there, no needless suffering. If the god wasn’t omnipotent, then you couldn’t say this. But since god can do anything and knows everything and loves everything absolutely, they would have to find another way…

I understand that point. I’m saying that being spiritual beings we are only let’s say, vicariously perceiving duality, choice, good and evil through the temporary physical world. {for arguments sake} Such as the players in some simulation experiencing war through their character. Since there is no real risk in the experience and if the experience itself is the purpose, then none of God’s omni qualities are contradicted.
Once again, the logic flaw IMO is the mixing of perspectives.

We also have no evidence whatsoever that it is voluntary. You’re trying to just speculate the problem away. Humans simulate things like that for the perceived thrill without the suffering involved.

But logically, neither is more likely than the other so you can’t build a logical argument by insisting one is true.

So the kid is learning something, but it might hurt him? That’s suffering with benefit. Working out, recovering from surgery, struggling to learn something, etc all have benefits, and the suffering is not needless. What benefit does a child who is raped a killed get? If an omnibenevolent god knew about the rape & murder, and could do something about, they would have to. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be omnibenevolent.

I’m saying the suffering is perceived as real but not actually harmful to the spiritual being.

Mostly I’m saying the POE argument fails.

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

Here’s where you’re wrong - we can logically claim that God can’t possibly have one. Here’s how:

P1) God, being omnibenevolent, cannot allow any purposeless suffering that he is aware of.
P2) God, being omnibenevolent, cannot have suffering as an end goal.
P3) God, being omnipotent, can achieve anything, without any preconditions.
P4) God, being omniscient, cannot be unaware of any suffering, anywhere.
P5) By definiton, if suffering isn’t a precondition to some other end, or the end itself, it is purposeless.

All the above are determinable by definition. So:

C1) To god, suffering can never be a precondition, because he can achieve his ends without it. (From P3)
C2) To god, all suffering is purposeless (from C1, P2, and P5)

Note that C2 is the disproof of “We can’t logically claim God can’t possibly have [a purpose in this suffering]”. Now, to conclude the proof:

C3) God cannot allow any suffering he is aware of (from C2 and P1)
C4) God cannot allow any suffering, anywhere.

And there you go - the POE in a fairly formal logical nutshell.

I appreciate you explaining it this way. Still, IMO it fails because we are judging suffering from the human physical perspective rather than a spiritual one.

It violates omnibenevolence because in this scenario God doesn’t care about us - he only cares about “spiritual beings”. This is equivalent (if not synonymous) to if we are video game avatars, who are merely being puppeted by our spirits - we may be screaming in real, horrific agony that we’re really experiencing in our frame of reference, while our spirits are placidly marking down points of damage on our character sheets. This is all well and good, if you only care about the spirits - much the same way that putting live hamsters in microwaves is okay if you don’t care about the hamster. But omnibenevolence, it ain’t.

No, us is the spiritual beings rather than two different us. Since we know our physical bodies will fade away no matter what we do our spiritual selves {in theory} are then the proper things to place as the priority.

The god you describe is something to be feared and hated. Maybe not by our spirits, but certainly by us, because to us it is an apathetic and destructive monster.

I’m only arguing the logic of the POE argument.

I’m out of town for a week and not sure how much computer time or access I will have. Later

[Czarcasm]

@cosmosdan

I appreciate you explaining it this way. Still, IMO it fails because we are judging suffering from the human physical perspective rather than a spiritual one.

The reason for this is simple:
Suffering from human physical perspective, currently being experienced=Reality
Suffering from spiritual perspective, for which we have no evidence=Blind conjecture

[Zoe]

Diogenes, one reason that I left the church that I was recently attending was that the denomination was beginning to emphasize an evangelical program. If you are comfortable with your atheism after the exposure you’ve already had, why shouldn’t I feel that things are as they should be? (The “should,” of course, comes from my own point of view as a theist.)

