Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Is Gratuitous Suffering Real?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 8:32:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good

Defense of P1

If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).

Defense of P2

Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratitous suffering.

"The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good." - Paul Doland[1]

---

The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 11:48:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:32:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good

Defense of P1

If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).

Defense of P2

Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratitous suffering.

"The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good." - Paul Doland[1]

---

The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run.

Welcome to God's strong delusion called this "World". What you see, hear, taste, smell, touch and emotionally feel deceives you of our true existence as wavelengths of energy ( God's invisible Heaven ). Not even scientists can figure out God's delusion.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 12:27:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2013 8:32:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good

Defense of P1

If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).

Defense of P2

Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratitous suffering.

"The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good." - Paul Doland[1]

---

The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run.

What is "gratuitous" as used in the phrase "gratuitous suffering"?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 1:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 12:27:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/29/2013 8:32:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good

Defense of P1

If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).

Defense of P2

Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratitous suffering.

"The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good." - Paul Doland[1]

---

The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run.

What is "gratuitous" as used in the phrase "gratuitous suffering"?

Pointless suffering, or, suffering that is not necessarily for a greater good.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 2:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Slightly off-topic, but interesting: Pretending that your suffering is saving other people from suffering (sharing the load) may reduce your pain! I learned that in a meditation course, and in my personal experience, it often does work.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 11:28:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.

If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 6:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 11:28:50 AM, ethang5 wrote:
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.

If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?

That doesn't deal with the argument. The argument here is about a specific type of suffering, that being unnecessary suffering.Also the argument from unnecessary suffering is usually done against a specific kind of God.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

The statement to me and to alot of people refutes it's self.

If that type of God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist, if unnecessary suffering exists then that type of God does not exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 12:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 6:21:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:28:50 AM, ethang5 wrote:
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.

If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?

That doesn't deal with the argument. The argument here is about a specific type of suffering, that being unnecessary suffering.Also the argument from unnecessary suffering is usually done against a specific kind of God.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

The statement to me and to alot of people refutes it's self.

If that type of God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist, if unnecessary suffering exists then that type of God does not exist.

That is because you take the underlying supposition of the argument as given. Why? The argument assumes without question that the Christian God ought to stop "unnecessary" suffering. That is fine, but no one seems to be able to support the truth of this assumption. The people who advance this argument simply take it as a self-evident truth that the Christian God, if He exists as portrayed in the Bible, is immoral for not stopping suffering if He is indeed omnipotent.

Someone tell me, what is the logic which makes you think that God ought to be morally responsible for unnecessary suffering? Surely people who agree with this argument have a rational reason.

Just so we can communicate, I will temporarily ignore the gaping holes of the subjectivity of the idea of "unnecessary" suffering and the un-biblical idea that God is "omnibenivolent" (whatever that is)

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to assume that there can be no moral reason why God could be able to stop "unnecessary" suffering and not do so.

But lets take it a step at a time.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:09:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 12:10:48 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:21:32 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:28:50 AM, ethang5 wrote:
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.

If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?

That doesn't deal with the argument. The argument here is about a specific type of suffering, that being unnecessary suffering.Also the argument from unnecessary suffering is usually done against a specific kind of God.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

The statement to me and to alot of people refutes it's self.

If that type of God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist, if unnecessary suffering exists then that type of God does not exist.

That is because you take the underlying supposition of the argument as given. Why? The argument assumes without question that the Christian God ought to stop "unnecessary" suffering. That is fine, but no one seems to be able to support the truth of this assumption.

I don't think the question/argument is that such a God "ought" to stop UNNECESSARY suffering in the sense the fail to do so means failure to be moral.

But I think the more fundamental argument here is there is a logical incompatibility between a certain type of God and UNNECESSARY suffering.

"Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too."


Someone tell me, what is the logic which makes you think that God ought to be morally responsible for unnecessary suffering? Surely people who agree with this argument have a rational reason.

Just so we can communicate, I will temporarily ignore the gaping holes of the subjectivity of the idea of "unnecessary" suffering and the un-biblical idea that God is "omnibenivolent" (whatever that is)

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.


This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to assume that there can be no moral reason why God could be able to stop "unnecessary" suffering and not do so.

