If There was a Cosmic Pain meter...

by cofty 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  But that's not Cofty's point. His point is that the scale does not read zero. So long as there is one goddam wrinkled shirt in the goddam universe, Cofty's scale will be stubbornly stuck at some positive number, making his point that a kind and omnipotent God must not exist. - Sulla

  No that is absolutely not my point, but its always easier to argue a strawman isn't it?

  I can understand why it could be argued that a measure of struggle and suffering may not be a bad thing. I am simply making the point that an omnipotent god must ultimitely be in control of the degree of suffering that has been endured by humans for over 200 000 years. You need to fully own that fact and explain why?

  I can see why god would expect you to man up and iron your shirt but no sane person can argue that the miserable lives of millions of infants born into a short life of famine and disease serves a positive purpose.

  I am still stunned by Tammy's response -" If we did our end, God might well act as to the rest." This thread was worth it just to witness that. There is no excuse too preposterous for some of god's apologists.
• 

  cofty

  What if there is purpose to the suffering, in the grand scheme of things? - knowsnothing

  Please share what that might be

  The 'meter' you propose is something subjective. How can you accurately measure pain/suffering? - knowsnothing

  I can't god can.
• 

  bohm

  Sulla:

  I've thought you to be so much better than this, bohm . ... In any case, it should be obvious that a Cofty-style argument -- there exists suffering that a kind and omnipotent God could prevent and does not, therefore a kind and omnipotent God does not exist -- really does unravel itself to the argument that there exists inconvenience that a kind and omnipotent God could prevent ...

  And why does it do that? its simply you claiming you can arbitrarily turn the argument about suffering into one about shirts and i can just as well use it: if i am supposed to take babies out of overheated cars, does that mean i am supposed to babysit next?

  It is the oldest trick in the book: When suffering is mentioned, turn the argument into one about inconvenience. I dont even think it convince you, since you know its simply avoiding the torny issue.

  My response doesn't minimize the real questions of suffering, but it does minimize the hollow syllogism Cofty is attempting.

  Funny how you (as you allways do) start out with a long-winded "i am better than thou" response, then at the very end, admit i am right. But thats pretty much apolegetica in a nutshell.
• 

  bohm

  Bohm: he other day, i watched a baby get cooked in an overheated car.

  Knowsnothing: Where is the mother or father? Aren't they responsible? WTF kind of stupid parents are those?

  So you are good with me not doing anything to help the baby because I didnt tell you about the mom and dad?

  You aren't god, though. Since you are human, and you are capable of ending the suffering, I would expect you to do it. The thing is, so would God. It is your choice.

  God is capable to end suffering at a much grander scale then me and at a much lesser cost for himself so your argument is simply impossible to apply. More to the point, you clearly expect me to do what i can to end suffering, why not expect the same of god? It is also his choise?

  Again your response does not work at the parking lot. God is slowly watching the baby get cooked and all the while I am supposed to think that he is sitting on his throne and going: "well, those people passing near the car, they should be more observant, they should notice there is a baby inside, bad on them". Cant you hear what a psychopat this is turning God into?

  I understand your comparison. Here is the deal. You as a free moral agent can choose to do whatever you like. It's your choice really. God, as the ultimate arbiter, allows you to be God for a moment. He allows you to choose. If you, as a human, allowed that child to be raped, you have chosen.

  So the reasons god find sufficient not to stop a rape is that he want the rapist to be a God for a short while? How nice!

  If you, as a human, allowed that child to be raped, you have chosen.

  God has also choosen. God never choose to do what he expect and demand we do.

  It all seems bad now, it all seems shit. At the end of the day, if it is part of his plan, there is nothing you can do about it. The suffering will continue for as long as he allows, to show how inept we are.

  Okay, god has a plan that involve people dying from cancer in the millions; he could help them but he choose not. He has a point; humans are not able to cure cancer, and this is the best way to teach them.

  If i may translate the reply, god want to tell us we suck and that point is so valid to communicate he will allow children to be slaughtered by the millions; I get the picture.

  Morals without God are subjective. You can't claim anything is good or bad.

  hahahahaha!!!
• 

  Knowsnothing

  What if there is purpose to the suffering, in the grand scheme of things? - knowsnothing

  Please share what that might be - cofty

  Universal Sovereignty. Should humans be allowed to rule themselves? Do humans have a right to live without God's intervention? What say you, cofty? Should you be a free moral agent? Do you get to decide what is good or bad, or are you supposed to subjugate yourself to what God says is good or bad?
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Again your response does not work at the parking lot. God is slowly watching the baby get cooked and all the while I am supposed to think that he is sitting on his throne and going: "well, those people passing near the car, they should be more observant, they should notice there is a baby inside, bad on them". Cant you hear what a psychopat this is turning God into?

  Hmmm.... How much do you expect God to intervene in human affairs? Would God saving all the collectively burning infants solve the world's problems? Would you prefer God to snap his fingers and make everything alright now? Why? Haven't people said they don't need God? Bohm, are you asking for God to bail you out?

  God has also choosen. God never choose to do what he expect and demand we do.

  For good reason. We think ourselves superior to God.

  If i may translate the reply, god want to tell us we suck and that point is so valid to communicate he will allow children to be slaughtered by the millions; I

  get the picture.

