Christianity's Biggest Problem Yet?

[POI]

Below is a 20 minute video. For the ones who opt not to watch, I'll start with the following question? (Which may then lead to many others, as this is a fairly new concept of thought for me)....

Why does YHWH allow for so much animal suffering? Before you Christians answer, I trust you are already aware of this guy's counter points?

[Shem Yoshi]

However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

Why would not having a soul make suffering good?
If suffering is good, why do we go to such great lengths to alleviate it?

well like i said, I can not validate any personal experience except my own. And I believe suffering is good.

But as far as someone going to great lengths to alleviate suffering. I dont think that is well defined. People actively pursue suffering all the time. Go run a marathon. Or fast for multiple days. Cosmicskeptic in the video said we eat to not suffer, but truly we eat to stay alive.

How do we even define what suffering is?

For lets take a drug addict will take drugs so they feel good, I suppose you can say they take drugs to not suffer, yet drug addiction causes suffering a lot of the time.

How is suffering even defined? lets start there.

My question is about animals, not people. Apples and oranges.

1) Do animals suffer? Dr. Craig argues they don't, because they do not experience '3rd order pain'. Further, it's a yes/no question. You do not need to be an elk, to know if an elk 'suffers'. Do wild elk ever get chased, dehydrate, starve, etc etc etc? If so, for what 'greater' purpose?

2) Your position attempts to argue that we self-induce some (suffering) for "good". I would agree. And to an extent, so might animals, in building their homes, gathering food, etc... So here's the bigger question... Does an elk have the ability to reach theodicy? Or, more to the point, can an elk go to heaven? I'd argue many Christians would say no. Many Christians may argue an animal has no ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong". Thus, what would be the point in their 'suffering'? There would be no 'end goal', or something to achieve or prove.

Well Nietzsche said "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I have a thread open on that here:
viewtopic.php?t=40170

You admit that a lot of the time suffering is good. I believe this statement is true always. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But perhaps good faith is a prerequisite to that statement.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
...

I'm not so sure on this.

There's more'n a disease or two that ravages the body such, it weakens so death becomes quite the fret.

[POI]

However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

Why would not having a soul make suffering good?
If suffering is good, why do we go to such great lengths to alleviate it?

well like i said, I can not validate any personal experience except my own. And I believe suffering is good.

But as far as someone going to great lengths to alleviate suffering. I dont think that is well defined. People actively pursue suffering all the time. Go run a marathon. Or fast for multiple days. Cosmicskeptic in the video said we eat to not suffer, but truly we eat to stay alive.

How do we even define what suffering is?

For lets take a drug addict will take drugs so they feel good, I suppose you can say they take drugs to not suffer, yet drug addiction causes suffering a lot of the time.

How is suffering even defined? lets start there.

My question is about animals, not people. Apples and oranges.

1) Do animals suffer? Dr. Craig argues they don't, because they do not experience '3rd order pain'. Further, it's a yes/no question. You do not need to be an elk, to know if an elk 'suffers'. Do wild elk ever get chased, dehydrate, starve, etc etc etc? If so, for what 'greater' purpose?

2) Your position attempts to argue that we self-induce some (suffering) for "good". I would agree. And to an extent, so might animals, in building their homes, gathering food, etc... So here's the bigger question... Does an elk have the ability to reach theodicy? Or, more to the point, can an elk go to heaven? I'd argue many Christians would say no. Many Christians may argue an animal has no ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong". Thus, what would be the point in their 'suffering'? There would be no 'end goal', or something to achieve or prove.

Well Nietzsche said "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I have a thread open on that here:
viewtopic.php?t=40170

You admit that a lot of the time suffering is good. I believe this statement is true always. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But perhaps good faith is a prerequisite to that statement.

Your answer pretty much just hand-waved away virtually everything I said. We are not talking about people, which can achieve "theodicy". We are speaking about animals.

I'll cut to the chase here... What would be (the point) of a young elk's "suffering"? The only play, I could see you make here, is that animals can also go to Heaven. Otherwise, their 'suffering' is basically pointless. Meaning, they live, suffer, and die. A baby elk, who is born in the wild, and is soon after malled and eaten by a predator; which cannot kill it very fast, achieves no possible theodicy. Do they? What was the point of that baby elk going through this then?

[Shem Yoshi]

However, maybe it is good they suffer for the same reason why we suffer. Or maybe their soul doesnt exist?

Why would not having a soul make suffering good?
If suffering is good, why do we go to such great lengths to alleviate it?

well like i said, I can not validate any personal experience except my own. And I believe suffering is good.

But as far as someone going to great lengths to alleviate suffering. I dont think that is well defined. People actively pursue suffering all the time. Go run a marathon. Or fast for multiple days. Cosmicskeptic in the video said we eat to not suffer, but truly we eat to stay alive.

How do we even define what suffering is?

For lets take a drug addict will take drugs so they feel good, I suppose you can say they take drugs to not suffer, yet drug addiction causes suffering a lot of the time.

How is suffering even defined? lets start there.

My question is about animals, not people. Apples and oranges.

1) Do animals suffer? Dr. Craig argues they don't, because they do not experience '3rd order pain'. Further, it's a yes/no question. You do not need to be an elk, to know if an elk 'suffers'. Do wild elk ever get chased, dehydrate, starve, etc etc etc? If so, for what 'greater' purpose?

