This cruel universe I love so dearly

[Purple Rabbit]

No I am no confused. I understand that we have more diagnosable and distinguishable diseases. but I also very much mean we have literally more. Sure nobody dies from the 'bloody flux' anymore, and we have very specific types of illnesses... But I do mean there are more illnesses nowadays, mostly as a result of our modern world and lifestyle. Did people have radioactive poisoning before we dug radioactive material out of the ground? Likely a few, but not on the scale we find today. I understand what you mean, and I meant exactly what I said, and maintain my point.

This will not do as a backup to your claim that we have more illnessess today than say 150 years ago. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, giving one example is not really a thorough numerical assessment. I can easily name you diseases/illnesses that we nowadays have cured or have effective remedies for, for every 'new' disease you name, measels for instance. Also people were not immune to radioactivity before we 'dug radioactive material out of the ground' and on some places on earth radioactive materials do surface in nature. So is the disease new? Thirdly radioactivity has been effectively put to use for medical treatment, for treatment of cancer for instance. Stating that you maintain your point is redundant information in this context. Do you experience doubts about this?

Saying it is "a silly action" really is an amoral statement that shows lack of any understanding what medical care is about and indeed lack of any human compassion.

I am absolutely not amoral in any way,..

Let's be clear on this one. I am not saying that you are an amoral person, I have said that it is an amoral statement. I do not know you as a person and I have no moral opinion about you as a person, written word on a the internet is not the kind of expression I would base such judgement on.

I feel that I understand better than yourself 'what medical care is about' and have overwhelming human compassion.

You may feel that, but really you have no way to tell.

Tell me how it is not silly to wish to 'cure all diseases'. Explain to me how that is not literally silly. That it is unattainable, dangerous to try for, and a waste of time.

Because it eases pain and suffering. Because it pretty much is what drives medical investigation. Because it is not shown that it is unattainable. Because it is silly to have to choose which diseases to cure and which not. Because you are not in the position to deny others the benefits of medical achievements or the strive to do so. Because if that's silly than pretty much any human endeavour is silly. Because it is kind of hypocritical to make use of it yourself and label it as silly. Because it is a great thing to want for your fellow human beings. Among other reasons.

We should spend our valuable energy enjoying what we are given, not trying to stretch it too far, at the cost of quality of life. If you see the world, especially the last 150 years as a big improvement, than that is where we disagree. This is the same as the 'chemo thread'... It is a big disagreement, but please let mt reiterate that I am taking a moral stance, and it is all about compassion.

Have you ever seen what cancer can do with kids? This imo is a deranged stance on human compassion and human endeavour. Where is it coming from? What harm is in it for you that medical science makes advantages?

My brother was in the hospital when I wrote this. My grandfather is in the hospital right now. I hold my point. I never said I, nor do I, believe in salvation in the next life. It is possible, and so it 'the big sleep'. I just think all this medicine is unnecessary. Some is very helpful, like antibiotics, but those have their own very serious threats. My problem is unnecessary fear, and its motivation to do things not in our best interests.

Why post this opinion on this forum? Be sincere and tell it to your brother. Tell him that you believe his treatment in hospital is a silly attempt to enhance his life, that he should just take his disease without treatment. That he should stay away from the perversions of modern medicine and just rot away. Of course that's not what I want for your brother and I don't even know him. I must be totally perverted.

---

Evil: causing ruin, injury, pain, misfortune or destruction to/of others.

1. Why do they "have the obligation to explain" the intentional designer's purpose in these circumstances?

I didn't say 'purpose' but stated that "those who claim intended design have the obligation to explain why this cruelty is intended in the first place". This is so because theirs is the claim to know the intentions of the supposed designer. Surely this means that they can answer the simple question whether its design was intended to have this cruel consequences on humans.

2. What conclusion can be drawn about an intentional designer if those with this supposed obligation do not themselves know what its purpose is?

The primary conclusion is about the truth value of these asserters of intended design. It shows their understanding of design is too poor to credit the claim. In the case of the christian god, the one that also is claimed to be all-good, you might conclude that they are full of shit for worshipping a designer god whose moral they haven't checked. They could be worshipping the devil in disguise.

3. What if the purpose in these circumstances is greater net moral good (e.g., compassion is a virtue but it presupposes suffering, courage is a virtue but it presupposes fear, etc.)?

Have you any indications for that, for at this moment it is only wild speculation? I could also speculate that the purpose is net moral evil (e.g., misery for man is intended and compassion, courage and such are mere words among humans that in the end all die). Also this is a category misstake, it supposes that misery and prosperity are additive properties exclusively on level of humanity as a whole. You likewise do not assert that courage is not appreciated on the personal level, do you?