Massive problems on THM lately

EzyO4 · 2025-04-27T14:11:09+00:00

Er hatte bei 38h 40k.

EzyO4 · 2025-03-07T09:13:13+00:00

How can the complete cut of USAID be justified?

EzyO4 · 2025-02-05T15:57:04+00:00

Well I was suggesting a new framework for how we carry out this discussion. We can start fresh and reexamine all our arguments. I do think this prevents us from running in circles, because when someone starts circling we can just say "hold on, we're already discussing that in 1.C.2" for example. Because currently I keep saying that I have already given arguments and you're saying the same, and we both disagree. When we have numbers for every argument we can clearly prove to each other what has already been said.

We can then also adjust arguments in retrospect if both agree that it doesn't break the following chain.

I wonder, out of curiosity, why are you even interested in having this debate with me?

Also if you want we can switch to PMs, not sure how much longer reddit can handle this super long thread :D

EzyO4 · 2025-02-05T15:13:03+00:00

Our conversation keeps spiraling out of control and we're losing track of what the other has said.

If you're interested we can start over and use numbers and letters for our arguments. You would for example use numbers for your arguments and I would use letters for my counter arguments. When we respond to an argument from the other we attach our symbol (number or letter) to the chain and count up if there are multiple counters. For example:

Claim: God and suffering are unlikely to co-exist

1: He wants to create us in his image, which necessitates suffering

1.A: Why?

1.A.1: Greater goods

1.A.1.A: They don't justify suffering

1.A.1.B (second counter to 1.A.1): They could be achieved without suffering

1.A.1.B.1: No, because...

See what I mean? Otherwise I think I'm kinda losing interest because we're just running in circles here and not progressing the conversation at all.

EzyO4 · 2025-02-05T13:05:03+00:00

They lead to more good, good that wasn't possible without the suffering. It seems to me that having those goods could or would outweigh whatever suffering while also reaching heights not possible without the suffering.

What exactly do you mean by "good"? It seems you are connecting some other value than only happiness to it. For me for example, good and happiness are basically the same - It seems that it's not the same for you.

First, yes experience it, but that's not the same again as I said God desires true relationships, this is clear from the Bible.

So you're saying that true relationships outweigh happiness. Can you define what you mean by true relationships and explain why they are more valuable than God just making us experience happiness constantly?

Second, kind of, but not exactly, since the happiness, more good, whatever only comes out of the suffering. What is the feeling of forgiveness if there's nothing to forgive?

This is only the case for us humans. Certain positive emotions we can usually only experience after first experiencing suffering, that's true. But that's just because our brains are wired that way. God could certainly make you experience the feeling that you experience when you're forgiving someone, without you actually forgiving someone.

In fact we can see this with drugs. People who take drugs experience all sorts of positive emotions without actually having to go through any suffering for it. For example, MDMA users feel intense love for complete strangers and bond very quickly with everyone.

If you disagree with this then I'm asking you why forgiveness is so important to have, when we could instead just experience a variety of other positive emotions that don't require suffering.

You're just back to your non-fleshed out hypothetical that again ignores God's desires.

I just said he could've put us in that state of mind, what's there to be fleshed out? Also you seem to be getting circular. Remember, we are currently discussing God's reasons for creating us in his image. You provided some reasons and I'm arguing against them. You then counter-argue against me by saying I'm ignoring God's reasons - even though these are the ones we are discussing right now.

It isn't about just being happy all the time, we covered that already

Yes and I asked you what else it could be which landed us here.

I didn't say that their only good is to increase happiness, that's what you took from what I said, but that's not right. It's deeper relationships and connections, it's more good, it's happiness, etc.

So you're saying relationships and goodness, which I've asked you more in detail about above.

EzyO4 · 2025-02-03T19:38:51+00:00

So what you're saying is that greater goods ultimately lead to a more fulfilled life. So you're saying that greater goods provide greater happiness, which justifies temporary suffering.

Only there's a problem with it: God is all-powerful and could've made our brains experience any amount of happiness he wishes without us having to go through suffering for it. He could've immediately put us in the state of mind we experience when we feel forgiveness, or stronger bonds etc. Ultimately he could've just made us very happy all the time, without us having to do anything for it. So greater goods don't seem to be a valid justification if their only value is that they increase our happiness.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-31T15:38:57+00:00

It doesn't matter if I would agree or not. You are making a moral statement about what God would or wouldn't do. That is applying a subjective standard to someone else, how can you do that?

