Problem of evil solved

[Breur9991]

The following article, in my opinion, solves the problem of evil/suffering: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_6.html

So what does everyone think? I'm genuinely interested to know, and I'd appreciate it if you read the entire article before addressing it.

 

[Metalgod]

I read the first 6 or 7 paragraphs.

Once I got to the part about how the Quran says that God either causes or allows all suffering so 'That He might try you—which of you is best in deeds' I didnt really feel much of a need to read any further.

 

[Rumraket]

I read the first 6 or 7 paragraphs.

Once I got to the part about how the Quran says that God either causes or allows all suffering so 'That He might try you—which of you is best in deeds' I didnt really feel much of a need to read any further.

Not really much different from the christian god, who allows evil and suffering because it's part of his greal unknowable plan.

 

[Breur9991]

I read the first 6 or 7 paragraphs.

Once I got to the part about how the Quran says that God either causes or allows all suffering so 'That He might try you—which of you is best in deeds' I didnt really feel much of a need to read any further.

So you don't have a refutation?

What's the point of replying if you haven't read all of it?

 

[Breur9991]

I read the first 6 or 7 paragraphs.

Once I got to the part about how the Quran says that God either causes or allows all suffering so 'That He might try you—which of you is best in deeds' I didnt really feel much of a need to read any further.

Not really much different from the christian god, who allows evil and suffering because it's part of his greal unknowable plan.

But Allah allows suffering because without it, you wouldn't be aware of your own happiness. Again, read the whole thing before replying.

 

[Inferno]

Most of this stuff is written in pseudo-intellectual gibberish, but I'll hack away at a few things.

If we look back at the lower forms of life, at the first few rungs of the ladder and compare them with the higher forms of life near the top, ...

Neeeerrrrrt, wrong. That's not evolution, that's an outdated version of Scala Naturae.

... it is not difficult to recognize that in real terms the evolution is the evolution of consciousness.

Since we don't really know what constitutes consciousness, this doesn't really fly.

Life is constantly spiralling up from a lesser state of consciousness to a higher state with continuously sharpening faculties of awareness.

No matter how consciousness is defined, this is wrong. Moths, who are just as evolved as we are, don't appear to have consciousness of any kind. If you define their state as having consciousness, then so did dinosaurs and trilobites.

The creation of the brain was not a separate and unrelated incident.

In what way? Care to qualify that statement?
Again, many modern animals or life forms have no brain to speak of, so the 1st paragraph and this sentence are mutually exclusive.

The more evolved the consciousness becomes, the more intense grows the sense of loss and gain felt by specific nerve centres which translate the awareness of loss as suffering, and gain as pleasure, to the mind through the brain.

What do you base this on? Again, this is a fairly obscure part in science. How do we know if a tree suffers for a lost branch or for a lost fellow tree? On the other hand, it's fairly obvious to know if a person is suffering.
Our physiologies are so far apart that we can't claim to know that sort of stuff. That in itself makes the rest of the article pretty worthless.

It is quite likely that if the level to which suffering can be experienced is reduced, its opposite number, the capacity to feel pleasure and happiness, will also be lowered to the same degree.

Again, I'm not sure this is at all true.
There's a condition called congenital analgesia, which is basically the inability to feel pain. Yet, these people can feel happiness without a problem. That's the only way I'm aware of to check if the above is correct, so I'd tentatively say that you're incorrect.

One cannot be done away with alone without the other, thus nullifying the entire creative plan of evolution.

Again, what do you base this on? Simply because you haven't yet seen it?

As we move away from death, we gradually move towards a state of life which is happiness...

Out of the whole thing, this is the most senseless bit yet. Is there a gradual scale going from "completely dead" to "slightly dead" to "happy" to "alive" to "humping away like a rabbit"?

... the ultimate goal of evolution.

Again, neeeerrrrrt. There is no goal in evolution.

Wow, this crap goes on forever. OK, back to real life for me, this is clearly BS.

 

[australopithecus]

The basic premise, that X is more evolved that Y (with regards to consciousness, or any other physical trait) , is wrong. An argument based on a faulty first premise wont go anywhere.

Inferno covered it already, but I'm bored, so I'm chipping in.

 

[Vivre]

The following article, in my opinion, solves the problem of evil/suffering ...
read the entire article before addressing it.

