Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:00 am
No. This universe is not fair with regard to animal suffering. It is not acceptable from a good God.

That's going to end up depending. It's going to depend on this: how great a good is the creating of free creatures?

In other words, if it would prevent all animal suffering, would it be better if God had created no free people? Of course, then there would be no need for a free environment, or for the possibility of some humans using their free will to hurt animals, so it would solve some problems: but would it be BETTER if God had never created the whole thing in the first place?

No. It doesn't depend on anything. The animal cannot choose. There should be no animal in this world in which evil is allowed.

So is it your position that there is no such thing as "warranted suffering"? If there were a very great good to be achieved, it could never offset any amount of suffering that was entailed in getting to that very great good?

Is that your position? Or would say say, that, perhaps, the ability of all human beings to be free might actually offset the pain of one dog getting kicked once? Would you be willing to see one dog kicked once, even just lightly, if that action created a whole world of free beings?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:11 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:04 am
That's going to end up depending. It's going to depend on this: how great a good is the creating of free creatures?

In other words, if it would prevent all animal suffering, would it be better if God had created no free people? Of course, then there would be no need for a free environment, or for the possibility of some humans using their free will to hurt animals, so it would solve some problems: but would it be BETTER if God had never created the whole thing in the first place?

No. It doesn't depend on anything. The animal cannot choose. There should be no animal in this world in which evil is allowed.

So is it your position that there is no such thing as "warranted suffering"? If there were a very great good to be achieved, it could never offset any amount of suffering that was entailed in getting to that very great good?

Is that your position? Or would say say, that, perhaps, the ability of all human beings to be free might actually offset the pain of one dog getting kicked once? Would you be willing to see one dog kicked once, even just lightly, if that action created a whole world of free beings?

Good God is not allowed to put the animal in a world that is subjected to suffering.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:11 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:08 am
No. It doesn't depend on anything. The animal cannot choose. There should be no animal in this world in which evil is allowed.

So is it your position that there is no such thing as "warranted suffering"? If there were a very great good to be achieved, it could never offset any amount of suffering that was entailed in getting to that very great good?

Is that your position? Or would say say, that, perhaps, the ability of all human beings to be free might actually offset the pain of one dog getting kicked once? Would you be willing to see one dog kicked once, even just lightly, if that action created a whole world of free beings?

Good God is not allowed to put the animal in a world that is subjected to suffering.

But answer the question anyway -- you're saying that no amount of freedom for human beings would be worth one kick to one dog?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:28 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:17 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:11 am
So is it your position that there is no such thing as "warranted suffering"? If there were a very great good to be achieved, it could never offset any amount of suffering that was entailed in getting to that very great good?

Is that your position? Or would say say, that, perhaps, the ability of all human beings to be free might actually offset the pain of one dog getting kicked once? Would you be willing to see one dog kicked once, even just lightly, if that action created a whole world of free beings?

Good God is not allowed to put the animal in a world that is subjected to suffering.

But answer the question anyway -- you're saying that no amount of freedom for human beings would be worth one kick to one dog?

I am saying that animals should not be in the falling world where suffering is allowed. Human is a rational being and he is free. He deserves what he asks for.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:28 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:17 am
Good God is not allowed to put the animal in a world that is subjected to suffering.

But answer the question anyway -- you're saying that no amount of freedom for human beings would be worth one kick to one dog?

I am saying that animals should not be in the falling world where suffering is allowed. Human is a rational being and he is free. He deserves what he asks for.

I'm sorry...I'm still not seeing the answer to the question. We agree that dogs should not be kicked. But what if one kick to one dog would allow the universe to be populated with beings with freedom, volition, identity, personhood, and so on? Would that one kick be warranted by the good that would result therefrom?

Be patient, and answer the question, and I'll move on to the next thought for you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:33 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:28 am
But answer the question anyway -- you're saying that no amount of freedom for human beings would be worth one kick to one dog?

I am saying that animals should not be in the falling world where suffering is allowed. Human is a rational being and he is free. He deserves what he asks for.

