Why did God make pain so painful?

[OnceConvinced]

As a Christian I believed that God created us to be able to feel physical pain as a protective mechanism. So when we say touched a hot element or flame, that pain forced us to withdraw our hand. This was a way to protect us against the damage that flames or hot elements would do to our body if we continued to handle them.

If you are a theist who believes the above like I did, then this thread is definitely for you and I'd really like to hear your opinions on this. If not, then this debate is not aimed at you. Of course anyone, even non-theists are welcome to tune in with their view on this topic. Just please do not try to argue that the above view is a false one. In this thread we are assuming that it is true... ie that God created pain as a protective mechanism for us. (and that God is real!)

Moving on to what I want to talk about...

My issue is with the intensity of the pain we experience in the above scenario... or similar ones. This is not just a slight deterrent to prevent you from touching something dangerous. This is a extremely intense pain we are talking about. Horrible pain inflicted upon us when we touch say a flame. What's worse is that even just touching it, we can be in real pain for some time after. Even just one touch can result in damage to our skin, even if it's minor and temporary.

Why is the pain so intense? Why does it need to be that horrible just to deter us from touching say a flame ever again? Couldn't the pain it cause be a little less sadistic?

Even farmers know that to keep their livestock fenced in that you only turn up the electricity so high on your electric fences. Just enough to give the animals a jolt so that it will deter them from ever touching the fence again. They know there is no need to turn the electricity up to a ridiculously high level so that the animal suffers more that what's necessary. Yet God seems to have turned the electricity right up for us humans.

So why does God turn up that pain to such a high level?

Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel?

A question that kind of encompasses these questions... Why did God make pain so painful?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 29 by OnceConvinced]

Hi. Kingandpreist. Thank you for continuing to show me that this question really bugs you and that you continue to take it very seriously.

As stated before the question does not bug me. It is laughable and amusing, which is why I have continued to post to demonstrate how silly the basis for the OP is.

You desire that hot, be just a little less hot and not cause severe pain. So you are asking, why couldn't a good God make hot, just a little less hot? Do you see the flaw in the question yet?

You are asking for pain to be less painful. This is the same as asking for hot to be less hot, or blue to be less blue. Why does alive have to be so alive? All of these questions are nonsensical in nature.

They would be if we were talking evolution. However throw a god into the picture and it's not nonsensical. God determines the attribute of everything right? So he can determine just how much pain is inflicted by something.

The questions remain nonsensical because you are still requiring God to change the attributes of pain to be less painful. This is the same as asking God to make the attributes of blue, less blue. Or make the attributes of being alive, less alive.

By definition pain will be painful. The longer we are exposed to anything that causes pain, it will become more painful. A flame is not excruciatingly painful when it is touched for a short period of time. The longer a person touches a flame or something that is hot, the more excruciating it becomes. Even in your example with a farmer and electrical fence, if the animal gets stuck, that little shock will become excruciating. This is how pain works. If you smack a child one time to correct behavior, the pain is manageable. If you continue to strike the child, the pain will increase and eventually become excruciating.

Pain becomes more painful with increasing intensity. Variations in intensity is within the control of humans. We understand pain has variations and in some cases inflict pain on other people.

The fact that you are posting what you are posting shows me it does. You are doing your best to try to discredit my question. Then why are you taking it so seriously? In fact this post of yours has become very long, thus showing me you are taking it very seriously and it’s not as laughable as you claim. A question that people like yourself cannot even come up with an adequate answer for. Instead you mock the question in an attempt to side track. You dance around it. Is that what you would do if your child asked a similar question?

Your question discredits itself. I am just pointing out why. If I pose a similar question: Why did God make water so wet? Everyone can see how the question is flawed because the question ignores the definition and composition of water.

If my child asked a similar question, I would explain the error in the question first. Then I would proceed to explain why we can feel pain. I would also explain why pain can be felt in variations. I would also demonstrate how everything in creation comes in variations.

Why is god so malevolent in his design, KingandPreist. Can you answer that one?