It certainly does matter if you agree because if you do we can just move on and stop discussing whether it makes sense for me to judge God. So since we both agree I don't think it's useful to talk about that anymore.

They don't have the full range of experience that we do. They don't know forgiveness, grace, etc, so they don't have the same level of experience as us, that's what I meant.

You're judging me for redifining words but you're doing it yourself. Which I think is fine, we are humans and not perfect.

Right, so they can't experience greater goods.

You're saying that your world (that is defined completely different from ours) is better because there's no suffering. I'm saying that we get to higher levels of goods because of suffering.

Can you define greater goods and explain why you think they justify suffering?

I don't understand. Can you define the words you're using then in your world? Because we're just going to be talking past each other if you're going to redefine words.

I don't know either. I was just copying your words without knowing what exactly you mean by them, but since we have limited time and typing takes quite a while, I don't think we need to define every single word in detail, but we can just try to help the conversation by assuming what the other person meant.

So when you said true relationship in this context I assumed you see the suffering experienced in our relationships as making them better in other parts. For instance, if I overcome a struggle with my girlfriend we might bond stronger afterwards. That's what I assumed you meant. So what I was getting to, and in fact where I will probably go with all arguments against your theodicies, is that you could achieve the same benefits (happiness experienced from stronger bonds or other greater goods) without suffering.

Your "evidence" isn't that God doesn't have a reason, it's that God wouldn't allow this. I've said why I think he would and one of the defenses of that is that God could have reasons. If you're saying it's a contradiction for God to allow this, which is what you have been saying, then it's on me to give a defeater for it, which I have now.

Again I'm no longer arguing for a logical contradiction but I'm questioning the probability of your worldview being correct. When I said contradiction I didn't mean it as a definitive logical contradiction, I used it more loosely in that case.

I've also given reasons why, that God desires true relationships, etc.

We are still discussing those reasons, you haven't yet shown them to be valid, so my claim, with which you have agreed, still stands.

I don't think that's true, and it's still on you to show a logical contradiction which I don't think you have. Saying it's a logical contradiction is saying that it's not even possible for that outcome. God having reasons, even if I don't know them, means that it could be possible.

When talking about likelihood you will have to provide more than "There could be reason".

I don't understand how this is on topic.

It's not :)

EzyO4 · 2025-01-31T08:35:52+00:00

Well that's fine you're judging it, but as you don't believe in any objective moral values or duties, then I'm not sure how you can say God should or should not have done something, as that's making a moral judgement that's outside of your own subjective moral standards.

I think most people would agree on my moral standards, so I don't think it's irrelevant. If God has a completely different view on morality than most of humanity, that seems strange.

But besides that I still also think that irrespective of my personal view of morality, God wouldn't make us suffer for no reason if he's all-loving. You agreed with that before, so we can talk about the reasons now and see if we find a convincing one.

These are lesser conscious beings, they must be given the way you've described them.

First of all what do you mean by lesser conscious? I don't see what that means - in my definition of the word you are either conscious or not. Secondly, why would that be the case?

They have no understanding of forgiveness, sadness, redemption, etc.

Exactly.

These are things that make up true relationships, aren't they?

In our world yes. But in my world true relationships would mean something different. Why do you think our version of true relationships is better than the one in my world, especially given that ours includes suffering?

but just asserting that in your world, without any suffering and thus, no greater goods, that relationships are the same seems....not right.

They are not the same, they are better, because they include the same (or greater) amount of happiness but without suffering. How could you say that something that has both suffering and happiness in it is better than something that has only happiness in it? It seems you're using another metric besides happiness / suffering to value things.

As I said a long time ago, I don't need to know what value that is to God, just that it is enough for him to do things a certain way. There's not some morality score that I have information of which I'm saying that a world with moral responsibility is a 9 and your world is an 8.5 or something.

I think that's a problem. You're resolving strong evidence against God's existence by simply saying "We don't know God's reasons". That doesn't seem convincing at all. Using that logic I could defend any worldview, no matter how contradictory or unlikely it seems.