Because it's self refuting. Unnecessary suffering means...........it is unnecessary.

A moral reason to allow unnecessary suffering...............

If you believe in a God who is all powerful, knowing and allows a child to be tortured, a deer to burn to death in the forest, etc etc knowing that the suffering endured is unnecessary, and you want to say that that God is a good God.............I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you know either.


But lets take it a step at a time.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:57:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 5:09:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.

If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?

That doesn't deal with the argument. The argument here is about a specific type of suffering, that being unnecessary suffering.Also the argument from unnecessary suffering is usually done against a specific kind of God.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

The statement to me and to alot of people refutes it's self.

It doesn't refute itself to me and a lot MORE people. What exactly does it refute? If there exists a God who is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good, why should He stop "unnecessary" suffering?? The statement assumes that God OUGHT to stop suffering. You cannot deny that. Why ought He?

You're trying to dodge it, but I bet it goes like this.
If God is omnipotent, He should be able to stop suffering. That is true. But even a 6 year old know that being able to do something doesn't mean the thing ought be done. And if God is all-loving, He should be willing to stop suffering. This is more problematic. I can think of several reasons why a loving person would allow a loved one to suffer. So I don't think this statement is necessarily true. But your argument seems to assume it is universally true.

If that type of God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist, if unnecessary suffering exists then that type of God does not exist.

You are making the claim again but you have as yet offered no support. Something being self-evident TO YOU is NOT proof that it true. Show where the contradiction lies.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

That is because you take the underlying supposition of the argument as given. Why? The argument assumes without question that the Christian God ought to stop "unnecessary" suffering. That is fine, but no one seems to be able to support the truth of this assumption.

I don't think the question/argument is that such a God "ought" to stop UNNECESSARY suffering in the sense the fail to do so means failure to be moral.

Then why do you think such a God cannot exist when there is "unnecessary" suffering??? Seems to me you have charged God with evil to the point you don't think He could exist in a world with unnecessary suffering. Get your argument together.

But I think the more fundamental argument here is there is a logical incompatibility between a certain type of God and UNNECESSARY suffering.

Ok, TELL us what the logical incompatibility is. Please. If it's logical, surely you can state it?

Someone tell me, what is the logic which makes you think that God ought to be morally responsible for unnecessary suffering? Surely people who agree with this argument have a rational reason.

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to assume that there can be no moral reason why God could be able to stop "unnecessary" suffering and not do so.

Because it's self refuting. Unnecessary suffering means...........it is unnecessary.

But unnecessary for whom? Whats "necessary" for you may not be necessary for me. And even if we can whittle it down, why is God set with the blame for it? Why not you? Or Barak Obama? Or Charles Darwin?

A moral reason to allow unnecessary suffering...............

You guys are such hypocrites. You will get on the forum and insult Christians, their beliefs, and the precious one they hold dear. YOU willingly cause them "unnecessary" suffering. Yet here you are, crying crocodile tears about a God you claim is imaginary, allowing suffering. I'm a little skeptical.

I can give you logical reasons why a loving God would allow suffering. But first we will have to tackle that stinker "unnecessary". Can you define it?

If you believe in a God who is all powerful, knowing and allows a child to be tortured, a deer to burn to death in the forest,....

I can see that you are including animals in your equation. How far does that extend? What about an earthworm that gets burned in that fire? The cockroach? What about the tree? I bet you have set up some arbitrary standard right? ie, insects and plants don't feel pain. We will go down that little avenue of illogic later.

....knowing that the suffering endured is unnecessary,

Hold your horses big fella. You will have to earn your points here, not assume them. "Unnecessary has not even been defined yet, not to mention accepted.

.....and you want to say that that God is a good God.............I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you know either.

I know exactly what I'm talking about because all my terms have clear definitions and I am aware and admit to the implications of my claims. Those things aren't true with you.

So hold off declaring yourself champeen until you have clearly defined "unnecessary". Lets see if your argument is logical or emotional.

Unanswered questions from last post:
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?
Why should God stop suffering?
....you take the underlying supposition of the argument as given. Why?
.....tell me, what is the logic which makes you think that God ought to be morally responsible for unnecessary suffering?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:08:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:57:43 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:09:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.