I do not find his design malevolent. This is your opinion. Being able to feel pain is a result of the sensitivity of our nerve endings. Being able to feel excruciating pain is also a result of these same nerve endings. After a certain level of pain, these sensitive regions will actually "turn off" or become numb. If God were malevolent as you claim, there would be no maximum to the amount of pain a person can endure. What we see in reality, is that this is not the case. You ignore sensitivity to try and make your point, when the only reason we can feel pain is because of sensitivity.

Can you answer the question or are you just going to continue to dance around it? Why is the pain of a flame so intense? Why does it need to be that intense?

I've already answered the question. You have too in your OP, but you choose to sidestep the answer to try and make a weak argument.
I wrote:
"There are degrees to everything in creation. Degree's of pain help us to remember certain events more than others."

Why would there need to be variations if it was a result of creation? Something like a flame is agonising for anyone no matter what their threshold of pain is. Why does it need to be that agonizing?

Variations are a part of all of creation. Many types of fish, animals, angels even humans. Variation is a part of creation. Pain is included in what it means to be alive. A dead person cannot feel pain. Whether the pain inflicted is minimal or agonizing, they cannot feel pain. Being able to feel pain is a part of what it means to be alive.

A flame is not agonizing for most people if they touch it momentarily. It only becomes agonizing with prolonged exposure. I have touched a candle flame many times and did not find it agonizing. Yes it was hot, and there was some discomfort, but not agonizing. If I kept my hand (human will) on the flame for a extended period of time, the discomfort would increase into agonizing pain.

If all pain were immediately agonizing, you could claim God was malevolent. This is not the case (except for your mind).

No I say that extremes of pain are a bad thing. More pain than what is needed. If you smack a child does it need to be done with the full force of the power you possess?

This involves the action of a person to inflict pain on another person. This has nothing to do with creation, but a person willfully inflicting pain on another.

Also your OP began with a question about why is pain so painful. Why can the pain from a flame cause excruciating pain when a simple amount of pain might do? Then you switch to a person inflicting pain on another individual. These are two different trains of thought.

No it’s not. If God is the one who designed the system, then he is the one inflicting the pain.

So if you are kidnapped and tortured, you blame God for allowing you to feel pain, instead of the people who actually inflicted the pain. Sounds like you are looking for any excuse to blame God for your problems.

God is the one who designed and created the source of the pain and determined how much pain it would inflict.

Once again you ignore the actions of people. The statement above is not true. If it were true, everyone would experience the same amount of pain. If someone punches you in the face, you may experience more pain and bruising than another person. Since God created the persons hand, you equate that to God determining how much pain their fist would inflict on your face.

A gun cannot cause pain by itself. It needs someone to squeeze the trigger.

If we are talking about the explosive substance in the bullet, we have to go back to whoever designed the substance to explode and cause such damage and agony.

A gun is more than just the explosive substance behind the bullet. Nevertheless, gun powder was originally used for fireworks (entertainment). People then used gun powder for other purposes. The damage and agony caused by the explosive force of gun power is a direct result of human will.

Why do you conveniently ignore the willful actions of humans who cause pain?

It seems your real question is why can people inflict various degrees of pain on another? Why can a person use a flame or weapon to inflict severe pain?

Nope it’s not. It seems you want to absolve God of any responsibility for his obvious malevolent design.

So you consider being able to feel pain a part of malevolent design. Do you consider being alive a part of malevolent design? After all, only things which are alive can feel pain.

Are you deliberately trying to take this topic off track?

God is the one who determines how much pain fire, ice and all the other things inflict. It was part of his design.

Outside of your opinion, where is your support for this claim.

Once again, do you feel God should make pain less painful? Should water be less wet?

We all find fire burns extremely painful. Even those with a high threshold for pain. Why is it so agonising even for those of us with the highest threshold?

Because like everything else in creation, even pain comes in various degrees. Joy also comes in variation. Pleasure comes in variation. Everything exists in variations, including pain. A mother experiences high levels of pain during the birthing process. They also experience high levels of joy and adulation when the baby is born. Variations in pain are a part of what it means to be alive.

