Aggravating is it not ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, the point is not missed and yes, the example is completely relevant to the point.

This is one of the aspects to which I referred when protesting to the lack of any objective standard by which to compare/contrast suffering. Philosophically speaking, pain tangibly represents an intangible trespass or violation. Without some standard of measure, some ...[text shortened]... once you submit to mine. Who's suffering ought to be relieved in the example I have provided?

Who's suffering ought to be relieved in the example I have provided?

I have no idea why you think your example demonstrates something material to this discussion -- it doesn't. And the answer is very simple. The answer is that we ought to relieve as much suffering as within our ability. This is, after all, what compassion recommends -- that suffering be alleviated and avoided. Of course, your alleviating suffering can only proceed commensurate with your ability to do so. If such a scenario is placed before beings with limited ability to relieve the suffering, then they may have to rely on intricate, difficult deliberations concerning how to allocate limited resource. So what? An omnipotent being doesn't encounter any constraint concerning his ability to relieve or prevent suffering; further, he is not faced with any silly either-or situation as if it were in any way necessary that at least one party here must be left suffering or must suffer in the first place.

Philosophically speaking, pain tangibly represents an intangible trespass or violation.

That sounds a little like gibberish to me. By 'suffering' I am talking to first order about the holding of averse psychological states; or when things go badly from one's own perspective.

Without some standard of measure, some starting point, the problem of suffering as an issue is moot.

The argument more or less just relies on some very, very basic ideas that tie compassionate awareness in with reason-giving. That suffering hurts and one ought to act to prevent or alleviate it unless it is necessary for some greater good -- this strikes you as a bizarre notion? As far as considerations of the greater good, use your own lights. What's the problem here?

If, say, a tsunami rips through a village and creates all kinds of suffering, do you have any good reasons to think that this is necessary for the greater good or for God's plans for humanity? Why doesn't God see fit to prevent such things?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Philosophically speaking, pain tangibly represents an intangible trespass or violation.

That sounds a little like gibberish to me. [/b]

Tears -- of compassion -- are streaming from my eyes. 😵

Originally posted by LemonJello
Who's suffering ought to be relieved in the example I have provided?

I have no idea why you think your example demonstrates something material to this discussion -- it doesn't. And the answer is very simple. The answer is that we ought to relieve as much suffering as within our ability. This is, after all, what compassion recommends -- that suff ...[text shortened]... good or for God's plans for humanity? Why doesn't God see fit to prevent such things?[/b]

I have no idea why you think your example demonstrates something material to this discussion -- it doesn't.
You have no idea because you cannot see the connection. Makes sense why you wouldn't be able to connect the dots, but that really isn't my problem, it is yours. In my compassion for your suffering, I am endeavoring to help you see the issue clearly. But whether you are able to see the relevance of not, the question is easily answered without all of the fluff. Do your best and simply answer the question.

By 'suffering' I am talking to first order about the holding of averse psychological states; or when things go badly from one's own perspective.
Oh, I see. So, for instance, when I make my children eat their asparagus, those greens are an instrument of suffering and I, their cruel torturer. Thanks for making it so much more clear. I'm not sure exactly how your definition is any more distinct than what I offered, but if it floats your boat, so be it.

So, using your definition, exactly who's perspective will be used as the standard?

Why doesn't God see fit to prevent such things?
Again, please respond to my question first.

Originally posted by buckky
You must be a very blunted individual. I'm just a curious person trying to figure it all out. That might mean I want to know about a possible God if it's out there. You seem to feel true anger over someone not believeing as you do.

Go back and read my posts more carefully without bias this time. I have said quite clearly that I have no problem with you being a curious person trying to figure it all out. It is you that seems to be reading anger into my posts where there is none. You seem to be reacting extremely negatively to certain words I used without actually looking at the context in which I used them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have no idea why you think your example demonstrates something material to this discussion -- it doesn't.
You have no idea because you cannot see the connection. Makes sense why you wouldn't be able to connect the dots, but that really isn't my problem, it is yours. In my compassion for your suffering, I am endeavoring to help you see the issue 't God see fit to prevent such things?[/b]
Again, please respond to my question first.[/b]

Do your best and simply answer the question.