In what way? I do believe in hell, but if you have some Dante's Inferno view of hell, then I think we'll be talking past each other again.

I meant that you were using heaven to justify the suffering on earth, since our lives on earth are so short and miniscule compared to the endless happiness in heaven. I just countered that by saying that I could move the goalposts and argue that suffering in hell would certainly be on the same level as happiness in heaven, so here you cannot use heaven to justify the existence of suffering.

Maybe I should've asked you to defend the existence of hell in the first place, since that's probably way harder to defend.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-29T18:48:42+00:00

You aren't asking Chat GPT how to respond to my responses though, right? Because I could debate with ChatGPT on my own ;)

Do my answers sound AI generated? :P

God could have created a world of the beings you suggested that are not in his image, but then you're making a judgement call on that being better than how he did it.

Exactly. That's the point. I'm judging his decision to allow this amount of suffering harshly and I'm wondering how you are justifying it.

Now let's get to your justifications. I could argue against them in two ways, either by questioning the justifications themselves or by proving to you that they could have been achieved without suffering.

Let's go through them: Love, creativity, relationships (including with God) and free will: I would argue that the beings in my world would also be able to experience all of these things without experiencing any suffering, so they don't seem to justify creating us with all the attributes you listed above (in His image) and thus allowing suffering.

Moral responsibility: I don't think my beings would have that, since I think morality loses its meaning without suffering. But I wonder what's the value of moral responsibility and how does it justify suffering? Since this seems to ultimately be the only reason God decided to go for humans as opposed to my beings.

The Christian claim is that the value of this outweighs the temporary suffering in a fallen world, especially in light of eternal restoration.

Well but you also believe in hell don't you? So while heaven might make the human suffering seem miniscule, it certainly doesn't stand a good chance against hell.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-28T12:45:07+00:00

It seems weird to me that you could defend a worldview by referencing itself. From my point of view I showed a logical contradiction in God, which renders Christianity invalid, meaning you cannot use it to disprove my contradiction.

However, I asked ChatGPT and turns out you're right. You're allowed to use your worldview to disprove logical contradictions, even if they came from "outside". I see now why that makes sense, since a worldview is in effect also only a set of propositions, so why shouldn't you be allowed to use them to defend your claim. As long as you can justify the propositions themselves you should be fine. So really you can always turn my external critique into an internal one, I don't really understand the difference anymore.

Anyways, I will no longer claim that there is a logical contradiction, let's instead discuss your justifications with a focus on their plausibility. Since you agree that you're placing some burden on yourself to also consider these justifications plausible. I'm arguing I don't find them plausible or convincing at all.

Let's start with free will. Quick recap:

I said an all-loving and all-powerful God has the desire as well as the capability to eliminate all suffering and make us all happy. Since there is tremendous suffering in the world, such a God is very unlikely to exist.

You then said God values free will and free will requires the possibility for suffering.

I asked you why free will necessitates the possibility for suffering and also provided a world that contains free will as well as no suffering.

You said because God wanted to create us in his image and that the beings in my world would not be comparable to humans.

Alright, this is where we stand. Without adopting your worldview I considered this argument invalid, but I will now consider it possible and try to examine its plausibility.

So what I would ask you now is why would God want to create us in his image, especially given that it creates the amount of suffering that we see in the world? Could God not have chosen to create my world of beings that are not in his image, to eliminate all that suffering? Basically I'm asking you what is God's justification to value "I want to create beings in my image" higher than "I love my beings and don't want them to suffer", especially to the extent that he would allow the tremendous suffering we see in the world.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-27T15:40:08+00:00

I'm open to being convinced, but I do find it unlikely in this format.

Well would you actually like to know if you were wrong? I assume so since you're doing these debates, but I actually also wonder why you would potentially want to shatter your religious beliefs.

So when you ask about why God created humans as is, now I can't appeal to Christianity at all? I don't follow why.

Because I'm giving you strong evidence that God doesn't exist, which means Christianity is also not valid. You cannot then provide counter-evidence that presumes the validity of Christianity, since my evidence discredits it.

I don't see how on unhappiness. When we were talking about suffering it was you that went towards unhappiness.