You also ask, Why does God not provide a different defense mechanism that isn't so cruel? Am I to presume that you consider being able to interact with ones environment as cruel.

No, I don’t.

Pain is a part of our environment. So when a person interacts with their environment, they may experience pain. Continued exposure to pain or increased intensity will lead to agonizing pain.

Continued exposure to the sun will lead to darkened skin. This is a result of interacting with our environment.

Pleasure vs pain has already been discussed on this thread. It’s not about thresholds. It’s not about sensitivities. Some things are agonising for all of us. Way more agonising than need be.

Some things are more pleasurable than they need to be. Somethings are more exciting than they need to be. Your opinion on what is acceptable or too much is just that, your opinion. You seem to confuse your opinion with fact.

Extremes exists with everything see in creation. Does the earth really need over 950,000 different species of insects. With variations, you will find extremes.

Yes, if the intense pain will save my life.
I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result. Pain can be useful.

Does it really need to be that intense though?

I guess you would rather be dead than experience some pain. Your choice.

As I stated above, I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result.

So does it need to be that intense? Yes. I value my life.

Fire burns for instance are always excruciating. Does it need to be so painful to act as a defence mechanism? To act as a deterrent?

Humans are very hard headed and can be prideful. It is because of pride we often do not heed the warnings of others. The extent of pain caused by a severe burn serves as a reminder that we are impervious to harm.

We learn about our limits from the pain of others. A small amount of pain will not work because as a result of sin, humans are rebellious. In our rebellion, we push the limits of pain.

But it HAS. He is the one who designed everything and determined just how intense our suffering would be. HE was the one who determined that fire burns would be horrific and agonising. It was a WILLFUL act of design and creation on his part. How could you consider it any other way? Do you believe he was ignorant of how he was designing the system?

Just like the gun powder mentioned above it was created for one purpose (entertainment). People changed the purpose and used it for another purpose (to inflict pain).

If I am correct, you are blaming God for creating a system (human body) which could be used for a different purpose than intended. Am I correct in this analysis?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 27 by Kenisaw]

Blind chance is a statistical sampling relating to probability in populations. Chemical processes is the interaction of atoms and molecules with each other then produces new combinations and other things, like energy (heat or light for example). Inevitable Outcome is an Xbox game. It is also a synonym for the word fate.

Not sure why you needed all that, but I hope it helps...

Thanks.
The definition you gave for blind chance is a totally different concept from the one in this context.
Blind chance in the context being used here refers to something happening just by pure accident.

So it would seem that chemical processes randomly assembling, and fate, all fit the same category.
If you see differently, perhaps you can help clear it up for me.

Your definition of blind chance is the same thing as mine. "Blind chance" is a random occurrence, but that occurrence falls within a limited set of possibilities. For example, when you roll a die you can get a number 1-6. Which number you get is "blind chance", but we still have a limited number of chances that can occur. You will NEVER get a 7.

Chemical interactions are much the same way. There is a set number of possible outcomes that can be obtained when certain molecules mix together. The number of possibilities is actually quite small, which I don't think you realize. There is not an unlimited, or infinite, possible combinations. Only that which is allowed by the laws of chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics can occur. Lipids will form water tight membranes because they can readily join with each other (and become water tight as a result), while they don't join with lead because they can't. Animo acids, common even in deep space on asteroids and comets, can join with each other to make peptides, including certain peptides that have the property of self replication. Animo acids don't form shells, or coal, or diamonds, because they can't do that.

Since we all know you are talking about abiogenesis, let's get to the point. Oceans full of various molecules, with ingredients being added all the time by volcanic vents and asteroids and comets, in a stable medium (water) with thousands of miles of tidal shore lines to act as reaction sites, for 770 million years until the first life forms appeared, and a limited number of statistically possible outcomes that could occur...it's no wonder more complex versions of self-replicating molecules eventually happened.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 32 by Kenisaw]

Since we all know you are talking about abiogenesis, let's get to the point. Oceans full of various molecules, with ingredients being added all the time by volcanic vents and asteroids and comets, in a stable medium (water) with thousands of miles of tidal shore lines to act as reaction sites, for 770 million years until the first life forms appeared, and a limited number of statistically possible outcomes that could occur...it's no wonder more complex versions of self-replicating molecules eventually happened.