If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?

The question here is not about this kind of God being "responsible" in the sense of being to blame.


That doesn't deal with the argument. The argument here is about a specific type of suffering, that being unnecessary suffering.Also the argument from unnecessary suffering is usually done against a specific kind of God.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

The statement to me and to alot of people refutes it's self.

It doesn't refute itself to me and a lot MORE people. What exactly does it refute? If there exists a God who is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good, why should He stop "unnecessary" suffering?? The statement assumes that God OUGHT to stop suffering. You cannot deny that. Why ought He?

The argument isn't "ought" in the hume sense, rather God WOULD. Once again, the argument here is about unnecessary suffering,


You're trying to dodge it, but I bet it goes like this.
If God is omnipotent, He should be able to stop suffering. That is true. But even a 6 year old know that being able to do something doesn't mean the thing ought be done. And if God is all-loving, He should be willing to stop suffering. This is more problematic. I can think of several reasons why a loving person would allow a loved one to suffer. So I don't think this statement is necessarily true. But your argument seems to assume it is universally true.

I am getting sick of you. You constantly attack a straw man. Deal with the actual argument.

It's easy to think you are right when you don't actually refute the ACTUAL argument.

If that type of God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist, if unnecessary suffering exists then that type of God does not exist.

You are making the claim again but you have as yet offered no support. Something being self-evident TO YOU is NOT proof that it true. Show where the contradiction lies.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.

That is because you take the underlying supposition of the argument as given. Why? The argument assumes without question that the Christian God ought to stop "unnecessary" suffering. That is fine, but no one seems to be able to support the truth of this assumption.


I don't think the question/argument is that such a God "ought" to stop UNNECESSARY suffering in the sense the fail to do so means failure to be moral.


Then why do you think such a God cannot exist when there is "unnecessary" suffering??? Seems to me you have charged God with evil to the point you don't think He could exist in a world with unnecessary suffering. Get your argument together.


But I think the more fundamental argument here is there is a logical incompatibility between a certain type of God and UNNECESSARY suffering.

Ok, TELL us what the logical incompatibility is. Please. If it's logical, surely you can state it?

Someone tell me, what is the logic which makes you think that God ought to be morally responsible for unnecessary suffering? Surely people who agree with this argument have a rational reason.

Unnecessary suffering is cruel.


This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to assume that there can be no moral reason why God could be able to stop "unnecessary" suffering and not do so.

Because it's self refuting. Unnecessary suffering means...........it is unnecessary.

But unnecessary for whom? Whats "necessary" for you may not be necessary for me. And even if we can whittle it down, why is God set with the blame for it? Why not you? Or Barak Obama? Or Charles Darwin?


A moral reason to allow unnecessary suffering...............

You guys are such hypocrites. You will get on the forum and insult Christians, their beliefs, and the precious one they hold dear. YOU willingly cause them "unnecessary" suffering. Yet here you are, crying crocodile tears about a God you claim is imaginary, allowing suffering. I'm a little skeptical.

Rant much ?

I can give you logical reasons why a loving God would allow suffering. But first we will have to tackle that stinker "unnecessary". Can you define it?

Suffering which was not required to achieve a greater good

"God" can you define it ?

If you believe in a God who is all powerful, knowing and allows a child to be tortured, a deer to burn to death in the forest,....

I can see that you are including animals in your equation. How far does that extend? What about an earthworm that gets burned in that fire? The cockroach? What about the tree? I bet you have set up some arbitrary standard right? ie, insects and plants don't feel pain. We will go down that little avenue of illogic later.

....knowing that the suffering endured is unnecessary,

Hold your horses big fella. You will have to earn your points here, not assume them. "Unnecessary has not even been defined yet, not to mention accepted.

.....and you want to say that that God is a good God.............I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you know either.

I know exactly what I'm talking about because all my terms have clear definitions and I am aware and admit to the implications of my claims. Those things aren't true with you.

So hold off declaring yourself champeen until you have clearly defined "unnecessary". Lets see if your argument is logical or emotional.

Unanswered questions from last post:
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?
Why should God stop suffering?
....you take the underlying supposition of the argument as given. Why?
.....tell me, what is the logic which makes you think that God ought to be morally responsible for unnecessary suffering?

