Causes of Suffering

[dilloduck]

If there WAS a God, how do you imagine the world as we know it would be?

Viking ?

 

[USViking]

You are, but as I stated through implication before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You go further by saying no evidence is possible.

That is why it is an analogy, if it was exactly the same thing then it wouldn't be an analogy.... Plus, we are arguing the existence of the "mythical" water creature with no eyewitnesses...

There must be a meaningful similarity of some kind,
and your attempt contains none.

Which is why I called it analogous.... It means that it isn't the same thing, but a way to look at something different that you may see the point from a different angle, instead you choose to still ignore that arguing the "spiritual" without first assuming the "spiritual" is the same as arguing ocean creatures against the disbelief of oceans... That you hadn't seen the ocean or that I hadn't certainly wouldn't prove that they do not exist... However arguing the mythical whale creature without first assuming that oceans can exist is the same as arguing God without first assuming the spiritual. It places limitations that are not part of the actuality of the being... One could not exist without the ocean, the other could not without the spiritual.

It is very analogous...

If you insist the statement “Whale is to ocean as God
is to the spiritual” has application to our discussion,
no one can stop you, and no one can stop me from
disdaining to comment further on it.

But I have.

Only in your mind.

No, it has not. According to rules of logic it is a fallacious argument...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/.../arguments.html

Check out the list, see why it is so. Fallacious logic is not, by definition, logical....

I will say one thing though, I should have used Reductive Fallacy for the second, you only used Reductio ad Absurdam ( more specifically the Fallacy of the General Rule) once.

If you were in Debate Class you would have failed by an attempt to support your argument using fallacious logic.

Here is what your own link says:

(from the link, emphasis added)

Reductio Ad Absurdum:
showing that your opponent's argument leads to some absurd conclusion. This is in general a reasonable and non-fallacious way to argue. If the issues are razor-sharp, it is a good way to completely destroy his argument. However, if the waters are a bit muddy, perhaps you will only succeed in showing that your opponent's argument does not apply in all cases, That is, using Reductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes using the Fallacy Of The General Rule. However, if you are faced with an argument that is poorly worded, or only lightly sketched, Reductio Ad Absurdum may be a good way of pointing out the holes.”

Now it is up to you to specify where I have used reductio
ad absurdum as a general rule, fallaciously.

I said: There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so. I properly qualified the rule,
then pointed out the qualification does not apply to God,
who always has the power to do so. Where is the violation?

 

[USViking]

If there WAS a God, how do you imagine the world as we know it would be?

Viking ?

Sorry I overlooked this.

I simply do not see His work present in this world.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry I overlooked this.

I simply do not see His work present in this world.

How would you recognize it if it existed ?

 

[USViking]

How would you recognize it if it existed ?

I don't know.

 

[no1tovote4]

I may deny the existence of something without
denying the possibility, however unlikely, that
I may be wrong. I may also deny its existence
without claiming to prove it does not exist.

Except until the post previous to this one you did not. You have stated numerous times that you refused to discuss this on the level of the spiritual, where this Being would exist.

Huh?

I was pointing out that if you saw somebody walking on water you would look for the trick, and that I would as well....

I do not believe you have.

Read again, I have stated numerous times that stating it as certainty toward either side would be fallacious argument based in "feelings" not in logic.

Let me repeat my earlier construction of the position
I have taken here:

1. There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so.

2. God has the power to prevent all suffering.

3. God has failed to prevent suffering billions of times

4. Therefore God has failed to do what is morally imperative.

The premise in #1 gives a general rule which should in my
opinion apply universally, in both the physical realm, and
in the spiritual, if the spiritual exists.

(Implicit in the argument, and an extension of it, is the absurdity
of chosing to believe in a morally corrupt diety, when there is
no necessity to.)

And let me repeat my answer:
1. This is a fallacy of oversimplification... Implicit in this imperative is to prevent the most suffering possible. I have pointed out several times how suffering in this life may have benefit afterward.

2. Once again, you prevent any ideation outside of the physical box you have put God in. That like a surgeon God may allow suffering in this lifetime that will benefit you in the next. You ignore it because it doesn't fit neatly into your four point set.

3. I have simply stated that you cannot possibly know how much suffering that God has prevented by allowing this lifetime to happen as it does. That you refuse to see the possibility of this larger picture doesn't change the fact that it is logical.

4. Therefore, the entire construct is a construct of fallacy built on a foundation of The Fallacy of the General Rule (as an extention of Reductio ad Absurdum) and not a construct of logic.

The soundness of a premise may be disputed. You dispute
mine simply by asserting the spiritual may not be judged
on the basis of its material consequences, your whale-ocean
“analogy” being in fact no such thing.