I thought I already did. Your question was whose suffering ought to be relieved. And my answer is, everyone involved who happens to be suffering. I mean, is there any other answer that makes sense? I mean, do you think one or more of the parties ought to suffer? Do you think it is a necessary state of affairs that one or more of the parties suffer? No, and no. So just endeavor to relieve suffering across the board. Does this happen in practice? No. But, gee, if only there existed someone out there with the knowledge and power to actually bring it about.

So, for instance, when I make my children eat their asparagus, those greens are an instrument of suffering and I, their cruel torturer.

No, that doesn't follow from what I said. For instance, your child may simply love asparagus. Or maybe he doesn't really care either way about eating asparagus. On the other hand, perhaps it is the case that eating asparagus does makes your child suffer. Well, then, perhaps you shouldn't make your child eat asparagus: there are other nutritious things he could eat. But, then again, perhaps you will tell me you take it to be the case that the child's enduring the suffering in this case serves some greater good for his health and well-being; like, maybe you take it that the suffering is minimal and the asparagus is good nutrition that enhances his diet and overall health. Well, then, even if there are other approaches you could take that would achieve the same good with less suffering, you're still not a "cruel torturer" because in no way could we justifiably construe your motivations as the motivations of a cruel torturer. Of course, if eating asparagus makes your kid suffer; and, further, you know this and make your kid eat asparagus for the central goal of visiting suffering on the kid; then, yes, you have some major issues, and those sorts of motivations resemble those of a torturer.

Again, please respond to my question first.

OK, I did. Now quid pro quo.

EDIT:

So, using your definition, exactly who's perspective will be used as the standard?

Sorry, I missed this question. I don't understand what you are asking. When I talked about suffering before and said that one suffers when things go badly from one's own perspective, that is exactly what I meant to say: from one's own perspective. As a matter of descriptive fact, people often judge things to go better or worse from their own perspective. When they hurt because things go badly from their own perspective, then they are suffering. I don't understand how talk of a "standard" comes into this discussion. It's not like if you placed two persons into the same external conditions they will suffer to the same objective degree or something -- that is because external conditions themselves don't determine suffering but rather it depends on how the conditions present to each person from within their own perspectives.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Do your best and simply answer the question.

I thought I already did. Your question was whose suffering ought to be relieved. And my answer is, everyone involved who happens to be suffering. I mean, is there any other answer that makes sense? I mean, do you think one or more of the parties ought to suffer? Do you think it is a necessary state ...[text shortened]... on how the conditions present to each person from within their own perspectives.[/b]

I thought I already did.
You hadn't, nor have you yet.

So just endeavor to relieve suffering across the board.
So, in this specific case, who's suffering is to be relieved: the friends and family of those killed, or the friends and family of the aged killer?

For instance, your child may simply love asparagus.
Apparently retention isn't your strong suit. If I am making my child eat asparagus, they most likely don't "love" it.

As for the rest of your response, you spend considerable time and effort in saying as little as possible. This isn't a contest to see who can use the most words; it is a thought exercise in an attempt to clarify concepts. Why not stick to that instead of chasing air around?

The point with the asparagus is pretty straight-forward. As a parent, I am called upon to do myriad things which inevitably will be seen as averse by my child simply by virtue of their ignorance. Therefore, your definition is wanting.

I don't understand how talk of a "standard" comes into this discussion.
We live in a universe full of agents. Each of those agents is hard-wired to seek their own happiness. One agent's happiness will invariably be at odds with another agent's happiness, causing an averse situation. What to do then?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I thought I already did.
You hadn't, nor have you yet.

So just endeavor to relieve suffering across the board.
So, in this specific case, who's suffering is to be relieved: the friends and family of those killed, or the friends and family of the aged killer?

For instance, your child may simply love asparagus.
Apparently retent odds with another agent's happiness, causing an averse situation. What to do then?[/b]

You hadn't, nor have you yet.

Actually, I've addressed it at least twice already. Now, are you going to address my questions?

So, in this specific case, who's suffering is to be relieved: the friends and family of those killed, or the friends and family of the aged killer?

