If There was a Cosmic Pain meter...

by cofty 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Knowsnothing

  okay knowsnothing, but if you agree humans should not have the freedom to rape other humans then there is no reason to bring up the question of autonomy to begin with. you are not putting a coherent argument together, you are simply asking questions and then asking more questions and at no point actually getting close to answering the fundamental problem.

  Autonomy has everything to do with it. Does suffering stop at rape? Please stop pandering to rape, as if rape alone is a cause of suffering.

  The fundamental problem is why does god allow suffering. I didn't exactly come here with a specific argument in mind, I'm just exploring the limits of just how 'accountable' god is for allowing suffering, and how much a part we play in that as well.

  asking questions, changing subject. god can clearly prevent evils --for instance the baby in the overheated car from dying-- without putting up a heavenly government.

  That's true. He could do this one act without making a government. The thing is, however, that as I have repeated, that is not the only source of suffering. What else must he intervene in to satisfy you, without establishing some sort of government?

  You're also trying to shift the blame on god when a human is fully capable of preventing this evil. Ok, but now that we've addressed the issue of personal accountability, what about natural phenomena over which we have no control over, that cause suffering as well? Things like disease, death, famine produced by droughts, tsunamis, etc. We realize we are not in control of these things, though we may try. God is fully capable of ending these, yet doesn't. That's where this verse would come in: 1 Corinthians 15:24 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
• 

  bohm

  KN: Does suffering stop at rape? Please stop pandering to rape, as if rape alone is a cause of suffering.

  pandering to rape, lol. thats a new one. I guess i should bring up examples which you are more comfortable with, like missing the bus, having a cold and having your ex meet someone smarter than you! but rape rape rape -- its all the atheists ever want to talk about, like its more important than these other important examples!

  the thing is, however, that as I have repeated, that is not the only source of suffering. What else must he intervene in to satisfy you, without establishing some sort of government?

  questions, questions. The fundamental fallacy that is being comitted here is that we do not need to flesh out the perfect balance between intervention or not to figure out some extreme cases. For instance, when should we intervene in other parents parenting? we cant make a perfect standard, but that does not prevent us from making the clear and solid judgement you should intervene if the parents are having their children locked in the basement.
• 

  Skbj

  @Cofty interesting philosophy...but most people always start from the assumption that there is only 1 god.

  My personal philosophy is that there isn't just one god first of all, just like I don't believe we are the only planet with life in the whole universe. I'm sure many have seen the film Prometheus and whilst I didn't think much of the movie itself, even bored me in some parts, I liked the post-conversation it provoked and there is a part where David and Holloway are speaking at the billiards table where Charlie says humans created androids “because we could” and David replies, “Imagine how it would feel to hear that from your creator."

  Yes let's imagine.

  That really made me think and I can imagine how many people will dismiss this thought all together, because we are brought up to believe in everything we do that we must have purpose, we go to school for a purpose: to learn. We go to work for a purpose: to earn a salary. We go on vacation for a purpose: to relax. We date/marry whatever for a purpose: have a companion, sex on tap and have kids and so on...so the need to have purpose is installed into our minds from very early age.

  ..but what if we don't have a purpose? What if we are an experiement? What if we were made because the creator/s could? No other reason. Then pain and what's going on in the world and why we are left to our devices would make sense. When scientists test on animals (which I find cruel btw) they are trained to act with their logic and not emotions, they will infect an animal with a virus and observe the effect no matter how much they are causing pain and discomfort to the creature before they can inject multiple experimental anti-viruses until they find the right one that kills the virus. What if that;s what we are as human species are? Cavias.

  Certainly many will feel that's nonesense, we cannot be an experiment, because as human being we are thought that we have a purpose and we are on the top of the food/living chain and this would mean we actually aren't that, that possibly there is something bigger and better and we were just made as prototype....

  I understand why some people wouldn't be able to come to terms with that but personally I'm ok with that.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  The fundamental fallacy that is being comitted here is that we do not need to flesh out the perfect balance between intervention or not to figure out some extreme cases. For instance, when should we intervene in other parents parenting? we cant make a perfect standard, but that does not prevent us from making the clear and solid judgement you should intervene if the parents are having their children locked in the basement.

  For God's case, it's different. We can't hold him accountable. In the beginning, we asked for autonomy and we got it. He doesn't have to respond to us. He isn't accountable to us. We are accountable to him. It is he who would ask why we allowed what we allowed. Given that we were capable of stopping it, we would be inexcusable.

  God is hands off. For now, we do what we can and deal with the consequences, whether good or bad.

  You are still relectant to deal with the fact that there are, indeed, many examples of the very extreme cases you advocate for intervening with. WWI & II come to mind. In all those cases, it is a human problem, something of our choice. Eliminating these sources of suffering, while being great in the now, wouldn't alleviate the core problem. We still want to do whatever the hell we want! We don't want to be told what to do and not to do.

  Let me turn this on you now, and see how you would respond. You are pro-choice. Why aren't you intervening for the life of that innocent child in the womb? Does that mother have autonomy or not? Please, don't chicken out. I know this is a hard one.
• 

  bohm

  KN: For God's case, it's different. We can't hold him accountable. In the beginning, we asked for autonomy and we got it. He doesn't have to respond to us. He isn't accountable to us.

  okay so the reason why god should not take the baby out of the overheated car is because of some actions by some other humans 6000 years ago which (incidently) you have no evidence ever took place? Is that correct?
• 

  bohm

  KN: Why aren't you intervening for the life of that innocent child in the womb?

  i would if i believed it was a child.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  okay so the reason why god should not take the baby out of the overheated car is because of some actions by some other humans 6000 years ago which

  (incidently) you have no evidence ever took place? Is that correct?

  You're silly. I like that.

  The reason is the same reason you do not wish to intervene in the pregnant woman's decision to abort or not. It's her call. She calls the shots. You let her.

  i would if i believed it was a child.

  He who defines the terms, wins the debate. Good job.
• 

  bohm

  KN: you simply ignored my question:

  okay so the reason why god should not take the baby out of the overheated car is because of some actions by some other humans 6000 years ago which

  (incidently) you have no evidence ever took place? Is that correct

  no surprice there.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  KN: you simply ignored my question:

  Bah... and you've ignored many of mine, simply repeating your one horse pony show of rape and burning babies. Bohm, you wished to engage in this conversation for reasons unknown. Cofty's OP assumes God exists. He proposes a God that acted through evolution to bring about man (theistic evolution). I'm not still fully convinced.

  Still, I can provide no evidence for my assertion of Bible God existing, so you've got me on that point. At that point, we can't even hold Bible God responsible for his inaction, because there is insufficient evidence for his existence. Gotcha.

  Now, you still haven't answered mine. Why do you allow that unborn baby to die, if you can prevent it? You're blaming a non-existent God's inaction for suffering, yet you claim you are better for your inaction. Please reconcile this.
• 

  cofty

  SKbj - thanks for your interesting comments.

  I have to agree there is no way to disprove the hypothesis that we are simply the experiment of gods.

  It seems to fit with the data but does it explain anything? The more parsimonious idea that there just isn't any god fits just as well I think.

  Tammy - You haven't began to offer an explanation for suffering yet you are just repeating platitudes that I and others have exposed as inadequate in the past.

  Humans have suffered for 200 000 years while your god did nothing. They helped each other in their limited social groups but had no knowledge or ability to reach out beyond that. For some reason your god held this against them because he continued to do nothing for century after century. 2000 years ago he sent Jesus along to mumble some unoriginal cliches about love.

  You have very low expectations for your omnipotent god.