I'd suggest to read, if at all, the concluding last sentence:

It is beyond the reach of human compassion to efface suffering without effacing life itself.

and note, that due to the article the problem of suffering is not solvable during the lifetime.


@Inferno ~ thanks

 

[Inferno]

Oh and atheist Pig has something to say:

 

[Breur9991]

Most of this stuff is written in pseudo-intellectual gibberish, but I'll hack away at a few things.

If we look back at the lower forms of life, at the first few rungs of the ladder and compare them with the higher forms of life near the top, ...

Neeeerrrrrt, wrong. That's not evolution, that's an outdated version of Scala Naturae.

... it is not difficult to recognize that in real terms the evolution is the evolution of consciousness.

Since we don't really know what constitutes consciousness, this doesn't really fly.

Life is constantly spiralling up from a lesser state of consciousness to a higher state with continuously sharpening faculties of awareness.

No matter how consciousness is defined, this is wrong. Moths, who are just as evolved as we are, don't appear to have consciousness of any kind. If you define their state as having consciousness, then so did dinosaurs and trilobites.

The creation of the brain was not a separate and unrelated incident.

In what way? Care to qualify that statement?
Again, many modern animals or life forms have no brain to speak of, so the 1st paragraph and this sentence are mutually exclusive.

The more evolved the consciousness becomes, the more intense grows the sense of loss and gain felt by specific nerve centres which translate the awareness of loss as suffering, and gain as pleasure, to the mind through the brain.

What do you base this on? Again, this is a fairly obscure part in science. How do we know if a tree suffers for a lost branch or for a lost fellow tree? On the other hand, it's fairly obvious to know if a person is suffering.
Our physiologies are so far apart that we can't claim to know that sort of stuff. That in itself makes the rest of the article pretty worthless.

It is quite likely that if the level to which suffering can be experienced is reduced, its opposite number, the capacity to feel pleasure and happiness, will also be lowered to the same degree.

Again, I'm not sure this is at all true.
There's a condition called congenital analgesia, which is basically the inability to feel pain. Yet, these people can feel happiness without a problem. That's the only way I'm aware of to check if the above is correct, so I'd tentatively say that you're incorrect.

One cannot be done away with alone without the other, thus nullifying the entire creative plan of evolution.

Again, what do you base this on? Simply because you haven't yet seen it?

As we move away from death, we gradually move towards a state of life which is happiness...

Out of the whole thing, this is the most senseless bit yet. Is there a gradual scale going from "completely dead" to "slightly dead" to "happy" to "alive" to "humping away like a rabbit"?

... the ultimate goal of evolution.

Again, neeeerrrrrt. There is no goal in evolution.

Wow, this crap goes on forever. OK, back to real life for me, this is clearly BS.

The bold bit is the only part where you actually try and address the theodicy (all of that stuff about evolution is pretty irrelevant), and here you fail. Sure, these people might not be capable of experiencing physical pain, but what about the fact that these people have emotions, and they've most likely suffered as a result of being sad? Unless you think these people have NEVER suffered (no, suffering doesn't have to be the result of physical pain), I think your refutation fails.

Also, you failed to address the worm example which pretty much explains why happiness cannot exist without suffering.

 

[Vivre]

you failed to address the worm example

Exactly: you failed to point to those parts from which you derived your 'false' opinion while knowing the article concludes that there is no solution.


Seems you yourself haven't read it to the end, although you demand it as precondition to everyone as basic approvement to be appreciated for sharing their time and thoughts.
You also missed to state that you'd react groffy otherwise.

If you don't mind to fall for an article that's obviously not trustworthy then go with it and be happy. BUT if you find out that your new opinion doesn't solve your misery you may lay out your train of thought so it can be addressed directly.
Why expect the board members to use the crystal ball to figure out what your mind extracted from which missleading argumentation?


"Nothingness will not avoid nothing!" - The Asymmetry Now With Logic (MyMiseryAndMe)

 

[australopithecus]

The bold bit is the only part where you actually try and address the theodicy (all of that stuff about evolution is pretty irrelevant), and here you fail.

If all the stuff about evolution is irrelevant, then why was it included in the article? Don't complain when people address glaring flaws in your source material. It isn't becoming.

 

[Metalgod]

I read the first 6 or 7 paragraphs.

Once I got to the part about how the Quran says that God either causes or allows all suffering so 'That He might try you—which of you is best in deeds' I didnt really feel much of a need to read any further.