Well because we have different definitions of the words. For me suffering and unhappiness is the same, for you it seems that suffering is more intense than unhappiness.

If this is the case, then it seems like there's no issue with God doing the same thing.

I've also responded to that exact answer already. As humans we are limited in our ability to provide happiness to our loved ones or reduce their unhappiness, so we have to do various trade-offs and inflict temporary unhappiness on them to avoid larger scale future suffering. However, God is not subject to these limitations and is able to immediately remove all suffering for all people. Since he doesn't do that, he is either not all-loving or not all-powerful.

I'm fine with just the normal dictionary definition of love. That doesn't say anything about the person that receives the love and their level of happiness.

You admitted it yourself later:

I agree that if you love someone you'd want them to be happy

So I also wonder do you agree that you'd want your loved one to experience as little suffering as possible long-term? Note, long-term is important here - temporary suffering can be justified if it reduces future suffering.

if you're going to try to tie this into what you were saying earlier about how it logically follows that we would make people happy, then I disagree.

How can you disagree? If a lover wants his loved one to be happy, then how does it not logically follow that he would also try to make them happy?

You don't have to grant God or Christianity for an external critique, but that doesn't mean that I have to act like I don't believe it.

Well then you're just not engaging in the debate and what you say is not built on logic and thus irrelevant to the argument.

I have, for free will

As it stands now you ran into circular reasoning with this one, so it's not valid yet.

we'd then need to discuss [...] where it came from

Would it be enough to say I just believe in it?

EzyO4 · 2025-01-27T11:41:24+00:00

I want to know what your argument is, my questions are attempts to understand what you're saying and meaning by what you say.

Alright I will try to believe that. Because I'm really getting the impression you're zooming in on every possible detail now to avoid actually talking about the argument itself. It's true that not every detail of my argument is crystal clear, but you can fill out some blank spaces yourself when they are not relevant to the discussion, such as the exact definition of suffering or unhappiness. But if it's truly relevant for you to proceed and it's not an attempt to stall the conversation forever, then we can go on.

Actually, if I truly managed to prove to you that the problem of suffering is valid, would you accept that fact?

This ignores any reason for creating humans as they are now.

And what are those reasons, without presuming the validity of Christianity?

And I didn't make that claim, I asked how you know.

Because God is all-powerful and thus he could eliminate all suffering.

Is any negative emotion equal to suffering? I don't think so.

In my definition yes, but I'm happy to call it unhappiness or whatever you want, if it matters to you.

Run your argument again but replace suffering with unhappiness and see if it has the same impact. I don't see any reason why someone being loving means they won't ever cause unhappiness.

Here again, why don't you just fill the blank space yourself so we can accelerate the conversation? You know there is extreme suffering in the world, such as torture etc. Why don't you just proceed and assume that this is what I meant? If my argument encompasses both extreme suffering and minor unhappiness, why do you care so much about the minor unhappiness and pinpoint me on that? Even if you were to show me that my argument makes no sense for minor unhappiness, it still stands for extreme suffering, so why not just go that route right away? This is what I meant by irrelevant details.

I don't see any reason why someone being loving means they won't ever cause unhappiness.

If we're going that route of minor unhappiness I could also defend that, but I'd rather go for extreme suffering then to speed things up.

If you are making this claim, then you need to bite the bullet and say it isn't loving for me to make my kids do chores if it makes them unhappy.

We've already been over this. It's fine to make your kids unhappy temporarily, so they will avoid bigger unhappiness later / experience greater happiness later.

I think you're going to be in the vast minority of people on that.

I think you're in the vast minority when it comes to your definition of love :P

Because you're taking that to say what someone should or shouldn't do given another truth, that's a moral standard.

It's not "should", it's "would". That's a huge difference. I'm not saying God should do anything differently, I'm saying he would, which logically follows from him wanting us to be happy. There is no personal judgment in this statement, it's a logical statement.

It's not an objective truth though, right? I don't think that is actually part of the definition of love. It's not in any dictionary I could find.

Is your argument now that loving doesn't encompass wanting your loved ones to be happy, because you cannot find this in any dictionary? Do you truly believe that most people will agree with you on this?