Your very good at slightly changing the argument. Can you stop that, seriously your pissing me off. The argument here is that the TYPE OF GOD we are talking about (not necessarily the christian God) would not allow unnecessary suffering. Blaming God isn't part of the equation here. That's why all your rants here are a waste of time.

The argument is that a certain kind of God would not allow unnecessary suffering. This isn't just atheist taking this line here, many God believer also believe this line. The difference is that they are of the view that since this type of God exists the only suffering that exists is necessary suffering.

If you have have to resort to the defense of the TYPE OF GOD I am talking about by having to resort that such a God would allow unnecessary suffering to exist.........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:09:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you believe in a God who is all powerful, knowing and allows a child to be tortured, a deer to burn to death in the forest, etc etc knowing that the suffering endured is unnecessary, and you want to say that that God is a good God.............I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you know either.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:54:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 4:08:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The question here is not about this kind of God being "responsible" in the sense of being to blame.

You ask your questions, and I'll ask mine. In an attempt to understand the argument, I need to ask questions.

That doesn't deal with the argument. The argument here is about a specific type of suffering, that being unnecessary suffering.
Your use of the word "unnecessary" is vague and ambiguous. One cannot convict on vague and ill defined terms.

Also the argument from unnecessary suffering is usually done against a specific kind of God.

The terms used to argue against any position must be clear and well defined.

Consider the following proposition, there exists a God who is, all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good..............who could stop unnecessary suffering, but chooses not too.
The statement to me and to alot of people refutes it's self.

It doesn't refute itself to me and a lot MORE people. What exactly does it refute? If there exists a God who is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, all good, why should He stop "unnecessary" suffering?? The statement assumes that God OUGHT to stop suffering. You cannot deny that. Why ought He?

The argument isn't "ought" in the hume sense, rather God WOULD. Once again, the argument here is about unnecessary suffering,

So flesh out why God would in your estimation. You are the one claiming it. Defend it.

I can think of several reasons why a loving person would allow a loved one to suffer. So I don't think this statement is necessarily true. But your argument seems to assume it is universally true.

I am getting sick of you. You constantly attack a straw man. Deal with the actual argument.

My guess is that you're getting sick of having your argument being shown to be short on logic. The actual argument according to you is that the God described in the Christian Bible WOULD. Yet you cannot tell us WHY He would, or even admit that your argument assumes He SHOULD. You want us to simply take it on faith, on your word, that He would.

It's easy to think you are right when you don't actually refute the ACTUAL argument.

I don't just think I'm right. I can demonstrate that I am right. You are wrong, which is part of the reason why you do not want us to examine your argument closely. My experience has been that almost all atheist arguments fail upon careful scrutiny.

But I think the more fundamental argument here is there is a logical incompatibility between a certain type of God and UNNECESSARY suffering.

Ok, TELL us what the logical incompatibility is. Please. If it's logical, surely you can state it?

Unnecessary suffering is cruel.

Do you think that a God would be cruel if He was able and willing to stop "unnecessary" suffering but didn't?

Be careful now! You already said, "I don't think the question/argument is that such a God "ought" to stop UNNECESSARY suffering in the sense the fail to do so means failure to be moral." Perhaps you can see the big contradiction in your argument looming on the horizon?

You slap the vague and ill defined term "unnecessary" on suffering and then condemn God as if your personal definition of "unnecessary" is objective. It isn't.

Rant much ?

A rant can have a point, and this one does. A point you dodged. If you truly thought suffering was so bad, you wouldn't be so quick and cavalier in dishing it out on this forum. Christians would take your intent much more seriously if you all weren't so hypocritical.

I can give you logical reasons why a loving God would allow suffering. But first we will have to tackle that stinker "unnecessary". Can you define it?

Suffering which was not required to achieve a greater good

Who defines "Greater Good"? Right now, Russia and China think Assad remaining in Syria contributes to the "Greater Good". America and Europe think the opposite. You cannot define a vague idea with another vague idea. That is tautology.

Do you know which actions will contribute to the "greater good"? You don't. Your definition is nonsense.

"God" can you define it ?

