God, Suffering, and Special Pleading

[Meow Mix]

I think that theoretically any number of years short of infinity should be within the realm of plausibility with the caveat that it doesn't overcome the ultimate objective of benevolence by making it impossible to enjoy the benefits of the suffering. That is, the suffering isn't a means to itself, it must lead to greater benefit of pleasure. So any amount of suffering is plausible so long as it raises that benefit and doesn't impair it.

Infinity doesn't work like that, though. There's no "years short of infinity," something is either infinite or it's not. There are different cardinalities of infinity. I don't think it's a reasonable idea that someone could be tortured for 1,000,000,000 years for a "good, unknown reason," let alone 1,000 or anything of the sort. This drives home the point that if special pleading is allowed, then we can get around any deduction or any reasoned position by simply saying "the contradiction isn't REALLY a contradiction in an unknowable way." It's a non-response. One might as well respond "well, maybe it really IS a contradiction in a further unknowable way," or something. This is why special pleading is fallacious.

 

[Meow Mix]

Technically, if suffering is temporary -and ceases -and is forgotten -the suffering has been corrected.

If you mercilessly beat a baby, then YOU need to be corrected -but that is not what God does -and that correction might be accomplished by suffering of some sort -which can later be corrected after you are corrected.
Paying for college does not correct anything -and you do not have the power to heal all of the hurt you mercilessly caused.

Though God is ultimately responsible for bringing the situation he created to a good end, there is a difference between that for which he is directly responsible and that for which he may hold us directly responsible.

God does nothing mercilessly -though he applies that mercy when it will do the most good for all. He allowed us to do much of what we will -and for it to cause suffering to others -and he also directly causes suffering -but toward that good end.

Suffering -overall -IS necessary now if it is to be completely eradicated in the future.

Technically, it isn't even necessary to our basic functioning that we feel physical pain as we do. It is an extreme force which will forge our spirits -by way of our bodies and minds.
Emotional suffering is due to imperfect states, and physical suffering also teaches us to be serious about making states as perfect as we can.

The fact that you zealously want to do that which will prevent all suffering has been produced by your experience. If we did not live it, it would not be firmly rooted in us.

Though it is not directly necessary for the innocent and vulnerable to suffer -by others, time and chance -or even directly or indirectly by decision of God (plagues in the bible, etc.), it is indirectly necessary -as it will produce a future which will be unimaginable good and joyous for all -which could not otherwise be produced -and the present things will be corrected, and eventually no longer be remembered.

I disagree with the premise that suffering is required for a better future. When suffering exists, you can only do certain things about it: you can prevent future instances of it or you can alleviate it. Anything that we call "good" that comes out of suffering gets its goodness from that. Can you think of another example? For instance a heroic fireman rescuing someone from a fire: we call it good because he prevented and alleviated suffering. When suffering is involved and goods are created because of the suffering, it's always in RESPONSE to suffering somehow, or preparation for it.

There are goods that I think a lot of us can agree are good independently of suffering. So, is it "worth it" for a fire to exist just so we can have a heroic fireman? Is it "worth it" for smallpox to exist just so we can create a vaccine? I think upon thinking about this, most would agree that's absurd: I think people would agree it's better to have never had the fire and better to have never had the smallpox.

What do you think?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't believe anything can ever be perceived as "benevolent" to all beings at all times. In fact, any God falls down on that right away by creating a system in which living cells are to be consumed as food. Even within plants, each cell that makes up the body is an individual living being.

You're assuming that eating such sustenance would be necessary. It's logically possible for it not to be.

The problem being that without something providing everything for you, you are bound to mis-step. If there were no way to inform you that you had done so, you would simply keep mis-stepping. For example, if there were no mechanism within the body to inform you that you were thirsty, you may never drink, and would die without knowledge that you had even done yourself harm by your action/inaction.

Something has to be there to inform you that what is happening is "bad." If the mechanism to warn you that you were getting thirsty were something "positive" - for example, a pleasurable warming sensation in your belly - why even bother heeding it? I would argue that the mechanism HAS TO be negative - it is the only way to insure response from an uninformed, free-roaming being.

Any problem you can imagine has a solution, and an omniscient God can actualize a solution. The world's physics could work on a conditional basis for instance.

Basically if a human could simulate a world, such as a video game, God can actualize it because it's logically possible. It's really easy to conceptualize how someone could simulate a world in which physical suffering doesn't happen to its inhabitants.

 

[Meow Mix]

Suffering of some sort will always technically be possible -unless WE learn to make it impossible by avoiding it.
We are now part of the equation -and there are and will be billions of us. God constantly repairing the misery we cause would be pointless and infinitely frustrating for all.

One bible verse essentially says that because consequence or corrective measures are not always immediate, our hearts become set within us to do evil.