Can you not feel as comfortable with my being a theist? A Christian who is open to other ways of thinking? (I don’t believe in hell or in a “traditional” heaven. I do believe in perhaps another state of consciousness accessible to all. (Well, all except maybe Bryan and the boy who sat behind me in fourth grade.)

[hotflungwok]

@cosmosdan

I understand that point. I’m saying that being spiritual beings we are only let’s say, vicariously perceiving duality, choice, good and evil through the temporary physical world. {for arguments sake} Such as the players in some simulation experiencing war through their character. Since there is no real risk in the experience and if the experience itself is the purpose, then none of God’s omni qualities are contradicted.
Once again, the logic flaw IMO is the mixing of perspectives.

But this is just speculation, it has no bearing on us. We have no spiritual perspective. From our point of view, this is it. If there is something after this, and we have no reason to believe there is, then what comes after is something else, not just another perspective. We suffer here and now, and that’s what matters. If there’s a spiritual being or whatever controlling me, and it’s doing things to make me feel suffering, then it’s not omnibenevolent. But an omnibenevolent god wouldn’t all the spirit to do that. Trying to put another layer between us and god doesn’t absolve god of his responsibility, nor does it allow him to ignore his omnibenevolence.

But logically, neither is more likely than the other so you can’t build a logical argument by insisting one is true.

Huh? That’s exactly what you are doing. Your entire counterargument is based on your speculation being true.

I’m saying the suffering is perceived as real but not actually harmful to the spiritual being.

Screw the spiritual being, I’m suffering here.

Mostly I’m saying the POE argument fails.

But you haven’t shown why. All you have is an argument based speculation.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Zoe

Diogenes, one reason that I left the church that I was recently attending was that the denomination was beginning to emphasize an evangelical program. If you are comfortable with your atheism after the exposure you’ve already had, why shouldn’t I feel that things are as they should be? (The “should,” of course, comes from my own point of view as a theist.)

Can you not feel as comfortable with my being a theist? A Christian who is open to other ways of thinking? (I don’t believe in hell or in a “traditional” heaven. I do believe in perhaps another state of consciousness accessible to all. (Well, all except maybe Bryan and the boy who sat behind me in fourth grade.)

I’m not uncomfortable with anybody being a theist. I’m married to one.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Cosmo, the “human physical” perspective is all that matters. There is no other perpsctive which makes the human perspective not hurt. More importantly, there can be no logical purpose for it on any level. The argument from ignorance (“We don’t understand God’s reasons”) doesn’t work on the POE because there logically CAN’T be a reason. Suffering cannot be a means to an end, because an omnimax God does not NEED any means to any ends. He can instantly skip right to any goal (and should have never had any unfulfilled goal to begin with) without any scheme, or mechanism or plan or anything else. Any means to an end is unnecessary, therefore any means which includes suffering (and lets not trivialize human – or even animal – suffering by suggesting that it isn’t really suffering) is unnecessary. An omnimax God cannot allow ANY unnecessary suffering, therefore no omnimax God can exist. QED.

No one has ever solved the POE before, so I don’t know why people still bother to try.

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

I appreciate you explaining it this way. Still, IMO it fails because we are judging suffering from the human physical perspective rather than a spiritual one.

No - omnibenevolence requires that all perspectives be considered. Whether we’re aware of God’s perspective is immaterial, the issue is whether he’s aware of ours - and if he’s aware that we have a perspective of our own (which he must, being omniscient) then he cannot possibly inflict trials upon us. If he’s omnibenevolent.

@cosmosdan

No, us is the spiritual beings rather than two different us. Since we know our physical bodies will fade away no matter what we do our spiritual selves {in theory} are then the proper things to place as the priority.

I am different from King Graham, even though I control him. And I (and the game designers) put him through hell! And laugh at his misery!

I can do this because I don’t care about his suffering - or rather, because I revel in his suffering. But then, I’m not omni-benevolent - I’m selectively benevolent, in that I only care about other humans. I don’t care much about dogs and I care nothing at all about the well-being of cartoon characters.