No need to be silly. God is a noun. Your vague word "unnecessary" is an adjective qualifying the noun suffering. I understand the noun suffering very well. I do not understand your qualification of it because your qualifier is vague and ill defined. Plus, you are the one making a claim, not I, thus, you have to define your terms in ways that make sense.

.....and you want to say that that God is a good God.............I don't know what you are talking about, and I don't think you know either.

: I know exactly what I'm talking about because all my terms have clear definitions and I am aware and admit to the implications of my claims. Those things aren't true with you.

Your very good at slightly changing the argument. Can you stop that, seriously your pissing me off.

And I'm shaking in my booties. I have only asked questions, not changed the argument. You can't answer them because it would show how pitiful your argument really is. Your emotional state of being "pissed off" at simple questions is a good indication that your argument is, at its core, emotional and not logical.

Here is how debate works. You make a claim. I question and then make rebuttals. You either concede the rebut or rebut my rebuttal. You don't get to simply claim that because it's clear to you, it must be true.

The argument here is that the TYPE OF GOD we are talking about (not necessarily the christian God) would not allow unnecessary suffering.

And I am questioning that claim on two points, both of which you have avoided like a bug running from Raid spray. Point one is that your position assumes that the TYPE OF GOD we are talking about "ought" to stop "unnecessary suffering. (You may deny that this is an underlying assumption of your position but that just means you either are willfully denying it or you are ignorant of your own argument.)

And point two is that the illogical definition of the word "unnecessary", which is key to the viability of your argument, renders the entire argument nonsense.

The argument is that a certain kind of God would not allow unnecessary suffering. This isn't just atheist taking this line here, many God believer also believe this line.

This only demonstrates the fact that theists can also be poor thinkers.

The difference is that they are of the view that since this type of God exists the only suffering that exists is necessary suffering.
If you have have to resort to the defense of the TYPE OF GOD I am talking about by having to resort that such a God would allow unnecessary suffering to exist.........

You first must make a point in order for me to rebut it. You have not demonstrated that there are no logical and reasonable reasons that a God like that would NOT allow "unnecessary" suffering, and you have not defined "unnecessary" in any logical way. As it stands, you have simply assumed that a God like that WOULD stop "unnecessary" suffering (all the while ignoring logical scenarios where He would allow) and your vague and empty definition "unnecessary" makes your argument gibberish.

Sorry, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 3:35:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 11:28:50 AM, ethang5 wrote:
If there was a God, do you think it would be his duty/responsibility/job to ease suffering?

As a man who lives in a society and can also suffer, it behooves me to ease the suffering of others because I wish to be treated the same way one day when I'm suffering.

But God cannot suffer. He feels no pain. Why should God stop suffering? I'm not saying He shouldn't. I'm only asking for what you think.

If there was a God, and He was responsible for easing/eliminating suffering, would that responsibility in your thinking afford Him any authority?

ethang5 You are speaking out the wrong end!!!!!

THINK: God became man so he could die as man!
God suffered and died on the cross!

GOD SUFFERED in PAIN and AGONY!!!!!

All living things die; One time (1) no one can die twice...!!
ethang5 You can't even kill a stinking no good mangy dog twice!!!

Jesus DIED!!!
Jesus died, he has been there, he has done that>> NEVER EVER To die again!!!!!!!!!

ethang5 All peoples IMMERSED into the body of Jesus>> All ADDED into the body of the risen, RESURRECTED Jesus CANNOT DIE!!!!
ethang5 Jesus died, so you would not have to die... !!!! Whack oh... Give your head a shake... Jesus loves you so much he went to the grave for you!!

Jesus was without sin so; SIN had no hold on Jesus, he popped out of the grave "Sin brings death".. Jesus was without sin so he died yes, but he did not stay dead!

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 11:32:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 12:54:09 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 4:08:39 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Unnecessary suffering is cruel.

Do you think that a God would be cruel if He was able and willing to stop "unnecessary" suffering but didn't?

Be careful now! You already said,
"I don't think the question/argument is that such a God "ought" to stop UNNECESSARY suffering in the sense the fail to do so means failure to be moral."

Perhaps you can see the big contradiction in your argument looming on the horizon?

He could see it. He ran.