Some pain is immediate -and we immediately avoid it, but some things can be enjoyable until they cause major catastrophe and misery.

If our present was less painful, our future would be more painful.

Even as it is, not all will change until that which is temporarily enjoyable is no longer enjoyable.
Some will learn to think it through -but some will need to live it before changing.

If God simply allowed us noobs to all to go out into the universe with great power, there would eventually be universal misery -even if physical pain did not exist -because we would not have been prepared to avoid it.

Suffering of SOME sort will be possible if there is free will (for instance, a good example is unrequited love), sure. However, there is no reason for physical suffering to exist. There is no reason for leukemia kids or murder to exist. If God created a world that contains such things, God is culpable for those things existing. Most of us call that malevolence.

 

[Meow Mix]

I will take a hypothetical stab.
It is possible that sentient beings like us exist in the role of co-creators with God(S). The universe does not exist a fixed finished thing but an ever-moving Flux of partially "raw" phenomena that can be shaped by creators like us. Because, the world is half formed- in the sense above - it's interactions with consciousness of sentient beings creates suffering. The existence of suffering is undesirable, and this motives us to strive to eliminate its sources, thus engaging in creative labor that brings ourselves and the world more in finished Resonance.

I wouldn't agree that humans need suffering to be motivated, though. A world without physical suffering could still contain free will and love and creative endeavor.

 

[Meow Mix]

When life forms which do not suffer mentally and emotionally (not having a complex mind), or physically (not having complex pain processing systems which cause theme extreme and complex unpleasantness), as we do are harmed or destroyed, suffering is not really a consideration.

This may seem obvious, but It only becomes a consideration when it exists and can be considered by the self and others.

If God's intent was simply to make a succession of happy and content humans, then not allowing suffering -not allowing us to cause suffering -not allowing us to feel intense physical and emotional pain, not allowing the animals to feel and cause pain and for us to empathize, not allowing natural disasters, maintaining all things for us, etc., would be in order.

As God is reproducing himself -making us gods -we face and experience that which will allow us to relatively quickly become like him -not simply enjoying a simple reality which is created and maintained for us, but becoming masters of reality.

He is essentially telling us that we are going to have to put our big person pants on (I find it rather hilarious that he almost literally says that in scripture).

This just doesn't strike me as reasonable: "You are going to become better people, so here Timmy, here's an excruciating short life of misery and leukemia"

 

[Meow Mix]

To prove it to us. Because we are not all knowing, and all powerful.

We made choice now we must face the consequences. Without consequences choice is worthless. Some of those consequences are positive, some are negative. But to have free will we have to take responsibility for both.

As an analogy, if you try to teach your child not to speak to strangers, do you drive them to the worst part of the city and put them in that situation to test them? Would you be malevolent if you did?

Is there any reason to test anyone on something if the bad thing wasn't even possible to happen?

 

[sayak83]

I wouldn't agree that humans need suffering to be motivated, though. A world without physical suffering could still contain free will and love and creative endeavor.

I have seen that people are creatures of habit and are conservative unless forced to innovate. In a world where old age, death and other wants do not exist... the society will stagnate into unchanging traditions I believe. Older generations will never pass away, why will there be any change at all?

 

[Meow Mix]

I have seen that people are creatures of habit and are conservative unless forced to innovate. In a world where old age, death and other wants do not exist... the society will stagnate into unchanging traditions I believe. Older generations will never pass away, why will there be any change at all?

A few notes: if there is something good, is there a need for great change? Also, lacking physical suffering doesn't mean stagnant: there would still be free agency. Still the ability to make new discoveries, forge new friendships, dream up new things.

In my anecdotal experience, I've seen artist friends (just as one example) do amazing things when freed from the burden of rent (i.e., when they finally got well paying jobs). It didn't cause them to stagnate to be in a better situation.

 

[Enoch07]

As an analogy, if you try to teach your child not to speak to strangers, do you drive them to the worst part of the city and put them in that situation to test them? Would you be malevolent if you did?

Is there any reason to test anyone on something if the bad thing wasn't even possible to happen?

That is a false analogy. Remeber Adam and Eve was first tested in a safe utopia, Eden. Under the direct protection of God who was present. So your totally off base with your premise.

The bad thing was only possible if they chose to do it. Which was eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Had they chose to resist the temptation who knows what would have happened? My theory is God would have wrappes up the project then and there and we would have never know any of the misery of this world.

 

[Meow Mix]

That is a false analogy. Remeber Adam and Eve was first tested in a safe utopia, Eden. Under the direct protection of God who was present. So your totally off base with your premise.

The bad thing was only possible if they chose to do it. Which was eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Had they chose to resist the temptation who knows what would have happened? My theory is God would have wrappes up the project then and there and we would have never know any of the misery of this world.