If I think about it hard enough, and long enough, maybe 100 billion years, I'll grow wings, and be able to fly like an eagle.
Anything is possible, right?
I can't prove it thugh.
Do you accept?

[OnceConvinced]

You desire that hot, be just a little less hot and not cause severe pain. So you are asking, why couldn't a good God make hot, just a little less hot? Do you see the flaw in the question yet?

You are asking for pain to be less painful. This is the same as asking for hot to be less hot, or blue to be less blue. Why does alive have to be so alive? All of these questions are nonsensical in nature.

They would be if we were talking evolution. However throw a god into the picture and it's not nonsensical. God determines the attribute of everything right? So he can determine just how much pain is inflicted by something.

The questions remain nonsensical because you are still requiring God to change the attributes of pain to be less painful.

Why is that nonsensical? You claim it to be so but have not shown it to be so.

Do you consider it nonsensical for a farmer to turn down the voltage on the electric fence so it is not so painful to the cow?

This is the same as asking God to make the attributes of blue, less blue. Or make the attributes of being alive, less alive.

None of those things show malevolent design. There is no suffering involved in those things.

By definition pain will be painful.

Do you disagree that certain things can be turned up or down? Ie, a punch, electric current. Things that can inflict varying degrees of pain. Of intensity.

The longer we are exposed to anything that causes pain, it will become more painful. A flame is not excruciatingly painful when it is touched for a short period of time. The longer a person touches a flame or something that is hot, the more excruciating it becomes.

Have you ever touched an element on an oven? It is immediate and it is extremely intense. If it is set at a higher heat it will be even more painful. Why would it need to be that intense?

Think of the story of Shadrach, Meeshag and Abendigo and how Nebuchadnezzer was not satisfied that the furnace was hot enough. He wanted it hotter. He wanted to make these three suffer as much as possible.

Even in your example with a farmer and electrical fence, if the animal gets stuck, that little shock will become excruciating. This is how pain works.

Well of course if they are stuck. It would be like being repeatedly whacked with an object in the same place over and over. However that is not about the intensity of the pain. That is something different again. That is continuous infliction of pain. Like say smacking your child over and over as you have suggested.

If however all a God wants to do is to deter us from say touching something or doing something, then all that is needed is enough pain to deter us. Not extreme pain.

So you are talking about a different scenario there.

If you want a more accurate analogy, let’s say that you the cow are determined to touch that fence no matter what happens. So you continue to touch it, even after it whacks you with a jolt. Once you get into that scenario, then the extra pain you suffer is your own fault.

But this is not a scenario I am suggesting here. I am simply suggesting one touch.

Pain becomes more painful with increasing intensity. Variations in intensity is within the control of humans.

Are we able to control the intensity of a fire burn or ice burn? No. That is all under God’s control.

]
Your question discredits itself. I am just pointing out why.

No you haven’t. You have proposed a different scenario that is not relevant. Ie continuous pain.

I am trying to focus on the whole “protection� reason for pain. Ie it is there as a protective mechanism. Pain does not have to be as intense as it is to act as a protective mechanism. The whole Electric Fence example is a classic example.

If I pose a similar question: Why did God make water so wet? Everyone can see how the question is flawed because the question ignores the definition and composition of water.

How would the wetness of water matter? Would we consider it cruel of god to make water more wet? Or less wet? Would we consider it malevolent at all?

Completely wrong analogy. Just like the case of the cow who is stuck in the electric fence.

Can you answer the question or are you just going to continue to dance around it? Why is the pain of a flame so intense? Why does it need to be that intense?