I've answered this already more than once: both parties. There is nothing that makes it necessary that one or more of the parties suffer; and persons don't deserve to suffer. So if I were sufficiently knowledgeable about the situation as well as sufficiently powerful, I would just relieve the suffering of both parties. What don't you understand about this? Of course, in practice we may not be able to achieve this. But what's that reflection on our own limitations got to do with the problem of suffering? Like I said before: gee, if only there was someone out there powerful and knowledgeable enough to get these things done.

Therefore, your definition is wanting.

Well, I don't see why; and you certainly haven't demonstrated that my characterization is lacking. There is absolutely nothing about what you have posted that recommends to me that my understanding of suffering needs adjustment. For instance, see below.

As a parent, I am called upon to do myriad things which inevitably will be seen as averse by my child simply by virtue of their ignorance.

Even if it is the case that you feel "called upon" (in a conscious effort to attend to your child's care) to bring conditions upon your child that nevertheless (1) cause things to go badly from the child's own perspective or (2) cause the child to hold averse mental states; this wouldn't change the fact that your child is suffering at such times. This would only show that there are instances where your child incidentally suffers even when you are aiming at proper care. And it presumably shows that you take it that your child's suffering as a sort of collateral damage can be justified in the pursuit of greater good related to the child's overall health and well-being. (Now I am just repeating myself because I've already addressed this in my last post -- you know, during the section when you say I was just "chasing air around" and trying to see who could use the most words, etc.) Of course, your child may be ignorant that you are actually working ultimately with the entrustment of his interests in mind; but that doesn't mean that averse mental states he may hold somehow don't constitute suffering.

And, anyhow, if you were a more knowledgeable and more powerful person, you could presumably achieve the same good for your child with less suffering.

We live in a universe full of agents. Each of those agents is hard-wired to seek their own happiness. One agent's happiness will invariably be at odds with another agent's happiness, causing an averse situation. What to do then?

What is your point? Yes, there are many agents in the world. Yes, one thing they generally seek is happiness. Yes, the projects of any one agent can often conflict with those of other agents. Yes, this often results in situations that one or more of the agents will take to be averse. I already acknowledge that such conflict is a pervasive problem in our world and that there can be confusion about what to do about it in many cases. When are you going to get the fact that these are all assumptions the argument from suffering fully accommodates?

And, by the way, a lot of suffering has NOTHING genuine to do with the clashing of projects by different agents. Are you going to address my question about the tsunami?

Originally posted by LemonJello
You hadn't, nor have you yet.

Actually, I've addressed it at least twice already. Now, are you going to address my questions?

So, in this specific case, who's suffering is to be relieved: the friends and family of those killed, or the friends and family of the aged killer?

I've answered this already more than once: both parties. Ther ifferent agents. Are you going to address my question about the tsunami?[/b]

Actually, I've addressed it at least twice already. Now, are you going to address my questions?
Okay: maybe you don't understand the question (I don't see how you could if you are still persuaded that you have).

The question cannot be answered with any response which is equivalent to "both." This is an either/or proposition. On the one hand, you have a group of aggrieved people who's family members and friends all suffered at the hands of the accused. For their relief, the old man must be put to death--- or in some other fashion, have his freedom removed.

On the other hand, you have the old man and his family. For his and their relief, he must be allowed to retain his life and freedom in order to remain with his family. Which of the two parties should have their relief?

There is nothing that makes it necessary that one or more of the parties suffer; and persons don't deserve to suffer.
This might be where your confusion comes in. In this simple (yet real) scenario, it is emphatically necessary that someone be made to suffer, using the definition of the term found herein. Why? Because one agent purposely caused the suffering of another agent. If there is no justice, only chaos will survive.

This aged man was, at one point in his life, a young able-bodied man who knowingly and willingly participated in the death of tens of thousands of people for no other reason than their heritage. If we hold each person's self-determination sacrosanct, we must have the strictest censure possible when one person's self-determination violates another's.

Ironically, you wish to hold God to some sort of suffering violation, and yet not have anything remotely close to justice by which to gauge the same. However, after reading your points, I cannot help but think that the irony is lost on you.

When are you going to get the fact that these are all assumptions the argument from suffering fully accommodates?
It's already been gotten. When are you going to get the fact that--- sans a standard by which to objectively judge what constitutes suffering; sans justice--- there can be no legitimate conversation on the topic?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Actually, I've addressed it at least twice already. Now, are you going to address my questions?
Okay: maybe you don't understand the question (I don't see how you could if you are still persuaded that you have).