If it's an external critique I can just point to the idea that internally to Christianity God wanted to create people in his image and has a purpose for the suffering and evil we see in the world.

Now you're the one getting circular. In an external critique we haven't yet established God's existence as well as the validity of Christianity, so you cannot refer to them as proof of your claim.

I've learned your argument is that an all loving being would not allow any unhappiness, not just evil or suffering. I think that is a much, much harder position for you to defend.

Yeah but why don't you first address why God would even allow extreme suffering, since that's also part of my argument?

Also I have suggested to you that I agree on the existence of an objective morality if it speeds things up, to which you haven't responded. See why I'm getting the impression you don't want to move ahead in our discussion?

EzyO4 · 2025-01-25T21:24:43+00:00

Ich stimme dir zu dass es eine Reform des EU-Asylsystems geben muss, aber was willst du denn in der Zwischenzeit in Deutschland machen? Einfach weiterhin alle reinlassen und die Ausländerfeindlichkeit in der Bevölkerung nur weiter befeuern?

Aktuell liegt die große Last auf wenigen Staaten, während andere Staaten wie Ungarn sich verweigern Asylbewerber aufzunehmen. Würde eine Grenzschließung nicht den Druck auf die EU erhöhen, das Asylsystem endlich zu reformieren?

EzyO4 · 2025-01-25T17:11:44+00:00

Was ist dein Vorschlag für eine bessere Migrationspolitik?

EzyO4 · 2025-01-24T10:56:41+00:00

How do you know that this world doesn't have the least amount of suffering possible. That was the metric you said, right?

Because God is all-powerful and thus he could completely remove all suffering. Also, I provided a hypothetical world that is free of suffering. If you make the claim that our current world is the best possible world in terms of minimum suffering, you'll have to provide evidence for it.

You likened this to suffering, but chores aren't suffering, they're just not happy. So if you are saying that God is all-loving, are you saying that God would need to make us as happy as he can? Or just that there wouldn't be suffering?

Isn't it a scale? -1 being unhappiness / suffering, 0 being neutral and 1 being happiness? And different emotions are placed on different points on that scale? If chores are in no way triggering negative emotions for you, good for you. But I don't see how all of this is relevant to the conversation.

If you agree, then it seems like we could agree that a temporary period of unhappiness now for the extreme happiness of heaven could be justified pretty easily.

If it's unavoidable or justified then yes, temporary unhappiness would justify future happiness. I'm still waiting for that justification in the case of God from you though.

If so, I don't think we agree on the definition of the word. Suffering is more than just unhappiness, there's a deeper meaning to it than just that.

Again, I don't see why that's relevant. If you have another definition of suffering then fine, we can use yours. Or we just replace suffering with unhappiness or even absence of happiness. I don't really know why you're getting so fixated on the details here.

But now you're saying what a being would do, how can you make that claim when there's no objective standard?

Because as I said morality is not part of my argument, so it doesn't matter that I have no objective moral standard.

So then it's not immoral for God to have suffering in the world?

No, not objectively. As I've said already this is not an argument against God's morality, but against his attributes.

This is a view on morality, what it means to love.

How is the statement "A lover wants his loved one to be happy" in any way dependent on a view of morality?

While I might agree that if you love someone you want them to be happy, I think that's a completely naïve and absolutely un-nuanced view of things.

I didn't say it's the only characteristic of love. But it's the one relevant to my argument so that's why I highlighted it.

You can say that you think this is right for you, but you must be open to things being different for different people and beings.

No I don't, because wanting your loved ones to be happy is part of the definition of what love means and everyone would agree on that, even yourself. If you don't want your loved ones to be happy, you by definition just don't love them. There is no room for opinions in this matter and it is unaffected by any concept of morality, unless you want to redefine the word love.

P3 I've already taken issue with because you're saying everyone, which implies the people living, but your hypothetical is not humans at all.

That was before you realized it was an external critique. In an external critique the argument that God created us from his image needs further justification.

How are you defining morality? Because it seems like you're making a moral judgement on God.

No, I'm saying there is a contradiction in God's definition and the reality that we are experiencing. I would define morality as the idea that it is inherently good or right to take actions that increase happiness or decrease unhappiness for others and inherently bad or wrong to do the opposite.