How is it a safe utopia if there is a dangerous object present that didn't need to be there?

 

[sayak83]

A few notes: if there is something good, is there a need for great change? Also, lacking physical suffering doesn't mean stagnant: there would still be free agency. Still the ability to make new discoveries, forge new friendships, dream up new things.

In my anecdotal experience, I've seen artist friends (just as one example) do amazing things when freed from the burden of rent (i.e., when they finally got well paying jobs). It didn't cause them to stagnate to be in a better situation.

Well, rent is a problem we created ourselves. Nothing in nature tells us that we have to pay others money for living on a piece of land.
Look at it this way. In a mere 100,000 years, we humans have creates entire socio-technological ecosystems from raw materials found in nature that are wondrous in complexity, creativity and functionality. There is good and bad aspects to this certainly, with lot of room for future improvement and alteration. Yet I suspect that human nature is such that it would never be satisfied living in a house built and ready-made by another... no matter how good. Instead we like to get our hands dirty and construct our own house from bricks and logs according to our own growing skills and wisdom. And the universe is such which makes this open ended creativity possible as we get greater insight into its laws and phenomena. On the other hand, false beliefs and actions based on such brief history brings disaster (like smoking, global warming , economic depression etc.). How else can finding truth be valued unless such things are at stake? We have everything to lose and everything to gain, and each generation has the possibility of learning from the successes and failures of the previous ones. It appears that we are driven to maximize our creative and innovative instincts don't you think?

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, rent is a problem we created ourselves. Nothing in nature tells us that we have to pay others money for living on a piece of land.
Look at it this way. In a mere 100,000 years, we humans have creates entire socio-technological ecosystems from raw materials found in nature that are wondrous in complexity, creativity and functionality. There is good and bad aspects to this certainly, with lot of room for future improvement and alteration. Yet I suspect that human nature is such that it would never be satisfied living in a house built and ready-made by another... no matter how good. Instead we like to get our hands dirty and construct our own house from bricks and logs according to our own growing skills and wisdom. And the universe is such which makes this open ended creativity possible as we get greater insight into its laws and phenomena. On the other hand, false beliefs and actions based on such brief history brings disaster (like smoking, global warming , economic depression etc.). How else can finding truth be valued unless such things are at stake? We have everything to lose and everything to gain, and each generation has the possibility of learning from the successes and failures of the previous ones. It appears that we are driven to maximize our creative and innovative instincts don't you think?

It just doesn't seem reasonable that it's good for God to create circumstances where children die of leukemia, people get raped, people die slow horrible deaths of starvation, etc. for some vague sense of "it's good to struggle against adversity because we can build things," when we're perfectly capable of building things with MUCH less adversity. Innocent victims don't have to exist for us to be creative and thrive.

 

[Enoch07]

How is it a safe utopia if there is a dangerous object present that didn't need to be there?

It is only dangerous should they chose to use it. It had to be there otherwise there would be no consequence. So long as they followed the rules. They were perfectly safe. The 1 rule being:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

(Note how God said dont touch or you will die, this means Adam and Eve had immortality in flesh bodies until they ate of it, ending their immortality, they were perfectly safe no worries in a perfect utopia with only 1 rule to follow)

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (an outright lie, by the king of lies, as Adam and Eve could only die if they ate of the tree)

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Note: Knowledge of good and evil.)

Free will was given. Rules established. Choice was made. Consequences suffered.

My theory is If Adam and Eve had chosen to not fall into temptation, say after a predetermined amount of time. That God would have wiped earth clean and established Heaven here as He plans to do after the events in Revelations. The only difference being we wouldn't have to go through all this crap we call life.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is only dangerous should they chose to use it. It had to be there otherwise there would be no consequence. So long as they followed the rules. They were perfectly safe. The 1 rule being:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

(Note how God said dont touch or you will die, this means Adam and Eve had immortality in flesh bodies until they ate of it, ending their immortality, they were perfectly safe no worries in a perfect utopia with only 1 rule to follow)

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (an outright lie, by the king of lies, as Adam and Eve could only die if they ate of the tree)

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Note: Knowledge of good and evil.)

Free will was given. Rules established. Choice was made. Consequences suffered.

My theory is If Adam and Eve had chosen to not fall into temptation, say after a predetermined amount of time. That God would have wiped earth clean and established Heaven here as He plans to do after the events in Revelations. The only difference being we wouldn't have to go through all this crap we call life.

Their free will doesn't absolve God of the culpability of putting a dangerous object there in the first place, warning against using it or no. That's still a malevolent act.

Consider a pocket universe where a room of people live where physical suffering is impossible. If people try to hurt each other with their free will, nothing happens: it's like a video game with God Mode turned on. They're free to make choices all they want: whether to write poetry, or play video games, or watch movies, who to hang out with, etc. Free agents, no physical suffering.