The question cannot be answered with any response which is equivalent to "both." This is an either/or proposition. On the one hand, utes suffering; sans justice--- there can be no legitimate conversation on the topic?[/b]

Which of the two parties should have their relief?

For the last time, Freaky, I understood your question perfectly fine (which was: whose suffering ought to be relieved), and my answer again is, all those involved who happen to be suffering. You are mistaken if you think that it is necessary that one or more of the parties suffer. You are also mistaken if you think that justice necessitates suffering. Calling for the death or horrible suffering of the old man is not a display of justice but rather a display of vindictiveness. Yes, what the man engaged in many years ago was harrowing and tragic (and, geez, God should have never allowed it to come to pass in the first place), but that doesn't in any way mean that it is a necessary state of affairs that somebody suffer now. A reasonable resolution would be something like the following (although you really haven't provided many specifics of the situation). Presumably, an 89 year old man in failing health is no longer any threat to society, and he should not be put to death or made to suffer horribly in some artificial way. And the family of the victims should come to healthy terms about things they cannot change. Easier said than done (unless maybe you had an omnipotent being to help you out), but this is after all a fundamental way that otherwise deep-rooted suffering is assuaged: by coming to an understanding and acceptance of the world as it is, especially regarding those things beyond your control, and not craving for it to be something that it isn't. Your statement that it is "emphatically necessary" that someone be made to suffer is not only emphatically wrong; but, further, it is tragic that you think such profoundly mistaken things about the nature of justice in this case.

If there is no justice, only chaos will survive.

Again, what you meant here is that the sky will somehow fall in if someone is not made to suffer horribly in the name of "justice". Again, that is vindictive -- not just.

sans a standard by which to objectively judge what constitutes suffering

I've already told you what I think constitutes suffering. If, say, things are going badly from one's own perspective, then it is objectively the case that she is suffering. See? What's the problem here in judging what constitutes suffering?

------------
Now, I have been more than accommodating by way of addressing your questions. Geez, I've even answered the same question of yours multiple times. When are you going to address my questions? Here are a couple that I would like you to address: (1) Say a baby is born with an incurable disease; she suffers for several days, withers, and dies; her family also suffers because of the event. Why does God allow these instances of suffering to happen? (2) A tsunami rips through a village and leaves behind a lot of destruction and suffering. Why does God allow such things to happen?

These are questions that don't have anything to do with free will or the clashing of projects between different agents or related questions of justice, etc. They are questions regarding unfortunate articles of the natural lottery.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there is no justice, only chaos will survive.

Do you believe that Justice is equivalent to 'an eye for an eye'?
Do you believe that if a perpetrator is punished it lessens the impact of his crime?

Originally posted by buckky
We go back and forth trying to convince the other that our position is the one that's right, and none of us really know anything about what we speak. The whole spiritual question is up for grabs because we have no Spiritual being we can go to and get the Truth from. We have holy books that are suppose to tell us all we need to know about God or the afterlife ...[text shortened]... e hide and seek thing ? Why is it soo drapped in mystery, and confusion ? I know I'm confused.

Until we agree that learned spirituality is purely a reflection of our own
limitation by language, the debate will rage.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Which of the two parties should have their relief?

For the last time, Freaky, I understood your question perfectly fine (which was: whose suffering ought to be relieved), and my answer again is, all those involved who happen to be suffering. You are mistaken if you think that it is necessary that one or more of the parties suffer. You are also mi ...[text shortened]... ice, etc. They are questions regarding unfortunate articles of the natural lottery.[/b]

For the last time, Freaky, I understood your question perfectly fine (which was: whose suffering ought to be relieved), and my answer again is, all those involved who happen to be suffering.
Had you understood it, you would have known that 'both' was not a reasonable option.

You are mistaken if you think that it is necessary that one or more of the parties suffer.
QED.

You are also mistaken if you think that justice necessitates suffering.
Again, QED.