I have not, I have put forward logical possibilities that are outside of your construct and thereby prove the construct itself to be flawed. The Construct is both constructed on the Fallacy of the General Rule but also on Disproof by Fallacy...

An example of Disproof by Fallacy for our amusement:

"Take the division 64/16. Now, canceling a 6 on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 64/16 = 4/1 = 4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 64/16 is not equal to 4, are you?"

I may as effectively argue by simply asserting we can.

Suppose though, never mind God for a moment, what about Satan?
His first enticement was a physical act leading us to a physical act
of disobedience. Under your rules it seems we are not permitted to
judge the spiritual being Satan here on account of the physical nature
of the act.

I do not believe you have.

Read again, repeatedly throughout I have pointed that the equal argument from the other side is equally fallacious.

OK, I’ll give you this.

However:


Just a moment ago you said it was a toss-up.

Something that is probable is not certain and therefore a toss-up. You once again show a lack of understanding of English here....

True, but that is not what you said earlier.

I said: “Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate form of argument.”

You said: “No it isn't, it is a logical fallacy and therefore specifically not a legitimate form of argument”.

So I specifically stated (paraphrasing), "What I should have said was that The Fallacy of the General Rule used in the context of Reductio ad Absurdum... and so forth. Basically I said, "You are right, I should have been more specific, let me correct myself." But you would rather have meaningless blather about a point I have conceded. I wasn't clear enough. I have therefore explained....

It would have been better to employ silence to concede
defeat rather than to try to weasel out by introducing a
qualification to a statement you meant earlier as an absolute.

I employed the directly conceding method of conceding. I said (paraphrasing again as well as repeating)... "You are right, I should have been more specific in my definition of what I was saying was fallacious..." I then corrected it... From my own link that you provided it provides that extension that I was arguing.. The Fallacy of the General Rule... It was my bad, I admit it freely.

Me.

I was not quoting you in my statement. All that I have written has been in my own words...

Just a moment ago you said it was a toss-up.

A probability is not a certainty and by definition is a toss-up....

What does it mean to “hoard away suffering”?

A more familiar term for "Cashiering" that you suggested earlier....

You have have explicitly declined to define the
key word “growth”. It is fallacious to base an
argument on term which defies definition.

You really have no concept of the term spiritual growth? Do you really want a definition of this? Come on. Some concepts of English must be meaningful to you, you appear to be able to use it to communicate!

Nor should he be.

Agreed.... So why do you insist on using it?

You go further by saying no evidence is possible.

One of the reasons that many people argue this stuff is because there is no evidence either of the existence or of the non-existence of the spiritual.

There must be a meaningful similarity of some kind,
and your attempt contains none.

The analogy was clear. Even my daughter (8 year old) was able to see it as well as my wife and others...

Arguing the physical possibility of the whale without first considering the possibility of large bodies of water is illogical, while it is easy to prove that the whale could not exist on land it becomes more difficult to prove that when you include its habitat... arguing the possibility of the actions of the Deity without considering the possibility of a much larger spiritual view and thus a bigger-picture morality is equally illogical.

If you insist the statement “Whale is to ocean as God
is to the spiritual” has application to our discussion,
no one can stop you, and no one can stop me from
disdaining to comment further on it.

Except you do comment on it, attempting to disdain the analogy... The analogy doesn't mean that the whale to the water is the exact same as god to the spiritual, only that it takes the same illogical assumption to take it from its environment (the water for the whale, or the spiritual for the Deity) then argue its possibility (whale) or the possibility that its actions could still be moral even within your fallacious construct (Deity)...

The analogy is sound...

I said: There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so. I properly qualified the rule,
then pointed out the qualification does not apply to God,
who always has the power to do so. Where is the violation?

Already answered above.... Your definition was found wanting by the overgeneralization you used. I provided reasoning where this became and was shown to be a fallacious construct in itself... Thus the argument becomes the fruit of the poisoned tree, the very foundation is fallacious.

(Imagine, all this could be avoided had he just stated, "Hey! This is how I feel!" instead of attempting to build a fallcious construct of logic.)

 

[USViking]

Except until the post previous to this one you did not. You have stated numerous times that you refused to discuss this on the level of the spiritual, where this Being would exist.

Go ahead and show me where I said I denied
the possibility of the spiritual, or where I said
I had disproven its existence.

I was pointing out that if you saw somebody walking on water you would look for the trick, and that I would as well....

There are numerous ways by which God could reveal
Himself which could be no trick. For example, He
might realign the stars in the sign of a cross.

Read again, I have stated numerous times that stating it as certainty toward either side would be fallacious argument based in "feelings" not in logic.

Quote yourself appropriately, from a post earlier than #93,
and I might take it back.

My argument is not based on “feelings”, although
feelings are inevitable in any flesh-and blood human
being, and it is fitting to say so from time to time.