Now imagine I decide to visit this pocket universe and I drop a loaded gun in the middle of this room. It's a special loaded gun, one that disobeys the usual laws of the pocket universe preventing death and suffering. I have now given them "the choice."

Sure, it's up to them to use it or not. But are you saying that I have *zero* culpability in leaving this gun there? If I never did, their world would have gone right on without suffering. Because I would argue I would *absolutely* be culpable for leaving that gun. It's a malevolent act.

 

[Enoch07]

Their free will doesn't absolve God of the culpability of putting a dangerous object there in the first place, warning against using it or no. That's still a malevolent act.

Thats like saying giving birth is a malevolent act. You birth a child into a dangerous world where almost anything can kill it with ease. Does this make you malevolent? No. That is nonsensical. But I bet your ok with abortions though right? And thats not malevolent at all in your opinion is it?

Consider a pocket universe where a room of people live where physical suffering is impossible. If people try to hurt each other with their free will, nothing happens: it's like a video game with God Mode turned on. They're free to make choices all they want: whether to write poetry, or play video games, or watch movies, who to hang out with, etc. Free agents, no physical suffering.

That would be Eden.

Now imagine I decide to visit this pocket universe and I drop a loaded gun in the middle of this room. It's a special loaded gun, one that disobeys the usual laws of the pocket universe preventing death and suffering. I have now given them "the choice."

Sounds reasonable. They would be idiots to pick it up wouldnt they?

Sure, it's up to them to use it or not. But are you saying that I have *zero* culpability in leaving this gun there? If I never did, their world would have gone right on without suffering. Because I would argue I would *absolutely* be culpable for leaving that gun. It's a malevolent act.

But thats the point! Given the choice we chose to f**k it up!

God does have zero culpability. He established the rule of "Dont touch the gun morons because you'll die" and we chose to pick it up anyways. We have agency. Why are you arguing against a peoples agency?!?

 

[Meow Mix]

Thats like saying giving birth is a malevolent act. You birth a child into a dangerous world where almost anything can kill it with ease. Does this make you malevolent? No. That is nonsensical. But I bet your ok with abortions though right? And thats not malevolent at all in your opinion is it?

No: note I didn't say God is culpable for creating free agents. Just for creating them and then putting them in an environment where there are dangers when those dangers didn't have to be there. Even with a warning, a being that puts other beings in front of a dangerous object (when they otherwise had a choice not to) shares in the culpability of what follows.

Also abortion is probably a topic for elsewhere.

But thats the point! Given the choice we chose to f**k it up!

God does have zero culpability. He established the rule of "Dont touch the gun morons because you'll die" and we chose to pick it up anyways. We have agency. Why are you arguing against a peoples agency?!?

Putting a dangerous situation there that doesn't have to be there involves the instigator of that situation in the culpability even with a warning.

Given World A, where God never puts the tree there, Adam and Eve never suffer temptation, Adam and Eve and humankind live with God forever or whatever and suffering never enters the picture.

And given World B, where God says "to hell with it (see what I did there?), I'm gonna TEMPT them," and drops a dangerous object in front of them. Adam and Eve do fall to temptation, and suffering enters the picture. ABORTIONS, Enoch. Abortions enter the picture. And leukemia, and child hunger, and people who live short, brutal, terrified lives.

Since whether or not World A is the case or World B is the case IN PART hinges on God's choice, can you agree that God does share in the culpability? It was God's choice not to just stick with World A!

 

[Enoch07]

Putting a dangerous situation there that doesn't have to be there involves the instigator of that situation in the culpability even with a warning.

It had to be there. It was part of the test. This is where I have to stop the conversation though. Because the explanation lies in The Katabole. Which as you stated, did not want to get into. Maybe another time and another place then?

 

[Enoch07]

Adam and Eve do fall to temptation, and suffering enters the picture. ABORTIONS, Enoch. Abortions enter the picture.

My momma always said if a woman slaps me I should kiss her straight away. I feel like I just been slapped.

P.S. Thats a joke, but I do appreciate the fiesty spirit!

 

[Meow Mix]

It had to be there. It was part of the test. This is where I have to stop the conversation though. Because the explanation lies in The Katabole. Which as you stated, did not want to get into. Maybe another time and another place then?

Well if it solves the conundrum I'm interested, it can be difficult to respond reasonably to a proposition that maybe something happened before I was born that I don't remember -- or however it was phrased. I only said it's not something I subscribe to, I'm not convinced that such a thing is true. But if we're talking about hypothetical things that absolve God of culpability for having created a world with suffering, it's fair game -- if it does absolve God in some rational way.

That was wordy. I'm tired. I'm off work in 2 minutes. Hooray