I'm sorry...I'm still not seeing the answer to the question. We agree that dogs should not be kicked. But what if one kick to one dog would allow the universe to be populated with beings with freedom, volition, identity, personhood, and so on? Would that one kick be warranted by the good that would result therefrom?

Be patient, and answer the question, and I'll move on to the next thought for you.

Point is if God is omnipotent, omni-whatever and omni-benevolent, then God should have used his omni-whatever capability to ensure there is no 'evil' [as defined effectively] in the world God created.

In your example, why should God resort to 'one kick to one dog' to enable whatever good that will result from it?
Surely God with omni-whatever is able to create such a fine-tuned universe, God should be able to generate whatever that is good without resorting to even one act of evil [e.g. one kick to one dog'].

Fact is, the idea of a God emerged and is adapted within humans because the idea of God [illusory] is very effective as a consonance in soothing the cognitive dissonance arising from an existential dilemma.

To maintain consonance and avoid the terrible dissonance, theists will find all sort excuses [as in your case above and elsewhere] to justify their belief in that illusory God they have to cling on to.

I looking for the latest excuses from theists in how they resolve the problem of evil, but I am confident, whatever new arguments they come up with, they will fail.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:35 am Point is if God is omnipotent, omni-whatever and omni-benevolent, then God should have used his omni-whatever capability to ensure there is no 'evil' [as defined effectively] in the world God created.

Let's see if that's true: namely, that God can not possibly have any sufficient reason to allow "evil" to exist. But to answer that question, you're going to have to go back to the beginning of my conversation with B, and read to where we are now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:35 am Point is if God is omnipotent, omni-whatever and omni-benevolent, then God should have used his omni-whatever capability to ensure there is no 'evil' [as defined effectively] in the world God created.

Let's see if that's true: namely, that God can not possibly have any sufficient reason to allow "evil" to exist. But to answer that question, you're going to have to go back to the beginning of my conversation with B, and read to where we are now.

I have read from the beginning and understood the trains of thought which is waiting for the cows to come home, so I have decided to cut it off and introduced the above.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:04 am The "Problem of Evil" has been claimed by many non-theists [atheists] to be the 'silver bullet' against the theists' claim God exists.

Over the years, theists had offered loads of defense against the Problem of Evil and all had failed.

What is the latest and strongest defense from theists [with references and links] to counter against the Problem of Evil.

For some reason, known only to a deity, the best of possible worlds must include evil. That the whole, with the evil, is better than the whole with only good or onlyl good and neutral. Note this argument does not prove the necessity of evil, it leaves open the possibility that it is right to be included. There is a stalemate. The anti-theist can say that it cannot be better, but this presumes that the anti-theist has some way to evaluate what is best, period. And there's a hubris in that. But since the problem of evil is sometimes used to prove there is no God or no loving god or no loving omniscient, omnipotent god, the onus is on the anti-theist to demonstrate that they can finally evaluate the whole shebang. I think that's hubris.

I don't happen to buy this defense on theists' part, though I am a theist. But I don't think Problem of Evil proofs of God's nonexistence work.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 7:27 am I have decided to cut it off and introduced the above.

Sorry; that's not your prerogative. I'm developing the argument carefully, because too many people "cut it off" without hearing it, and then go on to tell themselves there's no answer.

But there is. They just won't sit still for it.

My conversation right now is with B. If you have anything relevant to that conversation, I have no hesitancy in addressing it. But if you wish to cut short and redirect somebody else's conversation...well, there's no reason you should be permitted to do that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:33 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 12:28 am
But answer the question anyway -- you're saying that no amount of freedom for human beings would be worth one kick to one dog?

I am saying that animals should not be in the falling world where suffering is allowed. Human is a rational being and he is free. He deserves what he asks for.

I'm sorry...I'm still not seeing the answer to the question. We agree that dogs should not be kicked. But what if one kick to one dog would allow the universe to be populated with beings with freedom, volition, identity, personhood, and so on? Would that one kick be warranted by the good that would result therefrom?

