A universe with a supernatural presence would be different..........

[Roses]

I can see that being an issue for a benevolent God but then it is an issue for both sides since benevolence has to be defined on both sides as has degree and indeed suffer.

But supernatural presence? Does the supernatural need to be benevolent?
Does a creator have to be benevolent......whatever that is.....is he bound not to give the universe the ability of trial and error while maintaining it?

Indeed there is something supernatural about even the most natural of universes either it is the great unmade or it poofed itself out of nowhere.

This post of yours makes even less sense than most of your utterances, especially your last sentence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This post of yours makes even less sense than most of your utterances, especially your last sentence.

It's perfectly understandable.
I'm afraid you are giving the impression of having hung out with the dullest of people with the most limited vocabulary supporting the most uninteresting conversation.

[Roses]

It's perfectly understandable.
I'm afraid you are giving the impression of having hung out with the dullest of people with the most limited vocabulary supporting the most uninteresting conversation.

I have probably met many more people of interest in my life, including well known people, than you have had hot dinners. Your posts don't give the impression of logical thought processes, but maybe you are hiding it well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have probably met many more people of interest in my life, including well known people, than you have had hot dinners. Your posts don't give the impression of logical thought processes, but maybe you are hiding it well.

I'm not sure you would recognise logic if it shook your hand.

[Roses]

I'm not sure you would recognise logic if it shook your hand.

You keep talking about yourself, you poor dear, so sad.

[trippymonkey]

Sorry - what was this post originally about ....?

[Roses]

Sorry - what was this post originally about ....?

I don't know, he never managed to explain what he was on about.

[SteveH]

I can see that being an issue for a benevolent God but then it is an issue for both sides since benevolence has to be defined on both sides as has degree and indeed suffer.

But supernatural presence? Does the supernatural need to be benevolent?
Does a creator have to be benevolent......whatever that is.....is he bound not to give the universe the ability of trial and error while maintaining it?

Indeed there is something supernatural about even the most natural of universes either it is the great unmade or it poofed itself out of nowhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

I think, as theists have the problem of pain and why there is so much of it, there is also the problem of pleasure and why there is so much of that.

We also have to bear in Mind that pain actually has a purpose as does any suffering. That is it is evolved to warn that things are not right,or are not good or are indeed bade non optimal or however you wish to put it.

Pain used as evidence of the lack of benevolence therefore does not make much sense.

[SteveH]

I think, as theists have the problem of pain and why there is so much of it, there is also the problem of pleasure and why there is so much of that.

We also have to bear in Ming that pain actually has a purpose as does any suffering. That is it is evolved to warn that things are not right,or are not good or are indeed bade non optimal or however you wish to put it.

Pain used as evidence of the lack of benevolence therefore does not make much sense.

Not just pain in the strict sense, but suffering - e.g. spinal muscular atrophy, proteus syndrome, and epidermolysis bullosa are just three genetic horrors of many that need explaining by believers in an all-powerful, benevolent God - and then there is the question of chronic, useless pain.

[SteveH]

I have probably met many more people of interest in my life, including well known people, than you have had hot dinners. Your posts don't give the impression of logical thought processes, but maybe you are hiding it well.

You wouldn't know a logical thought process if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

[SteveH]

You keep talking about yourself, you poor dear, so sad.

As I've said before, most people grow out of this "talking about yourself"-type crack at about the time they go up to big school.

[SteveH]

I think, as theists have the problem of pain and why there is so much of it, there is also the problem of pleasure and why there is so much of that.

Why shouldn't there be pleasure? It has obvious evolutionary value.

[Nearly Sane]

As I've said before, most people grow out of this "talking about yourself"-type crack at about the time they go up to big school.

An ouruboros of irony of a post.

[SteveH]

An ouruboros of irony of a post.

When have I ever made that kind of comment? Quotation, please!

[Roses]

You wouldn't know a logical thought process if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

Pot and kettle.

[Nearly Sane]

When have I ever made that kind of comment? Quotation, please!

The post I replied to was just the same.

[SteveH]

The post I replied to was just the same.

No, it wasn't! I pointed out that "talking about yourself" cracks are rather childish, and that LR is excessively fond of them. I did not accuse her of talking about herself with regard to anything she'd said.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it wasn't! I pointed out that "talking about yourself" cracks are rather childish, and that LR is excessively fond of them. I did not accuse her of talking about herself with regard to anything she'd said.

And terms such as 'big school' aren't childish?

[SteveH]

And terms such as 'big school' aren't childish?

Yes, obviously. I was being sarcastic! Ffs - the childishness of the phrase was the point!

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, obviously. I was being sarcastic! Ffs - the childishness of the phrase was the point!

Which was obviously the point of LR's post as well

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not just pain in the strict sense, but suffering - e.g. spinal muscular atrophy, proteus syndrome, and epidermolysis bullosa are just three genetic horrors of many that need explaining by believers in an all-powerful, benevolent God - and then there is the question of chronic, useless pain.

A scientist looks dispassionately at nature and observes the purpose of pain to be beneficial i.e. It is homeostatic.
If suffering is more than pain then what is the extra? pain and suffering are synonymous in that they are a warning that things are not right.
That is why we research to alleviate that which causes suffering and come up with different answers to different ills.

The question of resolving useless pain is with God.

Where else is the answer to be found. Not in humanism or Atheism which can miraculously go on about the amount of bad in the universe and simultaneously hold that good and bad are relative.

[Roses]

A scientist looks dispassionately at nature and observes the purpose of pain to be beneficial i.e. It is homeostatic.
If suffering is more than pain then what is the extra? pain and suffering are synonymous in that they are a warning that things are not right.
That is why we research to alleviate that which causes suffering and come up with different answers to different ills.

The question of resolving useless pain is with God.

Where else is the answer to be found. Not in humanism or Atheism which can miraculously go on about the amount of bad in the universe and simultaneously hold that good and bad are relative.

If it exists it isn't doing a very good job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it exists it isn't doing a very good job.

And you are qualified to judge exactly how?

[Roses]

And you are qualified to judge exactly how?

I would have thought that was obvious as there is so much suffering in this world.