I went back and collected up all your quotes in an attempt to figure out where you were coming from.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: We should always ask why God created a system where evil occurs (if he exists). It doesn't make sense to ask why God doesn't interfere in this and that, because, it's obvious God doesn't interfere.

Sort of. You're right in one sense: if god doesn't interfere at all, and you don't believe he does, then it's a moot point. But if you're certain, as many theists are, that god DOES interfere, then the question is a very, very pertinent one. It's the defining question of whether or not God is a benevolent god, or an evil prick.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The individual evils are a by product of the over goal of the system.

What "system"? Life? Define system before you move forward. I think that's where you lost us.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 1) A benevolent Creator can possibly exist with the world of evil and suffering, if there is (a) benevolent reason(s) behind evil and suffering existing.

I don't think most of us believe there is any reason for evil and suffering to exist, which is why humanity tries to wipe it out. "Ends justifying the means" is a dangerous way to go.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 2) It is possible that the purpose of the system is to bring EARNED praise, along with diversity in experience of praise, to enrich the human experience of their humanity.

What? We're supposed to "earn" praise by going through obstacles? Look, dude, not to keep bringing up my predilections, but in a BDSM scene I am given "tests" to earn praise from my Master/Dom - but I go through them consensually...I think the problem most of us have is that the suffering we go through is no fault of our own and we didn't choose it, and thus there's nothing extra noble about it other than whoever overcomes the problem was able to give the middle finger to the outside force. Even in succeeding, I'm sure most suffering is something most people wouldn't choose to go through.

For example: my father abused me. It's changed me in many ways. I like those changes, overall. I've gotten over the abuse, and we have a relationship again. But if someone said "we could erase that suffering" so that I went back in time and he was a good father for those years instead, I would. Because I don't see my suffering as noble simply because I turned out more empathetic or compassionate or stronger for it. I spent years dealing with fall out that I might have escaped, and my life would be vastly different and probably no less 'good' for having not suffered it.

I'm sure luckie would have preferred NOT suffering her illness.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 3) It's possible that a greater degree of praise is only possible by how we deal with evil and tribulations, on an individual scale, and on a community scale.

Eh?

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 4) It's possible that in the long run, peace will be the condition of humanity, and that any opportunity of earned praise would be seen worthy of any suffering/evil specially if part of the peace of many humans will be in how they dealt with the suffering in a praiseworthy manner.

this is where you're really losing me.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: 5) It's possible the many types of evils out there is so that we have diversity in praiseworthy human experience in dealing with suffering.

So...evil exists because you think we can't grow as people without it.

You know what's funny? I see little motivational quotes all the time about how plants that weather the strongest storms always end up the strongest (the strongest trees in the gail, blah blah blah).

The strongest people are the ones who make the best use of the lessons they were given - whether that means suffering or no - just like the strongest trees were the ones that had best access to the resources they needed. Adversity has nothing to do with it. Synthesizing the lessons you get in life does.

(March 25, 2013 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I think this is a possible solution to the problem of evil.

Doesn't seem like a solution, just an explanation.

(March 25, 2013 at 11:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: @Missluckie26

While many people don't do well facing adversity, many people do well. The greater the chance of failure, the greater the praise in success. What is important is to note the opportunity we been given to earn praiseworthiness. I feel personally honored by what life gives the opportunity of achieving.

When I was getting beaten (abuse-wise, not BDSM-wise, which is different and totally fun), I wasn't thanking life for handing me "an opportunity". I think you're mixing up "adversity" and "suffering."

(March 25, 2013 at 11:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Sure you can focus on people not doing well in facing adversity, but, perhaps the gems that do well, are worth the tribulations and suffering.

Why not focus on them? Why didn't they do well? Shouldn't we be focusing on the people who aren't doing well and ask why? And why do successful people or those who live through suffering make those who don't "worth it"?

(March 25, 2013 at 11:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: As far as peace goes in the long run, and happiness, I don't subscribe to religion, and the argument doesn't need a religion to be true, it's simply saying a benevolent Creator is possible in the world with evil and suffering and that in the long run, it's possible all humans (those who fail and those who are successful) will be at peace.

What does "peace" have to do with any of this?

(March 25, 2013 at 11:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: From that perspective, being given the opportunity to earn praise, would seem benevolent, specially down the line, billions years of peace and tranquility will make suffering in this world seem trivial.

No one's being given an opportunity. Shit happens and we make the best of it. You're turning "life" - random events - into a sentient system (is this the system you were referring to?) that 'tests' us...for what? Is there cake at the end of your system? Or just human praise? Human praise is bullshit, in the end. The public doesn't have to like me or adore me.

(March 25, 2013 at 11:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The negation of premise would be that earned higher praise facing evil and suffering cannot be out a worthy goal of creating a world that encompasses evil and suffering. But this seems false to me.

So you like thinking that there HAS to be a reason for suffering. Bully for you - you still have spiritual beliefs.

Why should God have to interfere in his system to the degree that he removes all the things that you don't like? Can you put this in a formal argument that goes from self evident propositions to conclusion?

(March 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why should God have to interfere in his system to the degree that he removes all the things that you don't like? Can you put this in a formal argument that goes from self evident propositions to conclusion?

So he likes them? God likes people suffering? Or is is because they do this thing called "sin" that he designed them to not be able to resist doing?

What if God uses suffering to teach people things, the same way that a father teaches his children. God loves his children, but he uses suffering to teach them things. What if the scale is different from your fearful and politically colorized view of the nature of suffering? What if there was something that was even higher than you, even able to see a thing or two that you could not.

(March 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What if God uses suffering to teach people things, the same way that a father teaches his children. God loves his children, but he uses suffering to teach them things. What if the scale is different from your fearful and politically colorized view of the nature of suffering? What if there was something that was even higher than you, even able to see a thing or two that you could not.

How can he teach people, that do not know of him, through suffering?

I'm not arguing with you, strodel - I know your position and don't give a fuck about it. I'm talking to mystic.

It's the Harry Potter argument. Being beat up by the world makes you a good person. Dumbledore believed it, so it must be true!

Except that only works sometimes. Sometimes it makes you more selfish, more manipulative, more wormlike.

(March 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Joel Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What if God uses suffering to teach people things, the same way that a father teaches his children. God loves his children, but he uses suffering to teach them things. What if the scale is different from your fearful and politically colorized view of the nature of suffering? What if there was something that was even higher than you, even able to see a thing or two that you could not.

How can he teach people, that do not know of him, through suffering?

All cultures have a moral tradition that involves crime and punishment, as far as I am aware there absolutely no exceptions to this.

---

Re Harry Potter - The atheist, in absense of having a seroius argument, resorts to psychological manipulation techniques such as appealing to their maturity. They think when they repeat propaganda aimed at turning young people away from their parents religion, they are being critical thinkers, so hold as they hold fast to the propaganda and let only that and never clear logic or reason direct their rejection from rules.

...Again, how can he teach people, that do not know of him, through suffering?
How can a father teach an unborn son? Or a son that was given up for adoption?
How can a teacher teach a student they don't have?
What you said doesn't make any sense.

(March 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What if God uses suffering to teach people things, the same way that a father teaches his children.

Wait, what? The same way a father teaches his children? Through suffering? I think someone had better get Social Services on standby.