And let me repeat my answer:
1. This is a fallacy of oversimplification...

It is exactly as simple as it needs to be.

Implicit in this imperative is to prevent the most suffering possible.

This applies to human beings, whose powers are limited.

I have pointed out several times how suffering in this life may have benefit afterward.

Only by postulating something called “growth”, and you
sabotaged yourself by refusing to even attempt a definition
of this “growth”.

Furthermore, it seems to me you may have crossed the line
in commiting a Fallacy of Ignorance: your whole approach
hinges on the argument that the hypothetical “benefits” of
suffering may be true because they have not been proven false.

2. Once again, you prevent any ideation outside of the physical box you have put God in. That like a surgeon God may allow suffering in this lifetime that will benefit you in the next. You ignore it because it doesn't fit neatly into your four point set.

This is ludicrous. I am not putting God in any “box” at all,
I am attributing to Him the ability to prevent suffering, and
this would apply to spiritual suffering as well as physical.

3. I have simply stated that you cannot possibly know how much suffering that God has prevented by allowing this lifetime to happen as it does. That you refuse to see the possibility of this larger picture doesn't change the fact that it is logical.

This is another application by you of the Fallacy of Ignorance.

And of course you cannot know if God has ever prevented
any suffering.

4. Therefore, the entire construct is a construct of fallacy built on a foundation of The Fallacy of the General Rule (as an extention of Reductio ad Absurdum) and not a construct of logic.

Therefore a little cuckhoo burdie flew
out of your ear.

I have not, I have put forward logical possibilities that are outside of your construct and thereby prove the construct itself to be flawed. The Construct is both constructed on the Fallacy of the General Rule but also on Disproof by Fallacy...

You have not put forth logical possibilities, you have
put forth an unreal hypothetical, stamped the words
“analogy” and “logic” on it, and said “I win, I win!”

An example of Disproof by Fallacy for our amusement:

"Take the division 64/16. Now, canceling a 6 on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 64/16 = 4/1 = 4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 64/16 is not equal to 4, are you?"

???

Read again, repeatedly throughout I have pointed that the equal argument from the other side is equally fallacious.

So I may after all judge God on account of
the physical nature and consequences of His acts? Thank you!

Something that is probable is not certain and therefore a toss-up. You once again show a lack of understanding of English here....

Every time I have ever heard the phrase “toss-up”
it has meant a 50-50 chance, so is less than probable,
which has to be better than 50-50.

I seem to be only about half way through this latest
jewel of yours, and it is becoming tedious. I will have
to take a break, and get back to the rest later.

Stay tuned!

 

[USViking]

So I specifically stated (paraphrasing), "What I should have said was that The Fallacy of the General Rule used in the context of Reductio ad Absurdum... and so forth. Basically I said, "You are right, I should have been more specific, let me correct myself." But you would rather have meaningless blather about a point I have conceded. I wasn't clear enough. I have therefore explained....

I employed the directly conceding method of conceding. I said (paraphrasing again as well as repeating)... "You are right, I should have been more specific in my definition of what I was saying was fallacious..." I then corrected it... From my own link that you provided it provides that extension that I was arguing.. The Fallacy of the General Rule... It was my bad, I admit it freely.

Fine, I’ll let it go.

I was not quoting you in my statement. All that I have written has been in my own words...

You quoted me, then made a statement of your own which
I took to be an irrelevant rebuttal. I’ll let it go too.

A probability is not a certainty and by definition is a toss-up....

According to my dictionary a “toss-up” is “an even choice
or chance”.

A more familiar term for "Cashiering" that you suggested earlier....

When used as verb the word means to dismiss, discard, or reject.

You really have no concept of the term spiritual growth?

I take it to mean something like continuous improvement
in conforming to the will of God.

A person who is not religious would have to substitute
some philosophical ethical system. This might be taken
in part from religion, as in observing all the Ten Commandments
except the first.

Do you really want a definition of this? Come on.

Yes, I certainly do want a definition of this key term
you have been bandying about.

Some concepts of English must be meaningful to you, you appear to be able to use it to communicate!

And I think I do so very well.

Agreed.... So why do you insist on using it?

I do not.

One of the reasons that many people argue this stuff is because there is no evidence either of the existence or of the non-existence of the spiritual.

Those who believe in the truth of such scriptures
as the Christian would disagree with you.

Also, it is certainly possible for God to provide evidence.

The analogy was clear. Even my daughter (8 year old) was able to see it as well as my wife and others...

I said I was through with this, and I am.

Already answered above.... Your definition was found wanting by the overgeneralization you used. I provided reasoning where this became and was shown to be a fallacious construct in itself... Thus the argument becomes the fruit of the poisoned tree, the very foundation is fallacious.