@cosmosdan

I’m only arguing the logic of the POE argument.

And what I’m saying is, you haven’t found a flaw in it. You’ve simply found one of the many, many models that it doesn’t apply to. Any diety that is not omnimax is not subject to the POE.

Really, think about this. You are arguing that God doesn’t care about the suffering of man. Literally. You make a reasonable scenario for this occuring without God being a tyrant, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re saying, “That cancer of yours? God doesn’t care about that.” This is obviously contradictory with the concept of a benevolent diety who wishes the best for humans. And there’s no way around that - you simply can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[monavis]

@cosmosdan

I appreciate you explaining it this way. Still, IMO it fails because we are judging suffering from the human physical perspective rather than a spiritual one.

No, us is the spiritual beings rather than two different us. Since we know our physical bodies will fade away no matter what we do our spiritual selves {in theory} are then the proper things to place as the priority.

I’m only arguing the logic of the POE argument.

I’m out of town for a week and not sure how much computer time or access I will have. Later

Can you prove you or we are spiritual beings, and how do you know this is a fact?

[cosmosdan]

@monavis

Can you prove you or we are spiritual beings, and how do you know this is a fact?

If you’ve read my posts you’ll see I’ve already resdponded to this

[cosmosdan]

@Czarcasm

The reason for this is simple:
Suffering from human physical perspective, currently being experienced=Reality
Suffering from spiritual perspective, for which we have no evidence=Blind conjecture

Not the point of this discussion as I’ve explained.

[cosmosdan]

@hotflungwok

But this is just speculation, it has no bearing on us. We have no spiritual perspective. From our point of view, this is it. If there is something after this, and we have no reason to believe there is, then what comes after is something else, not just another perspective. We suffer here and now, and that’s what matters. If there’s a spiritual being or whatever controlling me, and it’s doing things to make me feel suffering, then it’s not omnibenevolent. But an omnibenevolent god wouldn’t all the spirit to do that. Trying to put another layer between us and god doesn’t absolve god of his responsibility, nor does it allow him to ignore his omnibenevolence.

Yes but the whole topic is speculation. Does God exist? The only answer is speculation.
I’m only pointing out the possible arguments starting from the premise .“if God is and is omnimax then” I’m not putting another layer in between. I’m saying if an eternal God is and our primary reality is eternal and spiritual rather than temporary and physical then arguing based on the temporary physical position is the flaw in the logic.

Huh? That’s exactly what you are doing. Your entire counterargument is based on your speculation being true.

Not really. I’m sayting the argument is flawed because we cannot argue from the proper perspective. I’m not claiming I’m right. I’m claiming that we can’t presently know.

Screw the spiritual being, I’m suffering here.

Or at least that’s your temporary perception.

But you haven’t shown why. All you have is an argument based speculation.

When you start with “if God is”, it’s all speculation.

[monavis]

@cosmosdan

If you’ve read my posts you’ll see I’ve already resdponded to this

Your posts are your beliefs not proof.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Or to be crude about it:

His posts are his shite.

[gonzomax]

People have been wondering about god for a couple centuries. It would be so simple to make a big display and solve it once and forever. But no big show, no huge proof, no letters, no phone calls,nothing , there can only be one reason. He does not exist. A god who plays with people like an evil game player is a hard swallow for any person. That is what you believe in. God could show you himself if he wanted to. But church philosophers have been dancing on the heads of pins trying to explain it . They failed . Why should god make an announcement on TV? Because if those who don’t believe are doomed to a horrible burning afterlife, he owes it to them. With the punishments he is supposed to wield ,far beyond anything man can do, why play around? It is cruelty. The whole concept is ridiculous.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

A news story that reminded me of this thread.

[cosmosdan]

they’re neither and were not intended to be. That should have been clear.

try again,…or not.