Someone debate me

[Cinjin]

Since I have finished my portion of the debate and this argument never came up, I thought it would be good for me to answer it here.

If there was a benevolent Creator, there would not exist unnecessary suffering or suffering that would not bring about a greater good.
There exists suffering that is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good.
Therefore a benevolent Creator does not exist.

This isn't exactly the same as the two other arguments "the extent of evil is too much" or "if there is any evil.."

I'm curious. If not, I would suggest someone takes it up with him and argue on that basis since he doesn't want to debate with me about it.

I would disagree with premise two, that there exists suffering that is unnecessary. To claim that there is such suffering, it seems to me, is to say that God could not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting such suffering. However, how does one know that, for any given instance of suffering, (call it "X") God could have no good reason for permitting X. The reason for X being permitted doesn't necessarily have to be for the benefit of the sufferer him/herself. It could even cause a chain of events leading to a future action hundreds of years later which was the reason for X being permitted. In such a case, it seems to me that we are not in a position to say that there is, all things considered, unnecessary suffering in the world.

An "all-powerful god" capable of creating every living moving thing in the entire universe in only seven days - needs suffering to get shit done in a few hundred years.


Well thank you Captain Excuse, without you everyone here just might think your god was an impotent dumb-fuck with a a bunch of airheads following him around.

[pocaracas]

Speaking of unnecessary suffering... have you guys watched this particular movie, blood diamond?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450259/
Imagine it depicts a reality in this world... imagine the reality is not as pretty as the movie...
When I saw it, I thought:

[Jeffonthenet]

I would disagree with premise two, that there exists suffering that is unnecessary. To claim that there is such suffering, it seems to me, is to say that God could not have a morally sufficient reason for permitting such suffering. However, how does one know that, for any given instance of suffering, (call it "X") God could have no good reason for permitting X. The reason for X being permitted doesn't necessarily have to be for the benefit of the sufferer him/herself. It could even cause a chain of events leading to a future action hundreds of years later which was the reason for X being permitted. In such a case, it seems to me that we are not in a position to say that there is, all things considered, unnecessary suffering in the world.

As indicated in the other thread, this is the point your beliefs lose any justification and become another example of wish-fulfillment. You are claiming a hypothetical reason that would not only justify, but necessitate that suffering. Meaning, not only this hypothetical explanation would show that the suffering had a particular goal, but that that goal could not have been possibly achieved without that suffering taking place.

What we do see in most cases is that any goal could actually have been achieved without that much suffering taking place - therefore, most of the suffering is actually unnecessary. Therefore, on one hand, you have sufficient explanations to show how any particular suffering could be unnecessary (as in, alternate scenarios where the purported goal could be achieved without it) and you have none to show exactly what suffering with no apparent goal is supposed to accomplish. Your disagreement with premise two is without justification.

Premise two is a premise in an argument against God and itself needs justification as it is a positive argument against God. It is not me who needs to justify my disagreement with it, but it that needs to justify itself to us. You say that in most cases any goal could have been achieved without that much suffering taking place, yet how could you possibly know this? As I said, the goal could be hundreds of years down the road, and any alternate scenario you would propose must then be aware of the connection between any particular event and the event down the road which justifies its permissibility. However, I don't see how you could even know which event and which event down the road would be the necessary ones to be able to refute that these things were necessary.

[genkaus]

Premise two is a premise in an argument against God and itself needs justification as it is a positive argument against God.

How can it be a "positive argument against god" if it doesn't mention god at all? Premise two simply states "there is unnecessary suffering in the world". At this point, the question of god's existence is never brought up.

It is not me who needs to justify my disagreement with it, but it that needs to justify itself to us.

It already has, by numerous examples of unnecessary suffering taking place throughout the world. For example, can you tell me why is it necessary for women to go through the pain of labor?

Given that that position is already justified, you as a dissenter must provide justification for why it isn't true.

You say that in most cases any goal could have been achieved without that much suffering taking place, yet how could you possibly know this?

Plain old logical reasoning. Figure out the goal, figure out all the different ways it can be achieved, determine which way would constitute least suffering and then decide if the way it did take place was the same.

As I said, the goal could be hundreds of years down the road, and any alternate scenario you would propose must then be aware of the connection between any particular event and the event down the road which justifies its permissibility.

And given that it is hundred of years down the road, it is easy to imagine another event causing much less suffering accomplishing the same thing.

However, I don't see how you could even know which event and which event down the road would be the necessary ones to be able to refute that these things were necessary.

And since you can't know that there is in fact such an event down the line, you cannot claim that suffering was necessary or that there is such an intended event down the line. Given the absence of evidence of any such event which can be reasonably considered a goal, the justified position is not to believe that there is such an event. This would make the position that the current suffering is unnecessary the justified one.

[pocaracas]

For example, can you tell me why is it necessary for women to go through the pain of labor?

I'm think I can: because you're born with all the neurons you'll ever require. The human head is too damn big for a too damn small hole.
Most other animals can give birth with no apparent (or just minimal) pain. But humans require help from another human and it hurts like hell!

Also, apparently, women should give birth while squatting, not lying on their backs... that just adds to the pain.

[The Grand Nudger]

Also makes it easier to dump the unwanted females into pre-dug ditches.

[genkaus]

I'm think I can: because you're born with all the neurons you'll ever require. The human head is too damn big for a too damn small hole.
Most other animals can give birth with no apparent (or just minimal) pain. But humans require help from another human and it hurts like hell!

Also, apparently, women should give birth while squatting, not lying on their backs... that just adds to the pain.

You're simply explaining why it is so - not why it is necessary. For example, another scenario might have been where children are not born with all the required neurons and developed them late on. Or that number required be actually less (most of the population doesn't seem to use half of it anyways).

[Thor]

I would disagree with premise two, that there exists suffering that is unnecessary.

Take a walk through the cancer ward of a children's hospital and try to convince the parents that the pain their children are suffering is somehow "necessary".

Of course, make sure to wear protective gear before doing so. Otherwise, you'll be enduring some very necessary suffering.

[pocaracas]

I'm think I can: because you're born with all the neurons you'll ever require. The human head is too damn big for a too damn small hole.
Most other animals can give birth with no apparent (or just minimal) pain. But humans require help from another human and it hurts like hell!

Also, apparently, women should give birth while squatting, not lying on their backs... that just adds to the pain.

You're simply explaining why it is so - not why it is necessary. For example, another scenario might have been where children are not born with all the required neurons and developed them late on. Or that number required be actually less (most of the population doesn't seem to use half of it anyways).

Sorry, the question was a simple "why", so I ran with it.
Why it is necessary? heck... evolution is a crap engineer.

[Mystic]

The problem of evil is emotional. When we see diseases, we wish they were all cured. When we see cancer, we want to be cured. When we see mental illness, we want it to be cured. When we see poverty we want to be eradicated.

We emotionally are against all suffering. We want it gone. And if we had the power to make it go away, we would, wouldn't we?

Yet God doesn't do this. Hence, we feel there is something wrong here.

As much as we may justify it with words, we emotionally agree with the problem of evil.

The argument maybe an argument from ignorance, none the less, it's emotionally convincing.

If we had a magic wand in our hand, we would make all suffering go away? Most of us would say yes, almost all of us, would say yes. Wisdom, greater good, etc, we really don't care for that.

This is why the argument is so strong. We are already emotionally convinced.