Be patient, and answer the question, and I'll move on to the next thought for you.

What good is supposed to come from evil? God should not allow suffering to innocents. The end cannot justify the means.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:14 pm What good is supposed to come from evil?

It's not actually so strange an idea as you might suppose. There are actually definite goods that are impossible if there were no evil, no suffering, no pain, and so forth, but which are possible because there are such things.

Let me give you a few simple examples. One is achievement. One cannot be said to have achieved something if one faced no difficulties, pains or struggles in having achieved it. Another is mercy. There is no such thing as mercy in a world in which nobody is ever in need. Likewise charity, or compassion, or sacrifice. There is no triumph if there are no obstacles.

But here is the item of present concern: there is no freedom. To be morally free means to have the real option of choosing to do the good, or choosing to do "something else than" the good, which necessarily means some kind of bad. To be free to choose God is to be free to choose self instead, or even to choose the darkness. To be free to love a woman implies that you could have chosen others: if you had no other choice, then in what is your love manifested? And to choose to make a person your friend is to choose him out of others, with whom you do not have the same commitment; or if you have the same level of commitment to all people, then in what sense is anybody your "friend"?

So you can see there are many goods which depend on the possibility, if not the actuality, of the not-good. And there are specific goods that proceed from the presence of suffering, pain, lack and so on.

God should not allow suffering to innocents. The end cannot justify the means.

We should think about what it means to be "innocent," then.

But a concern happens even before that. If God "should not" allow the suffering of innocents, what do we suppose he should do instead?

Do we suppose that He ought to so ordain things that if bahman decides to kick his dog, the dog is suddenly removed from the area? And if bahman decides to steal from a friend, is God morally obligated to bar bahman's hand? And if bahman decides to sleep with a partner belonging to somebody else, is God under obligation to spirit that partner away, so that it cannot happen? Or if bahman decides to lie, is God obligated to tie bahman's tongue in knots, so the evil of the deception cannot creep out into the world and do damage?

Just how much evil, suffering or bad is a truly good God morally obligated, in your view, to prevent?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:38 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:14 pm What good is supposed to come from evil?

It's not actually so strange an idea as you might suppose. There are actually definite goods that are impossible if there were no evil, no suffering, no pain, and so forth, but which are possible because there are such things.

Let me give you a few simple examples. One is achievement. One cannot be said to have achieved something if one faced no difficulties, pains or struggles in having achieved it. Another is mercy. There is no such thing as mercy in a world in which nobody is ever in need. Likewise charity, or compassion, or sacrifice. There is no triumph if there are no obstacles.

But here is the item of present concern: there is no freedom. To be morally free means to have the real option of choosing to do the good, or choosing to do "something else than" the good, which necessarily means some kind of bad. To be free to choose God is to be free to choose self instead, or even to choose the darkness. To be free to love a woman implies that you could have chosen others: if you had no other choice, then in what is your love manifested? And to choose to make a person your friend is to choose him out of others, with whom you do not have the same commitment; or if you have the same level of commitment to all people, then in what sense is anybody your "friend"?

So you can see there are many goods which depend on the possibility, if not the actuality, of the not-good. And there are specific goods that proceed from the presence of suffering, pain, lack and so on.

Animal suffering was my concern when I said which kind of good could possibly come out of evil? One kicks a dog. How God can possibly turn this into good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:38 pm

God should not allow suffering to innocents. The end cannot justify the means.

We should think about what it means to be "innocent," then.

But a concern happens even before that. If God "should not" allow the suffering of innocents, what do we suppose he should do instead?

Do we suppose that He ought to so ordain things that if bahman decides to kick his dog, the dog is suddenly removed from the area? And if bahman decides to steal from a friend, is God morally obligated to bar bahman's hand? And if bahman decides to sleep with a partner belonging to somebody else, is God under obligation to spirit that partner away, so that it cannot happen? Or if bahman decides to lie, is God obligated to tie bahman's tongue in knots, so the evil of the deception cannot creep out into the world and do damage?

