(December 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 9:34 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: So, if someone allowed you to suffer knowing that you would come out the other side a better person, would that justified? or evil? As a parent, I did this thing called "tummy time" with my babies when they were first born. You lay the child on the ground and the child gets a chance to work out muscles that will later help him/her to sit-up on their own and swallow. It is not the most pleasant time for the child and they mostly ended in crying out.

The baby would mostly likely be fine without "tummy time", i mean, I could have avoided the crying out if I had skipped it for my little ones, but they were able to start doing other things earlier because of it.

I think it's kind of reaching for an example when it's like this. Would you put your child through that if it wasn't necessary and/or had no benefit?

This is my point. Not to mention that the baby had no idea that it was beneficial, nor did she condone it. As the father, I came from the position of knowledge and authority. I could see the end goal and weigh it against the suffering. My child couldn't.

Quote:If a human being attempted to improve the moral fiber of other people by intentionally starving a child to death, we'd call them a criminal. Why does God get a pass?

Because God, as the Father, comes from a position of knowledge and authority. He sees the end goal.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:22 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I think it's kind of reaching for an example when it's like this. Would you put your child through that if it wasn't necessary and/or had no benefit?

This is my point. Not to mention that the baby had no idea that it was beneficial, nor did she condone it. As the father, I came from the position of knowledge and authority. I could see the end goal and weigh it against the suffering. My child couldn't.

Quote:If a human being attempted to improve the moral fiber of other people by intentionally starving a child to death, we'd call them a criminal. Why does God get a pass?

Because God, as the Father, comes from a position of knowledge and authority. He sees the end goal.

Well if starving children serve gods goal shall we try to prevent it? Would that interfere with gods plan?
Or should we just let them starve to death because that's what god wants?
Then what's the business with sending food to africa and so on?

(December 12, 2013 at 6:22 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: This is my point. Not to mention that the baby had no idea that it was beneficial, nor did she condone it. As the father, I came from the position of knowledge and authority. I could see the end goal and weigh it against the suffering. My child couldn't.

What you describe is really more discomfort than it is suffering. Would you subject your infant to the risk of serious, intense pain, starvation or injury to achieve the same ends? Would you let your child die so that you, or someone else, would grow and develop as a person? Would you even subject your child to that level of discomfort if you could achieve the exact same result without doing so?

Quote:Because God, as the Father, comes from a position of knowledge and authority. He sees the end goal.

God, being maximally-knowing and capable, could achieve any end by any means, without limit. It is more of a crime, not less, that a being so capable would inflict or allow suffering, because with such a being in charge, all suffering in the universe is logically unnecessary.

We don't hold animals to a higher moral standard than we hold ourselves, because their abilities and cognitive functions are beneath our own, so it is illogical to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than we would a being who knows and can do things far beyond what we are capable of. To quote the great philosophers Voltaire and Uncle Ben Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". Logically, with maximum power comes maximum responsibility.

You really think that children are starving for your benefit? So you could be a better person?

I'm not going to comment on how awful a thought and how selfish that world view is beyond this sentence.

Let's look at it logically.

Suffering in others doesn't give one the ability to empathize. Psychopaths are unable to empathize and even when they're harming people, they cannot empathize. You can have the entire world starving and psychopaths will not be able to be "better people". You do not become a better person by feeling bad for someone and making a decision to help them, you were able to empathize and you were a better person, that's why you decided to help them.

Anyway, if god is omnipotent, he can use less cruel tools and methods to teach us such a simple lesson. Instead, he uses the weakest of the weak to help the privileged do some soul searching? Really? What an awesome god you have there.

(December 12, 2013 at 6:39 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Let's look at it logically.

Suffering in others doesn't give one the ability to empathize. Psychopaths are unable to empathize and even when they're harming people, they cannot empathize. You can have the entire world starving and psychopaths will not be able to be "better people". You do not become a better person by feeling bad for someone and making a decision to help them, you were able to empathize and you were a better person, that's why you decided to help them.

Logically, just because you can empathize does not make you a good person. It makes you not be a sociopath.