I did not “define” anything, I stated three premises, and drew
a conclusion from them. Your rebuttal was simply incoherent.

(Imagine, all this could be avoided had he just stated, "Hey! This is how I feel!" instead of attempting to build a fallcious construct of logic.)

I have no intention of avoiding the sound logic of my position.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I question the premise that the will to survive is
in any meaningful sense a choice, and it certainly
does not apply to malignancies and microbes, which
are not in any way sentient.

Choice - not will.

Even if it is a choice, you have made no case for
relieving God of responsibility for his own choice
to stand by and do nothing while his creatures suffer
as the result of his plan.

Not trying to make a "case" of relieving God. Just trying to explain my perspective, which is different than yours. It's not my place to prove or disprove anything.

The difference between our positions seems to be
that you consider God’s plan to be beyond reproach,
while I consider it to be wicked on account of the
suffering built into it.

Didn't say it was "above reproach". Merely stating that it is what it is and complaining about it or attempting to place blaming will not change it.

The creator of the automobile cannot control the lives
of a single autombile operator. God can control the lives
of every being in His creation.

Do you agree that the creator of the automobile could have forgone creating it knowing that it no matter how much progress or positive aspects it presents, it will still be the cause of much suffering?

Oh, and PS.........I don't want the creator "controlling" my life. I like having the ability to chose.

You hold God to a lower moral standard than we
hold ourselves, even though presumably He is
the author of these standards. I find this baffling.

Not really. I don't hold "ourselves" to a higher standard. You are the one that has set the standard and judging everything to that standard.

I am very sorry for your sister’s suffering,
and for her family and friends. I hope she
recovers soon.

Thank you. Her entire life has changed, as well as the lives of her friends and family. None of us will ever look at life the same way we did before the cancer was discovered.

 

[kurtsprincess]

It is a premise, a self evident truth, which surely
applies to all humans in at least their relationships
with each other.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if this were true? Stating that something is a moral imperative does not make it reality. And what is the ultimate goal of adhering to a "moral imperative"?

Yes. As I said in my last post, I find it baffling
that God should be exempt from standards He
has set for us.

I don't see the creator as being exempt from any standards that have been set. I see the standard as being "choice", and all choices have an outcome, or result.

My point all along is that the master plan violates
obvious moral standards, and that God, its sole Author,
is culpable for the violation.

I reject your premise on the grounds that there are no obvious moral standards. Once again, choice is the foundational standard.

“Imperative” means here something which should be done.
Human beings do not always chose to do the right thing.
Nor does God.

Who, or what, set the standard for the moral "imperative" you keep referring to?

My understanding is that all matter consists of
concentrated, or congealed energy: e = mc2.

How does the existence and nature of energy
demonstrate the exisitence of the soul?

How have you demonstrated that it doesn't?

 

[no1tovote4]

According to my dictionary a “toss-up” is “an even choice
or chance”.

According to my dictionary, it can mean that there are chances for either. Even if there is a probability of one side more than the other it would still be a "toss-up" because there is that chance...

I take it to mean something like continuous improvement
in conforming to the will of God.

This is an attempt for you to take the focus from the point of the argument, as the actual definition is not salient to the discussion. In fact the discussion focuses on the fact that you have no evidence to support your fallacious argument that, first God didn't exist (later you stated that you believed he could which was a good first step), then again that if he existed he must be immoral because of this construct... That same contstruct that has been shown to be oversimplified and thus fallacious. I have been arguing the possibilities that do not fall, and cannot be answered by the construct, proving its oversimplification and thus the fallacious foundation of your argument.

I will anyway give some more possibilities of growth.... Such as realization that this physical form is indeed temporary while life itself is not. However growth of the spirit can include suffering for another, suffering for education... As well as an understanding of suffering and its causes. The Buddha directed the search for the causes internally, realizing that actions breed reactions and suffering is often, if not always caused by your own action. There are as many different definitions for spiritual growth as there are beliefs.

I have pointed out time and again that because of the much larger picture that the Deity would have the attempt to judge him as unloving or immoral because of suffering now, could be a misconceived emotional response based solely on the fact that you don't believe that suffering now may benefit you later. I have pointed out the holes in the logic, the undefined reaches, the possibilities that are far beyond this simplistic overgeneralization....

Since I see God entirely differently in my belief system and we are not arguing my belief system I won't bore you with the details of my personal belief.

Instead I will return to the subject of discussion which is only the fact that your logic construct was fallacious because of the overgeneralization of immorality based entirely on the physical world (which you have now attempted to stretch into the spiritual, that you finally admitted we have no knowledge of but could exist...). This construct was shown to be too limited and thus a fallacy as I have named before. Since the foundation is based on fallacy, it becomes the fruit of the poisoned tree..