Just how much evil, suffering or bad is a truly good God morally obligated, in your view, to prevent?

No. I am not saying all of that. I am saying that innocents should not be in the fallen world so for example, a person like Bahman kicks his dog.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:52 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:58 am - my "Daughter" (2nd one - 1st one died on 7/7/7 at 19) "fidget" i had to euthenize on christmas eve at 13.5 yrs, after 3 months of vet bills to try to help her...some form of cancer was the most likely culprit.

That's bloody awful. So sorry, man. I've been there.

They say every pet you loose takes a piece of you with them. I guess that's really true, in a sense. I've never felt the same after I lost one, and I've never forgotten one I lost.

Still, there's this: it wouldn't hurt so bloody much if you didn't really love them. And the ability to feel that pain is a tribute to what you had with them. That doesn't make it feel any better, but it does make it mean something important.

Best thing to do: defy the pain by stepping up and getting another one. Then put your heart into caring for it. It's the right way to pay tribute to what you had, and the right way to heal the heart and keep the memory after a loss.

thnaks for kind words. i prob will get another cat and even a small dog - but in a few months or so i think. I think i was her best friend in return, so i'm ok being there and taking her to the vet and giving her good food and vacc/etc. my girl was a very social cat and liked other cats, she had many boyfriends over the yars - stray cats - "Sid",(black cat feral - but would live in my backyard too for 4 yrs - he was black and had a big head so name after that great actor of the 60's), and then sadly Sid died, and Redford took over (for 6 yrs - feral, but also lived in my backyard - lol redford was of couse named after that other grat actro of the 70's - for being white in color, and finally whne Reford got sick and "dissapeared" Andre showd up - he was hug - thus andre the giant refernece,- he dissapeared 5 yrs ago, so no other suiters since that time -Fidget past her sell date by then? - anyway she and they all got along and hung out in the backyard for yars. I have a Dog/cat door - so let both my cats come and go - trained them to fear cars as kittens by honckinHorn when i fpulled up from work each day (they alwys waited on the front porch for me to run to my car - for years - but used the horn to give them some fiar of cars. enouhg to fear cars in gneral but not enough to fear my car and so com eout to see me after work., seemd to work in genral, after they were a yr or so they were car smart.

i did catch fidget on the other side side of the street 3 times, and each time i bwalked over there grabbed her by the neck - picked her up by her neck - she curled up instinctively - then i literally pounded her head in while walking back accross the steet to my home. did the sam thing when about a week after i bought her from the pound she dicided to stay outside over night when she knoew i demanded her to come inside. she bit me! drew blood on finger (it was raining that night too) - so i through her out in the rain over night - she got what she wanted, but not really. never bite me again after that time.

so not intospoiling, nor the opposite beating the spirit out of an animal. something in the middle is the best option.

thanks for reply.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:26 pm Animal suffering was my concern when I said which kind of good could possibly come out of evil? One kicks a dog. How God can possibly turn this into good.

We didn't say that kicking dogs was ever good. It's always evil, in itself, we agreed. We asked a different question: namely, how could allowing somebody the choice to "kick dogs," or to do any other kind of evil, be ultimately a better things than preventing him from doing evil?

And we've already established that there's one way: if the only way for human beings to have freedom of will was to give them the genuine option not only of doing good, but also the freedom to choose evil, then letting them have that freedom would not make their evil into good; but it would imply that creating beings capable of genuine free will was perhaps a very great good in its own right -- one worth risking, and even allowing, that some of these free beings will abuse their freedom to kick dogs...or whatever else they may choose to do.

Let's make it personal. Is telling lies evil? Is coveting others' possessions evil? Is sleeping with your neighbour's wife evil? And so on. The Bible says that all these things are evil; but what do you say?

If you agree with the 10 Commandments on these points, and say that these things -- lying, greed, adultery -- are evil, then let me ask you this: should God prevent you from even having the potential to do these things? Or should he allow you the freedom to be able to, but to choose to tell the truth, be unselfish, and be faithful instead?

Would you rather be free or controlled?