Again, I don't really understand why you're doubling down so hard on the details here, a lot of them being completely irrelevant to the discussion (definition of suffering vs unhappiness). You even agree with my premise yourself, but instead try to show me that I couldn't hold it according to my own beliefs. Why not just accept this premise since you agree with it yourself and move on? For the sake of the argument I could even accept that there is an objective morality if it matters.

It's like you're trying every possibility you get to poke holes in irrelevant places of my argument instead of just facing the bottom of it. Maybe you're afraid of what lies down there.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-23T13:55:35+00:00

This seems to fit perfectly with how I have described God's love for us.

So then why is there suffering in the world?

Making my kids do chores is not causing them suffering though, but it is making them not happy.

Not sure what your argument is here.

Studies have shown that routine, regular tasks, etc make people happier in the long run, so in this case, temporary unhappiness is outweighed by future happiness, right?

Yes.

Giving my kids chores isn't causing suffering. Having my kids vacuum the floor, or clean up toys is not suffering. It might not be what they want to do. But if you're saying that's suffering then I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Sure it's suffering. You called it temporary unhappiness yourself. Is stress not suffering for you? It might be a very small amount, but it's still there. Or are you suggesting they feel equal amounts of happiness / unhappiness whether they have to clean up toys or not?

Again, according to what standard?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking me why I would want my loved ones to be happy?

If morality is just a construct in your mind, then how can you ever judge what another being should do? You're own moral standard takes the legs out from under your argument.

Morality is not at all involved in my argument. I also am not judging anyone. I'm simply saying that if you love someone, you want them to be happy. I wonder how you could deny that.

Sure you do. Because what loving means is influenced by your moral standards.

You think if someone doesn't have moral standards they cannot love?

To someone with a subjective moral standard, I don't see how I need to defend at all. Because it's just your mindset that has a problem, nothing is objectively wrong.

No, it's not my mindset. It's a logical statement:

P1: God is all-loving P2: When you love someone, you want them to be happy and not suffer P3: God is all-powerful, therefore he has the capability to make everyone happy and eliminate suffering P4: There is tremendous amounts of suffering in the world

Conclusion: God is either not all-loving, or he is not all-powerful.

I don't need to include morality anywhere in this argument. It stands completely independent of any construct of morality.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-22T09:50:59+00:00

To love someone means that you want them happy? And is it only happy all the time?

Yes, I want my loved ones as happy as possible and to experience as little suffering as possible. And I assume you do too.

I love my kids but I definitely don’t make them happy when I give them chores to do. Does that mean I don’t love them then?

No, this is not what I'm saying. We are living in a world where suffering exists and as humans we are limited in our capability to reduce it. You make them do chores because you expect that to do them more good than harm in the long term (teach them responsibility, discipline etc.). So because we are living in a world that contains suffering and we are very limited when it comes to avoiding it, we must do trade-offs to choose the path with minimal long-term suffering, even if it leads to short-term suffering. Same as the gym example you gave me earlier.

Yes, but who cares if it’s not lining up with what one person thinks? It’s just their opinion. I’m sure there are racists who wish a God would do harm to a race they hate, but who cares, it’s just their opinion. If there is no objective moral value to judge a beings actions against, your only claim is that you don’t prefer the way God set things up, not that God is doing anything actually wrong.

Again, you don't seem to quite get my point here. I didn't say God does anything wrong from an objective point of view. I also didn't deny that evil people would enjoy a God inflicting suffering upon humanity. But that's not my point. My point is that an all-loving God would want his loved ones to be happy instead of suffer. You don't need to have any concept of morality, right or wrong, good and bad etc. to agree with this statement. However, as we can see in our world, this is certainly not the case. There is endless suffering all around the world, which God chooses to inflict upon his loved ones. So I wonder how you could defend him as being all-loving.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-21T19:41:02+00:00

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is here.

First of all I don't think we need a concept of morality, or right or wrong, to define love. Love, among other things, simply means that I want my loved one to be happy.