A person who is not religious would have to substitute
some philosophical ethical system. This might be taken
in part from religion, as in observing all the Ten Commandments
except the first.


Yes, I certainly do want a definition of this key term
you have been bandying about.

This in particular is a misconstruction of my argument which has been based solely on possibilities that are outside of your construct, proving the construct to be oversimplified and thus fallacious.

And I think I do so very well.

As I said, you appear to speak well, but seem to have problems in the comprehension areas that are not evident among others I speak with on this forum or others. When factually hundreds of people can understand my argument clearly, it cannot be an issue of my communication skills.

I do not.

You do.

Those who believe in the truth of such scriptures
as the Christian would disagree with you.

They might, but that has little to do with the discussion at hand.

Also, it is certainly possible for God to provide evidence.

True, but what has this to do with the discussion at hand?

I do not “define” anything, I stated three premises, and drew
a conclusion from them. Your rebuttal was simply incoherent.

I showed the limitations of those premises, and showed that the conclusion could not be drawn from the assumptive premises because of the oversimplification, the basic fallacy of logic that you began with....

I have no intention of avoiding the sound logic of my position.

Rubbish. It has been shown to be fallacious.

 

[USViking]

Choice - not will.

What I mean is the survival instinct is genetically
hard wired to the extent we do not stop and think
whether we wish to survive.

Not trying to make a "case" of relieving God. Just trying to explain my perspective, which is different than yours. It's not my place to prove or disprove anything.

OK.

Didn't say it was "above reproach". Merely stating that it is what it is and complaining about it or attempting to place blaming will not change it.

OK.

Do you agree that the creator of the automobile could have forgone creating it knowing that it no matter how much progress or positive aspects it presents, it will still be the cause of much suffering?

Yes, but I do not believe the analogy is useful
on account of the powers possessed by God
which the automobile manufacturers do not possess.

Oh, and PS.........I don't want the creator "controlling" my life. I like having the ability to chose.

If I might borrow your automobile example, I myself
have had three close calls while driving. All could
have resulted in my death, and others’ deaths due
to my negligence. As it was, no one was hurt, and
no damage done except to my cars.

I wish God had instilled in me and all other people
some more pronounced sense of responsibility,
and perhaps a fear of travelling at high speeds rather
than a love of it.

Not really. I don't hold "ourselves" to a higher standard. You are the one that has set the standard and judging everything to that standard.

What standards do you set?

You do not disagree that there exists any
moral obligation to prevent suffering, do you?

 

[dilloduck]

What I mean is the survival instinct is genetically
hard wired to the extent we do not stop and think
whether we wish to survive.





OK.





OK.





Yes, but I do not believe the analogy is useful
on account of the powers possessed by God
which the automobile manufacturers do not possess.





If I might borrow your automobile example, I myself
have had three close calls while driving. All could
have resulted in my death, and others’ deaths due
to my negligence. As it was, no one was hurt, and
no damage done except to my cars.

I wish God had instilled in me and all other people
some more pronounced sense of responsibility,
and perhaps a fear of travelling at high speeds rather
than a love of it.





What standards do you set?

You do not disagree that there exists any
moral obligation to prevent suffering, do you?

A moral obligation ? Who are we morally obliged to?

 

[USViking]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if this were true? Stating that something is a moral imperative does not make it reality. And what is the ultimate goal of adhering to a "moral imperative"?

I am going to stand by what I said as a self-evident truth.
Merely because we do not always follow it does not make
it less true.

The goal of adherence is to prolong and enhance human life.

I don't see the creator as being exempt from any standards that have been set. I see the standard as being "choice", and all choices have an outcome, or result.

The creator has infinitely greater powers to make his
choices reality. Human beings had no ability to stop
the spread of plagues until about 150 years ago. God
chose to allow these plagues to evolve when He could
as easily have prevented their existence to begin with.

I reject your premise on the grounds that there are no obvious moral standards.

Then we are at an impasse.

Once again, choice is the foundational standard.

What is the “foundational standard”?

Who, or what, set the standard for the moral "imperative" you keep referring to?

I set it, in the context of this thread. I think many if not
most people would agree it applies to human beings.
It is the next step of applying it to God where many have
objections, unreasonably so, in my opinion.

How have you demonstrated that it doesn't?

I have not been trying to. The connection has never occurred
to me, and I wish to know what makes it occur to you.

 

[USViking]

According to my dictionary, it can mean that there are chances for either. Even if there is a probability of one side more than the other it would still be a "toss-up" because there is that chance...

Your dictionary is as substandard as the Logic 101 text
you seem to have been using.

I take it (spiritual growth) to mean something like continuous improvement in conforming to the will of God.