Quote:Anyway, if god is omnipotent, he can use less cruel tools and methods to teach us such a simple lesson. Instead, he uses the weakest of the weak to help the privileged do some soul searching? Really? What an awesome god you have there.

If it was so simple it would have been taken care of, don't you think?

(December 12, 2013 at 6:56 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 6:39 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Let's look at it logically.

Suffering in others doesn't give one the ability to empathize. Psychopaths are unable to empathize and even when they're harming people, they cannot empathize. You can have the entire world starving and psychopaths will not be able to be "better people". You do not become a better person by feeling bad for someone and making a decision to help them, you were able to empathize and you were a better person, that's why you decided to help them.

Logically, just because you can empathize does not make you a good person. It makes you not be a sociopath.

Quote:Anyway, if god is omnipotent, he can use less cruel tools and methods to teach us such a simple lesson. Instead, he uses the weakest of the weak to help the privileged do some soul searching? Really? What an awesome god you have there.

If it was so simple it would have been taken care of, don't you think?

Are you arguing against yourself now?

(December 12, 2013 at 6:57 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 6:56 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: Logically, just because you can empathize does not make you a good person. It makes you not be a sociopath.


If it was so simple it would have been taken care of, don't you think?

Are you arguing against yourself now?

I'm saying that I haven't left my life of comfort to feed the boy. Did you?

(December 12, 2013 at 7:04 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 6:57 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Are you arguing against yourself now?

I'm saying that I haven't left my life of comfort to feed the boy. Did you?

So you are saying that this method is ineffectual in helping people become better people anyway? Wasn't that you claimed suffering was for in the first place?

(December 12, 2013 at 6:33 am)Ryantology Wrote: What you describe is really more discomfort than it is suffering. Would you subject your infant to the risk of serious, intense pain, starvation or injury to achieve the same ends? Would you let your child die so that you, or someone else, would grow and develop as a person? Would you even subject your child to that level of discomfort if you could achieve the exact same result without doing so?

Side-step

Quote:God, being maximally-knowing and capable, could achieve any end by any means, without limit. It is more of a crime, not less, that a being so capable would inflict or allow suffering, because with such a being in charge, all suffering in the universe is logically unnecessary.

We don't hold animals to a higher moral standard than we hold ourselves, because their abilities and cognitive functions are beneath our own, so it is illogical to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than we would a being who knows and can do things far beyond what we are capable of. To quote the great philosophers Voltaire and Uncle Ben Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility". Logically, with maximum power comes maximum responsibility.

Maximally-knowing means he understands things you don't.

---

(December 12, 2013 at 7:05 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 7:04 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I'm saying that I haven't left my life of comfort to feed the boy. Did you?

So you are saying that this method is ineffectual in helping people become better people anyway? Wasn't that you claimed suffering was for in the first place?

Yes, I freely admit that I have fallen short of the glory of God. And for that I must apologize.

What about you? Did you feed the boy yet? Or is he of no concern to you?

(December 12, 2013 at 7:08 am)GodsRevolt Wrote:

(December 12, 2013 at 7:05 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: So you are saying that this method is ineffectual in helping people become better people anyway? Wasn't that you claimed suffering was for in the first place?

Yes, I freely admit that I have fallen short of the glory of God. And for that I must apologize.

What about you? Did you feed the boy yet? Or is he of no concern to you?

You missed the point. If your god is omnipotent, why did he choose such a stupid and cruel method if it's not even going to work? So he is indeed evil. He knew it wasn't going to work and yet he did it anyway.

There's no need for you or I to even talk about what we do to help the world, you don't have to justify yourself to me nor me to you. The state the world is in today shows that the majority of the people in the first world do not give a shit and those in the third world are too busy suffering to give a shit. So this is a failed experiment but somehow your god isn't pulling the plug. He is the one who can stop all of it, but somehow doesn't have the moral fibre to realize that.

And you know what, fuck your god's glory, using a human being's suffering as a tool makes him a fucking asshole. And yes I'm saying that you're a fucking asshole because really, you're the one who thinks that their suffering is a tool for you.