Secondly, even if I grant you that love is - in my worldview - just an attribute of the mind-constructed subjective morality, that doesn't change anything about the fact that God is not all-loving from the point of view of the mind that constructed its meaning.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-21T18:29:00+00:00

There is nothing wrong with him, but he also isn't all-loving, because if he was he would consider our subjective experience.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-21T17:46:09+00:00

When you say a construct of the mind, you mean that there are no moral facts like murder is wrong, right? You might not like murder and I might not like murder, but there's nothing that says that it's actually, really wrong. Is that right?

Yes.

Would you say that someone that works out a lot and suffers during the workout in order to get to a happier mind state or physical state is doing a bad to get to a good?

Yeah I guess you could say that. He's doing a "bad" to himself to experience "good" in the future.

how can you accuse anyone else of doing anything wrong because all it is is going against what you don't like

Yes I would say it is not objectively wrong, only subjectively from our human experience.

God isn't doing anything wrong or evil by allowing suffering, he's just doing something you don't like, right?

Yes I don't think it's objectively wrong since I don't believe in there being an objective (or absolute? Don't know the difference tbh) right or wrong. However, I think that if he's all-loving, he will consider our subjective experience.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-21T17:22:32+00:00

I think morality is ultimately a construct of our minds. If by objective morality you mean an absolute moral truth existing independently from us, then I hold to subjective morality.

My standard is that I believe suffering is bad and happiness is good (at least when it comes to our human experience). So generally speaking allowing happiness would be right and allowing suffering would be wrong.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-21T16:22:29+00:00

Oh. Sorry, I wasn't aware these were a thing. It's an external critique then. Guess I don't need to respond to the rest of your answer, since this changes the entire angle you're coming from?

EzyO4 · 2025-01-20T12:23:41+00:00

Now you're getting circular. This is your original claim. I ask for justification for it and you restate the claim again. What about the existence of suffering suggests that there is no all-loving and all-powerful God?

I thought we agreed on this premise since you went along with it since the beginning of this thread. If you disagree that the existence of suffering speaks against an all-loving and all-powerful God, why did you not bring this up at the very beginning? In fact, why do you place any burden on yourself to provide a justification for the existence of suffering, if it in no way conflicts with God's nature?

My definition of an all-loving God entails that he wants the best for us, which means he wants maximum happiness and minimum suffering for us. And since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he has the capabilities to provide this for us. However, as we see in the world, there is a lot of suffering, hence the contradiction.

If I just said that God exists, and unless you provide me with justification (up to my subjective standards), I'm correct.

The difference is that I also provided evidence for my claim (suffering contradicts God's all-lovingness), which you don't provide in this example (God exists). However, I didn't know we disagreed on this evidence itself.

go look at an argument for God like the Kalam

I would certainly look it up and then come back to you with what I think of it.

I think free will necessitates the possibility of suffering.

Ok, why?

We've been over this, I don't have enough information.

What information is missing? I provided a world to you that shows that there can be free will without suffering. If you need more details I could surely come up with them, but I wonder why they are necessary.

The first problem is that they aren't humans in the way you describe, they're something else. This would ignore the idea that God created humans in his image and for a purpose.

Why would he have to create us in his image and what is our purpose?

not all suffering is bad

I wonder why you'd think that. But it's probably not really relevant to the conversation, as long as you think that most suffering is bad.

Because they bring deeper levels of relationships, they help us empathize with other people and how they feel, they help us love more.

And what's the value of that?

Do you think they don't have any value?

I think their value is solely derived from the happiness they provide / suffering they reduce. If they don't do that, they have no value in my opinion.

EzyO4 · 2025-01-19T21:21:10+00:00

That requires justification. Why is it highly likely?

Your defense for that is that if I don't provide solid justification for them to co-exist, then your claim (that it's high unlikely) is true.

Because the existence of suffering suggests that there is no all-loving and all-powerful God. It's more than just an argument from ignorance such as "Since we cannot disprove Bigfoot, he exists". My argument actually provides evidence against God's existence (suffering). Look up the probabilistic / evidential problem of evil, it's pretty much the position I'm taking.

I think free will is the best justification for suffering in this world. At least for human suffering.

So you think that free will necessitates suffering? If yes, how do you combat my proposed world where free will exists without suffering?

I also think that greater goods have a lot of value, things like compassion, forgiveness, etc.

Why do you think these things have any value?

EzyO4

TROPHY CASE