This is an attempt for you to take the focus from the point of the argument, as the actual definition is not salient to the discussion.

It is not an attempt by me to do anything except give
the best answer I could arrive at.

In fact the discussion focuses on the fact that you have no evidence to support your fallacious argument that, first God didn't exist (later you stated that you believed he could which was a good first step),

You have now reached the ad nauseum stage with your
persisting mischaracterization of what I have said, refuted
by quotes posted in my earlier replies.

then again that if he existed he must be immoral because of this construct... That same contstruct that has been shown to be oversimplified and thus fallacious. I have been arguing the possibilities that do not fall, and cannot be answered by the construct, proving its oversimplification and thus the fallacious foundation of your argument.

You gave no grounds at all for your charge of “oversimplification”,
other than to use the word, and your position rests upon a Fallacy of
Ignorance: you say there is no evidence suffering does not promote
growth, hence suffering may or must promote growth.

Of course you are permitted to hold such beliefs as a matter of faith,
but don’t try to splatter the word “logic” all over it because it does not work.

I will anyway give some more possibilities of growth.... Such as realization that this physical form is indeed temporary while life itself is not.

What you call “realization” is again a matter of faith,
not logic or evidence. And the evidence could, as I
have pointed out, easiliy be provided by God by any
of an unlimited number of personal revelations.

However growth of the spirit can include suffering for another,

If by this you mean self-sacrifice then I have no objection.

suffering for education...

You mean studying for exams, or what?

As well as an understanding of suffering and its causes.

How is this a spiritual matter, and not a medical one
in the case of disease-bearing microbes?

The Buddha directed the search for the causes internally, realizing that actions breed reactions and suffering is often, if not always caused by your own action. There are as many different definitions for spiritual growth as there are beliefs.

I would not expect you to give any definition except
those of your own beliefs, so concentrate on them,
and never mind the others.

I have pointed out time and again that because of the much larger picture that the Deity would have the attempt to judge him as unloving or immoral because of suffering now, could be a misconceived emotional response based solely on the fact that you don't believe that suffering now may benefit you later. I have pointed out the holes in the logic, the undefined reaches, the possibilities that are far beyond this simplistic overgeneralization....

God has the ability reveal Himself, personally, to each of us.
No such revelation has been forthcoming, and we are left with
the incontrovertible sight of individual and mass catastrophy,
which can be fully justified only by such revelation, if it is to
be justified at all.

You pretty much admit these catastrophies are commissioned
by God, for our own good, while admitting there is no evidence
they are for our own good.

I believe it may be your own exclusively emotional desire to enjoy
the fruits of God’s hypothetical, better spiritual world, rather than
any rational analysis, which has led you to take this position.

My own view, while admitting that I am emotionally appalled,
is that the evidence of God’s silence, and of our suffering, is
sufficent proof of His malevolence, unconnected with the
question of His existence.

But since the existence of a malevolent God is the worst of
all possiblities, I, as a matter of faith, choose to deny He exists.

Since I see God entirely differently in my belief system and we are not arguing my belief system I won't bore you with the details of my personal belief.

If I get bored, I will say so.

Instead I will return to the subject of discussion which is only the fact that your logic construct was fallacious because of the overgeneralization of immorality based entirely on the physical world (which you have now attempted to stretch into the spiritual, that you finally admitted we have no knowledge of but could exist...). This construct was shown to be too limited and thus a fallacy as I have named before. Since the foundation is based on fallacy, it becomes the fruit of the poisoned tree..

I am bored.

Time for a break. I’ll get back later.

 

[dilloduck]

Your dictionary is as substandard as the Logic 101 text
you seem to have been using.






It is not an attempt by me to do anything except give
the best answer I could arrive at.





You have now reached the ad nauseum stage with your
persisting mischaracterization of what I have said, refuted
by quotes posted in my earlier replies.





You gave no grounds at all for your charge of “oversimplification”,
other than to use the word, and your position rests upon a Fallacy of
Ignorance: you say there is no evidence suffering does not promote
growth, hence suffering may or must promote growth.

Of course you are permitted to hold such beliefs as a matter of faith,
but don’t try to splatter the word “logic” all over it because it does not work.





What you call “realization” is again a matter of faith,
not logic or evidence. And the evidence could, as I
have pointed out, easiliy be provided by God by any
of an unlimited number of personal revelations.





If by this you mean self-sacrifice then I have no objection.





You mean studying for exams, or what?





How is this a spiritual matter, and not a medical one
in the case of disease-bearing microbes?





I would not expect you to give any definition except
those of your own beliefs, so concentrate on them,
and never mind the others.





God has the ability reveal Himself, personally, to each of us.
No such revelation has been forthcoming, and we are left with
the incontrovertible sight of individual and mass catastrophy,
which can be fully justified only by such revelation, if it is to
be justified at all.