I've already answered the question. You have too in your OP, but you choose to sidestep the answer to try and make a weak argument.
I wrote:
"There are degrees to everything in creation. Degree's of pain help us to remember certain events more than others."

And I responded to that. I pointed out that pain does not have to be excruciating for us to remember it. I used the example of the cow in the field. A cow learns quickly not to touch the fence without the voltage needing to be turned up that high. We as humans are quite capable of learning the same lessons without all the intense suffering.

Why would there need to be variations if it was a result of creation? Something like a flame is agonising for anyone no matter what their threshold of pain is. Why does it need to be that agonizing?

Variations are a part of all of creation. Many types of fish, animals, angels even humans. Variation is a part of creation. Pain is included in what it means to be alive. A dead person cannot feel pain. Whether the pain inflicted is minimal or agonizing, they cannot feel pain. Being able to feel pain is a part of what it means to be alive.

I am not arguing against that. All I am saying is that you don’t need to turn the voltage up as high as it is. There is no need for it.

A flame is not agonizing for most people if they touch it momentarily.

Who does that? The majority of burns are as a result of more than a momentary touch. You are talking about a deliberate act to quickly touch and jerk your hand away or something like that. If you were to deliberately try to grab the flame, then you would be in major agony.

It only becomes agonizing with prolonged exposure.

You make it sound like we’re talking like a long period of time here. It only takes a second for a flame to burn you and cause you agony.

I have touched a candle flame many times and did not find it agonizing. Yes it was hot, and there was some discomfort, but not agonizing. If I kept my hand (human will) on the flame for a extended period of time, the discomfort would increase into agonizing pain.

Oh come on. You can hardly compare a quick whisk of your hand across a candle flame to say that of a well burning fire. 1 second of holding your hand on a flame is enough to feel agonising seering pain.

If all pain were immediately agonizing, you could claim God was malevolent. This is not the case (except for your mind).

You are making up a scenario that is not a realistic scenario.

See what happens if you hold your hand over the flame for a second rather than less than a second. See what happens if you try to run your hand through a large fire. See what happens if you grab a hot pan on an element. See what happens if you place your hand on a hot element for a second. That is the type of scenario that a child experiences. That is the type of scenario that we all experience from time to time, even as adults.

Playing a game like trying to whisk your hand over a candle flame is hardly relevant to what I’m talking about here.

No I say that extremes of pain are a bad thing. More pain than what is needed. If you smack a child does it need to be done with the full force of the power you possess?

This involves the action of a person to inflict pain on another person. This has nothing to do with creation, but a person willfully inflicting pain on another.

If God creates say flames to be painful so as to deter us from touching them, then it is an example of a God inflicting pain on us. It’s exactly the same type of scenario.

So if you are kidnapped and tortured, you blame God for allowing you to feel pain, instead of the people who actually inflicted the pain. Sounds like you are looking for any excuse to blame God for your problems.

I would blame the torturer of course, because he’s using God’s system to inflict pain on us.
I would also have to blame God for creating a system that this torturer could exploit.

God is the one who designed and created the source of the pain and determined how much pain it would inflict.

Once again you ignore the actions of people. The statement above is not true.

It is true if we consider the fact he created the universe and set in place the rules for how things would work.

If it were true, everyone would experience the same amount of pain.

God can set the system up whatever way he wants. Apparently he decided that some people should be more susceptible to pain than others. That in itself is again malevolent design. Making some people more sensitive to agonising pain than others.

If someone punches you in the face, you may experience more pain and bruising than another person.

Malevolent design. You are not helping your argument here. Why would God do that. If you could determine with your own kids that one will be more sensitive to pain than the other, would you make your child that way? Or would you make them as less sensitive to agonising pain as possible?

I love my children. I would not make one more susceptible to suffering than the other.

Since God created the persons hand, you equate that to God determining how much pain their fist would inflict on your face.

It is the person throwing the punch. It's God who has determined how much pain that's going to cause the victim.

A gun cannot cause pain by itself. It needs someone to squeeze the trigger.

If we are talking about the explosive substance in the bullet, we have to go back to whoever designed the substance to explode and cause such damage and agony.