But Allah allows suffering because without it, you wouldn't be aware of your own happiness. Again, read the whole thing before replying.

Well, what about when a man murders another man? Lets say a guy hacks some one to death with a meat cleaver..

What does that have to do with finding happiness?

 

[Inferno]

The bold bit is the only part where you actually try and address the theodicy (all of that stuff about evolution is pretty irrelevant), and here you fail. Sure, these people might not be capable of experiencing physical pain, but what about the fact that these people have emotions, and they've most likely suffered as a result of being sad? Unless you think these people have NEVER suffered (no, suffering doesn't have to be the result of physical pain), I think your refutation fails.

I specifically said: "That's the only way I'm aware of to check if the above is correct, so I'd tentatively say that you're incorrect."

If you can think of a different way to actually test your hypothesis, I'm all ears. If you can't, I'll revert to my original statement: I'll tentatively say that you're incorrect."

Furthermore, I agree with Australopithecus: Why include incorrect biology in the article if it doesn't matter anyway?
No, it clearly matters, in fact it's the foundation for the article. It's also incorrect, so address the rebuttals already.

Also, you failed to address the worm example which pretty much explains why happiness cannot exist without suffering.

I already stated two things:
1) The foundation is incorrect, so the rest can't be correct either.
2) It's embedded in so much nonsense (heck, it's right at the bottom of the article!) that I didn't care any more. But sure, I'll give it a crack.

ON A MUCH WIDER CANVAS, each form of life is either superior or inferior to the forms of life below or above it respectively.

Incorrect biology, again assuming Scala Naturae.

Throughout the process of evolution our awareness of values has kept changing as they evolved from lower to higher orders.

Again, based on what? No source.

The higher forms of life cling dearly to the greater awareness of values which they have gained over millions of years of evolution.

Scala Naturae, 'nuff said.

Any reversal or loss of such values and faculties would inevitably result in suffering, which by itself is indispensable for the promotion of the same values.

Based on what?

Consider the state of worms in comparison to some higher forms of life, and compare yet again the state of those higher forms of life in comparison to the more advanced animal species placed even higher in the ladder of evolution.

Scala Naturae.
Seriously, two rebuttals for the whole article?

They all are certainly not equally gifted.

Equally, no. But equitably, yes. (Check the Blog in a few days...)

The worms that thrive on the product of organic decay and filth could not by any means perceive themselves to be at par with the freely roaming wild horses, grazing in prairies on tender grass.

Why not? Who's "higher up" on the "ladder" of happiness/consciousness/whateverness?

Yet they cannot perceive themselves at a disadvantage either. Theirs are two different worlds, different faculties, different requirements and different aspirations—if aspirations could be attributed to worms at all!

Except for the aspiration part (meaningless speculation) I can wholeheartedly agree: You're comparing apples and oranges, therefore the article is pretty much meaningless.

Thus this imbalance does not suggest that they have been the target of any injustice. Visualize, for instance, the case of a few happy healthy worms. They all seem to be perfectly adjusted to their environment which in turn is well adjusted to them. They are fully content with the faculties they are provided with, and are incapable of yearning for things beyond the scope of their senses. Yet, if a human child were to be offered to exchange his suffering state of life with that of a happy contented worm, would he not rather die than to accept this option of living the lowly existence of a worm?

Apples and Oranges.
Put a human child in the position of a worm (going through dirt and filth) said child would die. So you're giving it the chance of dying and... dying. How noble.
Now how about you use a meaningful example?

The very awareness of one's life and the higher status one occupies in the grades of life is sufficient in most cases to offset the disadvantage of suffering.

Scala Naturae.
Also, who's highest? Who's lowest? I'd wager that a bird would not want to exchange its place with us, yet neither would we trade places with the bird. Who's highest? Apples and Oranges.

It transpires that suffering is after all a relative state.

Now compare two humans instead of two different species/genara/etc. It's almost universally accepted that hunger is a bad thing. (The odd hunger strike or light-eating people aside for a second.) It's almost universally accepted that being physically hurt is a bad thing. (The odd masochist and sado-masochist aside.) And so on and so forth. There are fairly constant concepts of good/happiness and bad/suffering around the globe, with some changes depending on cultures.

It is the awareness of loss of some familiar cherished values which generate a sense of pain. It can only happen when one has already tasted the pleasure of such values or has observed others enjoying them.

Again, you're basing this on N=1. You don't have any way to test your hypothesis.