You pretty much admit these catastrophies are commissioned
by God, for our own good, while admitting there is no evidence
they are for our own good.

I believe it may be your own exclusively emotional desire to enjoy
the fruits of God’s hypothetical, better spiritual world, rather than
any rational analysis, which has led you to take this position.

My own view, while admitting that I am emotionally appalled,
is that the evidence of God’s silence, and of our suffering, is
sufficent proof of His malevolence, unconnected with the
question of His existence.

But since the existence of a malevolent God is the worst of
all possiblities, I, as a matter of faith, choose to deny He exists.





If I get bored, I will say so.


I am bored.

Time for a break. I’ll get back later.

When you suffer from boredom do you just get pissed at the fact that there is no God or that he is immmoral?

 

[no1tovote4]

Your dictionary is as substandard as the Logic 101 text
you seem to have been using.

Nonsense, colloquial usages are often different in other areas. Hence we have explanation to back it up....

It is not an attempt by me to do anything except give
the best answer I could arrive at.

And it was lacking in logical application as was clearly pointed out. Attempting to direct question to a specificity not originally assumed or salient to the argument is an attempt at digression and does not add to the argument.

You have now reached the ad nauseum stage with your
persisting mischaracterization of what I have said, refuted
by quotes posted in my earlier replies.

No, those quotes came later after the correct application of the fallacies you have attempted to use to support a fallacious foundation of argument, they are simply part and parcel of the poisoned fruit...

You gave no grounds at all for your charge of “oversimplification”,
other than to use the word, and your position rests upon a Fallacy of
Ignorance: you say there is no evidence suffering does not promote
growth, hence suffering may or must promote growth.

That was the entirety of the point, you suggest certainty where there is none in your fallacious argument by oversimplification. I have pointed out many different scenarios that more than prove that it was a simplification to an extreme and thus a fallacious argument.

Ad Naseum is attempting to repeat it after it was proven fallacious, and this is only done because you do not objectively look at your own illogical construct.

Of course you are permitted to hold such beliefs as a matter of faith,
but don’t try to splatter the word “logic” all over it because it does not work.

Almost nothing in here has been based on my faith, you attempt to erect another strawman. Just another fallacy in a desperate attempt to hold onto a fallacious foundation.

What you call “realization” is again a matter of faith,
not logic or evidence. And the evidence could, as I
have pointed out, easiliy be provided by God by any
of an unlimited number of personal revelations.

What I call "realization" is but one suggested definition... You keep attempting to direct certainty where none was suggested. Still another attempt at the strawman fallacy.

If by this you mean self-sacrifice then I have no objection.

Good.

You mean studying for exams, or what?

I mean that often people learn the most when they have the most need to change their circumstance, that suffering often produces need and need often will add to knowledge while complacency will never add to knowledge whether physical or spiritual. Some forms of suffering are not even within the physical...

Let's use another analogy...

Assume first that I am a terrible teacher of mathematics, but am able to do math with ease... (pshhh, assume no assumption needed here.)

I have three daughters, sometimes when the oldest is working on a particular difficult math problem she suffers in her frustration... While emotionally I want to relieve her suffering and to do this I could simply do the problem for her and thus ease her suffering; but then what would she learn and what would happen when the test came? Her suffering would be worse because she never mastered an understanding of the problems that she is now faced with. Now she ends up failing as well...

By attempting to ease her suffering, I first didn't allow her to learn and master what she could, I wouldn't be allowing her to be all that she can be, then secondly I set her up for failure in the future. What I did was far worse than allowing her to suffer through the frustration.

In fact by attempting to ease her temporary suffering (the body) I have actually caused more in the future... It would, in fact, be morally imperative for me to let her work through the problem, suffer her frustration, learn the subject matter and thus increase her understanding.

This is suffering for education....

Now let's apply your construct to this one and see if it does allow for the larger picture...

1. I have an imperative to relieve her suffering. (I must do her math homework for her or I am immoral...)
2. I have the power to prevent her suffering. (I can do that math homework.)
3. I have failed to prevent her suffering numerous times. (I always refuse to do her math homework.)
4. Therefore I have failed to do what is morally imperative. (I am a terrible and uncaring immoral father who has allowed his child to suffer.)

Now let's apply my insistence on a larger picture...

By not relieving her immediate suffering (in this analogy it is comparative to suffering in this physical life.) I have actually relieved her suffering, or made it much less, specifically on test day (analogous to the spiritual existence that may come after). Did I do the right thing?

Your construct fails the most basic of tests, it is therefore a logical fallacy. Now we work to determine what made it fallacious.