  Exactly. We aren't fit to rule. Yet, we want God to intervene temporarily, or permanently come swoop down and end the suffering, yet continue on about our lives doing whatever we want. What spoiled children we are.

  Morals without God are subjective. You can't claim anything is good or bad.

  hahahahaha!!!

  I laugh too! Who's morality is the most valid, then? Stalin? Hitler? Do you realize in a world without God, might makes right? You could show me all the different statistics about how horrible these men were, but on what/whose authority can you claim your ideology is superior, better than their's? If they had won the world, wouldn't they be writting and claiming what is good and what isn't? How is our current world any better? Freedom of expression? They can claim freedom of expression leads to divisiveness, and a continuation of war. Free market economy? Look at the shithole we are in now. Freedom of religion? More divisiveness. Etc. etc.

  I think a perfect is example is the abortion issue in the US. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? It is merely subjective.

  On one side, they claim the woman is the ultimate arbiter of her body, which I can understand.

  On the other side, they claim the life in the womb isn't being given a chance at life, which I can understand.

  Is either right or wrong? Good or bad?
• 

  zed is dead

  Cofty,

  They are lyrics to a Dead Milkmen song:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSE2rnQRcs
• 

  bohm

  Bohm: God is slowly watching the baby get cooked and all the while I am supposed to think that he is sitting on his throne and going: "well, those people passing near the car, they should be more observant, they should notice there is a baby inside, bad on them" . Cant you hear what a psychopat this is turning God into?

  KK: Hmmm.... How much do you expect God to intervene in human affairs? Would God saving all the collectively burning infants solve the world's problems? Would you prefer God to snap his fingers and make everything alright now? Why? Haven't people said they don't need God? Bohm, are you asking for God to bail you out?

  The questions the questions the questions -- why does it not occur to you all these answers can just as well be applied by any of us in a moral descision and they all have a very clear answer? To paraphrase your post:

  Q: Why did you not save the baby from dying in the hot car?

  A1: I cant figure out when to intervene or not, so i thought i better let the baby cook

  A2: It wouldnt have solved the worlds problems, so i let the baby get cooked.

  A3: People have said they dont need me, so to show them they do, i let the baby get cooked (yah.. great guy).

  A4: Should i just have snapped my fingers and solved all the worlds problems? (oh the humanity!) therefore i didnt save the baby.

  A5: The mom cant expect me to bail her out, so i just let the baby die.

  Try to read every one of those responses over, compare them to your post and reflect on what a total psycho each and every one of them turn god into. I am simply baffled why you cant see it. Do you just throw out these questions without thinking them through?

  Exactly. We aren't fit to rule. Yet, we want God to intervene temporarily, or permanently come swoop down and end the suffering, yet continue on about our lives doing whatever we want. What spoiled children we are.

  Spoiled children? A person who get raped and cry for god to save her while it is going on is a spoiled child? dude... that is so messed up.
• 

  bohm

  KK: I laugh too! Who's morality is the most valid, then? Stalin? Hitler? Do you realize in a world without God, might makes right?

  I dont really think you are being honest with me, but if you are, i feel sorry for you. I can simply tell you i do not believe in god and can very easily make the moral distinction between hitler and (for instance) a nurse.

  KK: You could show me all the different statistics about how horrible these men were, but on what/whose authority can you claim your ideology is superior, better than their's?

  Well those statistics would be a good place to start..

  But lets not beat around the bush, do you actually claim that without god you would personally see no moral difference between (for instance) killing someone in cold blood and working as a doctor?

  If they had won the world, wouldn't they be writting and claiming what is good and what isn't?

  Yah, and we would get a silly book which claimed it was okay to stone people and glorified genocide.. crazy shit.. And people might walk around and tell each other why the crazy shit was actually moral, but it wouldnt be, because what is good or not does not have to do with what someone wrote in a book.

  which is kind of my entire point!
• 

  Heaven

  How can you accurately measure pain/suffering? - knowsnothing

  This is coming. Science has made some advances in measuring physical pain. I suspect they could use similar means to measure other types of pain such as emotional, or mental/psychological types of pain.

  http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=scientists-find-a-new-way-to-measur-11-09-20

  Scientists Find a New Way to Measure Pain

  Physicians gauging pain have little to go on besides a patient’s self-report. And some sufferers simply can’t communicate how they’re feeling.
  
  So scientists have searched for a reliable way to measure pain physiologically. And they may finally have one.
  
  Researchers performed functional MRI scans on the brains of 24 subjects who were having an arm heated to the point of moderate pain. The subjects’ brain patterns were recorded both as they experienced pain and zero pain. The researchers then used an algorithm to develop a pain model, based on the patterns. The work was published in the journal PLoS One.
  
  The researchers then analyzed the brain scan patterns of 16 new subjects, some experiencing pain, some not. They found that their model accurately predicted pain levels 81 percent of the time.
  
  Most studies of physiology-based measurements of pain have focused on heart rate, skin conductance and EEG. These measures correlate with pain, but nothing has been accurate enough to substitute for self-reports.
  
  The authors note we can’t depend solely on a study done with heat-based pain—but the method shows hope for new ways to accurately measure pain.