The loss of such values once enjoyed or the knowledge of others possessing them, while one cannot, are two powerful factors which generate pain.

Agreed.
Pay particular attention to "the knowledge of others possessing them". X has never experienced what Y has, but X is jealous/suffering nonetheless. How does that fit with the rest of the article? Note: It doesn't.

Unconsciousness cannot design and create consciousness even in trillions of years. It has to be a conscious Creator to endow death with consciousness and create life out of it.

Who created the creator?

The final question that should be addressed remains open at the end of the article: Could God have created us happy without suffering? I can't claim to know that we could have evolved differently. But if we look only at theology, the argument shoots itself not only in the foot, but also in the hand, head, stomach and anywhere else it can point that gun.

If a God created us and if there is a heaven, as both Islam and Christianity claim, then there must be some state of being in which neither pain nor suffering exists, only happiness. But your article just set out to prove that that's impossible. Contradiction much?

The correct answer, therefore, lies in accepting that no God exists, that our sensory organs evolved and were not given to us by anyone and that human suffering exists because life's a bitch.

 

[Metalgod]

Ho hum., I at least read half of your stupid article. Can't you at least answer my fucking question?

 

[Vivre]

obsolete, I at least read half of your stupid article. Can't you at least answer my fucking question?

I don't think that's appropriate to say. Please edit your posting.

edit: addendum: thx

 

[australopithecus]

Ho hum., I at least read half of your stupid article. Can't you at least answer my fucking question?

This is the second time you've been caught out being generally insulting. Seems your last ban didn't teach you anything, so lets make it simple. Next time the ban will be permanent.

 

[Metalgod]

Ho hum., I at least read half of your stupid article. Can't you at least answer my fucking question?

This is the second time you've been caught out being generally insulting. Seems your last ban didn't teach you anything, so lets make it simple. Next time the ban will be permanent.

Aye Aye! Captain Austra!

 

[Frenger]

This article is fairly ridiculous. First, it appears to suggest that god isn't all powerful (which is actually fine with me). Why couldn't he create a yang without a yin? Why is happiness only relavent in relation to pain? What a stupid design. The whole natural order has been designed in a way that only a small minority can actually be said to feel happiness, the rest, are scared, alone, riddled with suffering and under the constant fear of worse. This is not balance, it's an order swayed all the way over into the realm of horror.

Secondly, happiness and suffering are not evenly balanced, by that I mean some people have only suffering, others have only joy, is that to say then that the person suffering is doing it only to grant relevance to the person experiencing happiness? Is this morally serious?

The article then goes on to suggest that some people bring the evil upon themselves

There are some very difficult cases to explain, like those of children born with certain congenital defects. Why are they made to suffer? It cannot be said that it is through any fault of theirs. If there is any fault it might have been of their parents, yet that may not have been intentional on their part.

So innocents suffer because their parents made a mistake before they were born? So, straight away this removes personal responsibility, one of the corner stones of morality. To claim a child is born only to suffer, due to the actions of people before they were even delivered to this world, is one of the most morally abhorrent statements I think someone can say.

They are merely an unavoidable by-product of the wide plan of creation, but they also play a meaningful role in the general advancement of human society.

A plan which insists that innconcents are punished on behalf of others, is a plan written by an incredibly evil, callous, knob head creator. This does not "solve the problem of evil" it merely highlights what an utter cunt this god is.

Suffering has been a great teacher, cultivating and culturing our conduct. It develops and refines sensibilities, teaches humility and in more than one way, prepares humans to be able to turn to God

Oh so now it makes sense, this is the anti hero, god burns down a building so he can rescue those inside, absorbing the praise he's sure to get. Fucking sadist, that's what this prick is.

Thus, the question of apportioning blame for the existence of suffering upon the Creator should not arise. Suffering, to play its subtle creative role in the scheme of things, is indeed a blessing in disguise.

Oh, well grand, I shall tell these people then, they'll be thrilled to learn it's actually a blessing.

This is as far as I can get without blood leaking out of my eyes.

 

[burningquestion14]

The rudimentary forms of life, if they had a brain to think, would much rather wish 'not to be' than 'to be' in such meaningless drudgery of existence.

I have often thought that an amoeba that divides asexually, if it had thoughts, would think, "I have an unfathomable amount of time to exist. I am my offspring! I am immortal! Hazzah!" Just a thought.