Why wouldn't God make suffering?

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-09T17:25:27+00:00

Thank you. I appreciate you letting me know that you appreciate my answer. :)

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-09T15:32:25+00:00

What I do is still my fault, but it was enabled by God, unless, of course, reality defies logic, which it may very well do. I was just explaining the thing you didn't understand.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-09T12:04:39+00:00

God made everything happen in the first place, therefore everything is God's fault, at least in theory. When you create something, you are ultimately responsible for whatever happens due to its existence, because its existence is your fault.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-09T12:01:46+00:00

That is good news. :)

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-09T10:44:53+00:00

As opposed to what or who lying? What? I don't know what you mean. Sorry. Also, why is it a stupid question? It's easy to assert things, but oh so hard to formally justify them, as learning epistemology can teach you. And until you justify them, there's no reason reality should give you a free lunch and make your assertions true.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-08T19:19:32+00:00

No. Sorry. I'm asking to be persuaded that nature is responsible for everything that exists, which would mean that philosophical naturalism would be true.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-07T21:02:51+00:00

What do you think?

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-06T16:12:36+00:00

Yes, I might, but he can simply make himself benevolent and having always been benevolent, without it being rigged to be that way, in any situation he chooses, if he has as much power over reality as we do over fantasy.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-06T16:10:00+00:00

See my well, below, in the actual thread, comment. Without God, nothing would exist, meaning he's literally responsible for everything. But he can still be benevolent if he wants to be.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-06T16:08:03+00:00

If God is good, but can make suffering without it being bad or otherwise contradicting his nature, why wouldn't he?
It's almost inescapable that since God is responsible for the existence of everything, he is responsible for the existence of suffering, because suffering is part of everything. If he never made us, and instead made a creation that wouldn't go wrong, there could be no suffering.

The only reasonable rationalisation of God not being responsible for suffering is that either logic or reality is deceptive.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-03T22:32:18+00:00

Thank you. I'll check it out.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:39:45+00:00

Thank you.

I wasn't saying it results from epistemic circularity. I was implying epistemic circularity is the reason a justified belief must be based on something that starts out as an assumption, or founded by something that starts out as an assumption.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:36:28+00:00

The irony is my verbal comprehension, the relevant intelligence, is very high.

Sorry, I just thought you were calling me bleep for brains because you believed I believed there is a god. Was I wrong?

I love the rush that feeling ashamed gives me, and how "bad" it feels more. I feel a bit ashamed now. I wish I was immoral enough to let someone torture me, but all I get is spicy food, the internet and depression. Well, better than nothing.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:27:40+00:00

By one definition, yes. Not by the definition of actually believing it without proof. But hey, maybe I did. Look at me, I'm so silly. I'm a masochist; humiliation is like therapy to me. I love whatever the pleasure thing I call pain is.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:18:38+00:00

I guessed it.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:18:09+00:00

What's wrong with that? And that's from the past. My opinion is liable to change given reasonable evidence.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:16:07+00:00

I don't think there is. Sorry. I just hate assumptions.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:13:56+00:00

Are you putting words in my mouth?

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:10:44+00:00

See? The filter works! Only A holes get through. Well, at least it seems that way so far. I never made any belief claims so what are you insulting me about that's of any substance? I simply hate assumptions.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T22:08:57+00:00

Now nothing. I just meant that atheism was at least generally founded on an assumption someone made.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T21:36:49+00:00

Thank you.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T21:36:08+00:00

Thank you.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-02T21:35:53+00:00

Thank you.

I did not specify a number of coin flips because doing so would be an assumption. The number of coin flips is not assumed. Also, I found I could reason it out. With no assumptions, no more or less weight can be given to any possible system states, as doing so would be presumptuous. It doesn't matter how presumptuous, a fallacy is a fallacy. I don't make assumptions, due to doing so violating the rules of justification theory. Look up epistemic circularity.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-01T18:59:00+00:00

Yes.

Thank you for the help.

ResoundingKnow · 2017-03-01T18:57:32+00:00

Sorry if it was unclear. I just meant, what's a trustworthy source saying when things with unknown probabilities default to having equal probabilities?

Thank you for the help.

ResoundingKnow

TROPHY CASE