Calling for the death or horrible suffering of the old man is not a display of justice but rather a display of vindictiveness.
At what point do his actions become moot? When he is 57? 67? 89? The fact of this matter is, this former monster (who, by the way, refuses to acknowledge his action, let alone his repentance of the same) has used the various court systems for 32 years. Now, he is a 'harmless old grandpa' who wouldn't/couldn't harm a fly. Clearly, you haven't clue one about justice, so it's no wonder that you consider it reasonable to view the situation as you do.

And the family of the victims should come to healthy terms about things they cannot change.
How incredibly patronizing and trite.

Again, that is vindictive -- not just.
Again, your woeful ignorance of justice is the basis for your lack of understanding about how anything in the whole scheme of things works. It is no wonder why the entire topic is lost on you, given your glaringly wrong perspective of righteousness.

To go any further--- when you can't even distinguish between basic right and wrong--- is nothing more than an invitation to exchange further insults. Unless and until you come to a point in your thinking where you can actually see the real demans of justice, you cannot be reached by reason on any related topic.

This is a beautiful thread. I read the first page to get a feel for the case, and then read the last page to 'catch up' so forgive me if I'm repeating anything on pages 2 thru 4.

As for the original post and similar followups, i.e. (paraphrased)

1. It's ridiculous that both sides go back and forth when neither side knows what it is talking about (with respect to God).

Actually there is a very distinct difference between the two parties. The (true) believers have a leg stand on, as they have in fact been touched by God and therefore are compelled to believe. Conversely, the Atheist has not been touched by God (yet) and is thus compelled not to believe. All things being equal on both sides (sanity, intelligence, etc.) then the obvious choice for the correct party is the believer, who is supplied with more information than the Atheist.

2. 'there is no Christian God because my prayers go unheard and unanswered, however if my prayers were answered by God, I would thus believe.'

This is the exact position I had as an Agnostic. And I can tell you from my own personal experience that up until the very moment I was transformed by the Holy Spirit, I was a total agnostic with an extreme distaste for Christians. My very own instantaneous tranformation and 180 degree reversal is proof in and of itself to me personally, that God exists. However the ironic thing is, all the proof I could have ever wanted; all the proof I demanded as an Agnostic, was supplied to me in over-abundance after the transformation occurred.

To the Atheist what I probably experienced was some kind of psychotic break... and in my opinion, the Atheist--in order to be defined as such--is trapped into this position. For if I am just as sane and intelligent as the Atheist then what I experience is real and that's not an option.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, you are "more than" just meat. There are psychological properties that arise from the mere meaty substrate, and with these come meaning and value and real content to your existence. The fact that you will die one day and thereby cease to exist simply doesn't change this. You can try to understand death for what it really is; alternatively, I guess ...[text shortened]... t be pushed around by a fear of God. So you'd rather be pushed around by a fear of death?

There are psychological properties that arise from the mere meaty substrate, and with these come meaning and value and real content to your existence.

So meaning comes from meat?

I'll think about that next time I'm enjoying a nice juicy sirloin.

Oh, and now for the conversation on the last page... better known as the "problem of evil," or the problem of suffering.

The Atheist, again, is forced by very definition, into believing that death is a bad thing and suffering is a bad thing. The exact opposite is true in the case of the believer.

The postulation that any degree of pain is a trespass and a negative thing is incorrect.

Our bodies feel pain as a reaction to tell us something is going wrong. Without the ability to feel pain, our bodies would be immeasurably damaged without us even being aware of it.

Consider the case of the cold-blooded frog. Where it is said t can be put into a iron kettle full of water, with the water very slowly being brought to a boil. The frog being cold-blooded doesn't have a clue about the temperature change and has no inclination to jump out. (it's an old tale and has been proven wrong, but the point is still made: without pain receptors, the human body would be constantly subjected to damage without any awareness, i.e. pain is a 'good thing.'😉

Pain can also be used as an excellent instructional tool for children. I'm not talking about beating the crap out of them in public, but for example... a child that is behaving very badly and is completely out of control, can be calmly and quickly subdued by applying pressure to pressure points such as the maneuver similar to the "Vulcan Nerve Pinch."

And taking all that into account it is clear that just as the Bible says, pain and suffering are tools used by God to discipline mankind. The end result is good, as we learn and improve.

As for the case of the unbeliever going through suffering and then death, that's another case entirely and can be discussed if desired.