It didn't take into account the larger picture... (a few that I have put forward: test day, spiritual existence, more than this body, that sometimes we may benefit from suffering and therfore it is not morally imperative to relieve suffering, but in fact morally imperative to allow it...) And thus we find that it failed at its inception by oversimplifying the issue. It failed at step one, any further argument based on the foundation of this argument is simply a continuation of a fallacious argument....

How is this a spiritual matter, and not a medical one
in the case of disease-bearing microbes?

It depends on the belief system you are questioning. Such as the one of the Bible which suggests disease would not exist without sin. That because of the failure of man to stay within the paramaters set by the spiritual there was released on man his own suffering.

We could also argue that without the suffering of the disease mankind wouldn't have learned even as much as they have about how the body and mind work, our understanding would be at the most basic of levels. If God followed your construct and thus catered to our every need our complacency would regard no need to even ask the questions that we have used to advance ourselves so far.

Those are just two of the possibilities, other belief sets would provide different answers....

I would not expect you to give any definition except
those of your own beliefs, so concentrate on them,
and never mind the others.

We are not arguing my belief set, and they are therefore not salient to the discussion. This is another attempt at distraction from the fact that you have put forward fallacious logic to support your assertions.

God has the ability reveal Himself, personally, to each of us.
No such revelation has been forthcoming, and we are left with
the incontrovertible sight of individual and mass catastrophy,
which can be fully justified only by such revelation, if it is to
be justified at all.

Rubbish, this is once again focusing only in the physical to the detriment of the spiritual, by ignoring the larger picture you once again enter the original fallacy of oversimplifying the argument. That there may be reasons that we do not yet understand in this lifetime is clear (just as my daughter didn't understand why I refused to do her work at first), that you refuse to speculate beyond your own limited understanding is also clear. But it doesn't add to the argument, it is simply another ad naseum repitition of the same fallacy.

You pretty much admit these catastrophies are commissioned
by God, for our own good, while admitting there is no evidence
they are for our own good.

Rubbish, I put that as one way that they can be part of a larger picture that you still refuse to speculate on.

Part of a logical construct is its ability to withstand this type of speculation, yours was lacking from its inception, it cannot answer the questions when it is applied, it has oversimplified on important segments.

God can be both moral and allow suffering, your construct failed to produce the answers and therefore failed in its inception. This has been the point of the argument from the beginning, your construct is flawed. I have shown it by first asking questions that your construct could not answer, then by actually applying the construct to other areas that tested the very first part of the construct, the moral imperative to relieve suffering... It was found to be lacking from that very first step.

I believe it may be your own exclusively emotional desire to enjoy
the fruits of God’s hypothetical, better spiritual world, rather than
any rational analysis, which has led you to take this position.

Once again, you erect a strawman. You have not heard me discuss even once my own beliefs (other than to mention that I have them and was not going to discuss them), so far I have put forward questions... just speculation to test your own oversimplified logical construct that has failed at every attempt to answer the questions when applied.

My own view, while admitting that I am emotionally appalled,
is that the evidence of God’s silence, and of our suffering, is
sufficent proof of His malevolence, unconnected with the
question of His existence.

But since the existence of a malevolent God is the worst of
all possiblities, I, as a matter of faith, choose to deny He exists.

This is a view, and as my beliefs hold nothing in this conversation we have been having, so yours too do not.

I am working on this post to bring this conversation back to the original intent, to test your logical construct and see if it can withstand the scrutiny...

It failed.

If I get bored, I will say so.


I am bored.

Time for a break. I’ll get back later.

Cool enough.

 

[no1tovote4]

(I edited the last post with the assumption he wasn't going to be back for some time)....

 

[USViking]

As I said, you appear to speak well, but seem to have problems in the comprehension areas that are not evident among others I speak with on this forum or others. When factually hundreds of people can understand my argument clearly, it cannot be an issue of my communication skills.

This is an example of the Argumentum ad Populorum fallacy:
popular opinion has nothing to do with any attribute of your
writing except that some people like it. They might have no
idea what you are talking about, and say they understand
everything when all they really understand is that you are
on God’s side.

You do.

This is boring.

They might, but that has little to do with the discussion at hand.

I do not want to leave anyone out.

True, but what has this to do with the discussion at hand?

Duscussed in my last post.

I showed the limitations of those premises, and showed that the conclusion could not be drawn from the assumptive premises because of the oversimplification, the basic fallacy of logic that you began with....

Boring.

Rubbish. It has been shown to be fallacious.

Boring.

 

[USViking]

When you suffer from boredom do you just get pissed at the fact that there is no God or that he is immmoral?

I get pissed at myself for spending too much time
in front of the PC, and not getting out enough to
develop other interests.

I should at least get to the gym for some exercise.

I am trying right now to tear myself away, and do
exactly that.