2) Your position attempts to argue that we self-induce some (suffering) for "good". I would agree. And to an extent, so might animals, in building their homes, gathering food, etc... So here's the bigger question... Does an elk have the ability to reach theodicy? Or, more to the point, can an elk go to heaven? I'd argue many Christians would say no. Many Christians may argue an animal has no ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong". Thus, what would be the point in their 'suffering'? There would be no 'end goal', or something to achieve or prove.

Well Nietzsche said "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I have a thread open on that here:
viewtopic.php?t=40170

You admit that a lot of the time suffering is good. I believe this statement is true always. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But perhaps good faith is a prerequisite to that statement.

Your answer pretty much just hand-waved away virtually everything I said. We are not talking about people, which can achieve "theodicy". We are speaking about animals.

I'll cut to the chase here... What would be (the point) of a young elk's "suffering"? The only play, I could see you make here, is that animals can also go to Heaven. Otherwise, their 'suffering' is basically pointless. Meaning, they live, suffer, and die. A baby elk, who is born in the wild, and is soon after malled and eaten by a predator; which cannot kill it very fast, achieves no possible theodicy. Do they? What was the point of that baby elk going through this then?

Are you assuming "that which doesnt kill you makes you stronger" only works in theodicy? And why should we assume that?

The man who said that, friedrich nietzsche, was an atheist.

[Shem Yoshi]

...
...What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
...

I'm not so sure on this.

There's more'n a disease or two that ravages the body such, it weakens so death becomes quite the fret.

even still the experience of having diseases that can ravage the body, the experience itself can make you a stronger person.

[POI]

Are you assuming "that which doesnt kill you makes you stronger" only works in theodicy? And why should we assume that?

LOL! Stronger for what? We are speaking about CHRISTIANITY here. Do animals go to heaven some day, or do they instead someday just cease to exist? If it's the later, then 'stronger' could only apply to their finite existences, in trying to remain alive. But this is not what the 'problem of evil' argues for humans. Some "suffering" is for good, and some "suffering" is bad, sure. I have no dispute here. The good "suffering" leads to things, and the bad "suffering" leads to things. For humans, it leads one to a 'greater' purpose in "theodicy". But for animals, it ultimately leads to nothing more but a finite death regardless. They die, an then are dead -- (period). Are you arguing that animals can follow along the same path as humans? You keep dipping out here.... So I'm not sure where you are at...?

The man who said that, friedrich nietzsche, was an atheist.

Yes Shem, I took philosophy 101 when I was 18, I know. So because he was an atheist, I should adhere to everything he says?

[Shem Yoshi]

Are you assuming "that which doesnt kill you makes you stronger" only works in theodicy? And why should we assume that?

LOL! Stronger for what? We are speaking about CHRISTIANITY here. Do animals go to heaven some day, or do they instead someday just cease to exist? If it's the later, then 'stronger' could only apply to their finite existences, in trying to remain alive. But this is not what the 'problem of evil' argues for humans. Some "suffering" is for good, and some "suffering" is bad, sure. I have no dispute here. The good "suffering" leads to things, and the bad "suffering" leads to things. For humans, it leads one to a 'greater' purpose in "theodicy". But for animals, it ultimately leads to nothing more but a finite death regardless. They die, an then are dead -- (period). Are you arguing that animals can follow along the same path as humans? You keep dipping out here.... So I'm not sure where you are at...?

The man who said that, friedrich nietzsche, was an atheist.

Yes Shem, I took philosophy 101 when I was 18, I know. So because he was an atheist, I should adhere to everything he says?

Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is no after life, for neither man nor animal... Do you assert that "that which doesnt kill you makes you stronger" is false? Why?

Or does this question assume that if Christianity is true, then animal suffering...?

Because suffering can be good without any religion attached.

[POI]

Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is no after life, for neither man nor animal... Do you assert that "that which doesnt kill you makes you stronger" is false? Why?

Shem, I'm starting to feel you are avoiding the elephant in the room. The title of this thread is "Christianity's biggest problem yet"? Your line of questioning looks to be a complete redirect. You are presenting a hypothetical, which does not apply to Christianity.

Let's try a different approach here...

1) Does an elk have the ability to achieve theodicy? yes or no?
2) Can an elk go to heaven? yes or no?

Maybe your answer is (yes) to both questions?.?.?.? If so, then we might need to follow a completely different path. Otherwise, if your answer is (no) to both, then your continued line of questioning is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to POI in post #268]

Alright ill watch your movie, and think about it. But i want you to define suffering, because suffering can be a lot of things. Maybe suffering is hurting? But what is pain? Is it being mauled to death? Could you also say pain is not feeling pleasure? Some people find it painful to not feel pleasure, drug addicts and mental addiction for example. Maybe it is painful not to have an organism every moment of the day? Is that suffering? ;p

Edit: I would also like to point out that animal suffering has been noted in Genesis.. The snake being punished by God after the fall of man.

[POI]

Alright ill watch your movie, and think about it. But i want you to define suffering, because suffering can be a lot of things. Maybe suffering is hurting? But what is pain? Is it being mauled to death? Could you also say pain is not feeling pleasure? Some people find it painful to not feel pleasure, drug addicts and mental addiction for example. Maybe it is painful not to have an organism every moment of the day? Is that suffering? ;p

I have no beef here As I stated prior, there's "good suffering" and "bad suffering". It really does not matter. The point being....

I trust we could agree there exists animal 'bad suffering'? But regardless, why do animals have to "suffer", good or bad at all? If they are ultimately just going to die, and not go to heaven, what's the point? This is why the argument is about the animals, and not humans. Apples and oranges.