A gun is more than just the explosive substance behind the bullet. Nevertheless, gun powder was originally used for fireworks (entertainment). People then used gun powder for other purposes. The damage and agony caused by the explosive force of gun power is a direct result of human will. [/quote]

Of course God knew full well what it would eventually be used for.

Why do you conveniently ignore the willful actions of humans who cause pain?

I don’t. Why do you conveniently ignore that the system was designed and set by God for this sort of suffering?

It seems your real question is why can people inflict various degrees of pain on another? Why can a person use a flame or weapon to inflict severe pain?

Nope it’s not. It seems you want to absolve God of any responsibility for his obvious malevolent design.

So you consider being able to feel pain a part of malevolent design.

No. I have already pointed out in my OP that it’s a protective mechanism set by God. My problem is with the unnecessary intensity of the pain. More than what is necessary to teach humans what they should and shouldn’t mess with.

Do you consider being alive a part of malevolent design? After all, only things which are alive can feel pain.

That would be an interesting topic, perhaps one for another thread. Once could argue that creating us and then putting us in a situation where we could end up in Hell as very malevolent indeed.

Are you deliberately trying to take this topic off track?

God is the one who determines how much pain fire, ice and all the other things inflict. It was part of his design.

Outside of your opinion, where is your support for this claim.

The bible. Genesis. God created everything in 6 days and saw that it was good.

Pleasure vs pain has already been discussed on this thread. It’s not about thresholds. It’s not about sensitivities. Some things are agonising for all of us. Way more agonising than need be.

Some things are more pleasurable than they need to be. Somethings are more exciting than they need to be. Your opinion on what is acceptable or too much is just that, your opinion. You seem to confuse your opinion with fact.

Once again you talk of things that are irrelevant to this topic. None of those things would be considered malevolent.

Yes, if the intense pain will save my life.
I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result. Pain can be useful.

Does it really need to be that intense though?

I guess you would rather be dead than experience some pain. Your choice.

Well if God is going to one day throw me in Hell for all eternity simply because I was unable to believe in him, then I would rather have not been born. That kind of malevolence is something I would rather avoid.

As I stated above, I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result.

Would you be saying that if you were suffering agony in Hell?

Fire burns for instance are always excruciating. Does it need to be so painful to act as a defence mechanism? To act as a deterrent?

Humans are very hard headed and can be prideful. It is because of pride we often do not heed the warnings of others. The extent of pain caused by a severe burn serves as a reminder that we are impervious to harm.

If we are that stubborn as you claim… more stubborn than cows apparently, then if we continue to touch what we shouldn’t, we will once again get that stab of pain. We call people like that masochists. Those are in the minority.

Humans aren’t that stupid. Seriously. Say if touching an element gave you the same amount of pain as say a flick of a rubber band against your skin, would you keep touching it?

A small amount of pain will not work because as a result of sin, humans are rebellious. In our rebellion, we push the limits of pain.

Now you are just preaching. None of this can be shown to be true in reality.

What you are doing here is justifying malevolence. The pain has to be brutal for us to learn lessons. No, we in modern society now know this is not true. It’s why we don’t flog people anymore. It’s why we no longer are allowed to smack our kids. We know that inflicting pain is not the right way to go. It’s cruel. It’s malevolent.

Just like the gun powder mentioned above it was created for one purpose (entertainment). People changed the purpose and used it for another purpose (to inflict pain).

If God is omniscient then he knew full well what humans would use it for. That would be like giving a child a razor sharp knife to play with and expecting they will only ever use it to cut inanimate objects with. God is surely not that naive.

If I am correct, you are blaming God for creating a system (human body) which could be used for a different purpose than intended. Am I correct in this analysis?

Nope. God being omniscient knew exactly what the future would bring and how it would be used. That suggests to me he intended it that way or he would have adjusted his design.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 32 by Kenisaw]

Since we all know you are talking about abiogenesis, let's get to the point. Oceans full of various molecules, with ingredients being added all the time by volcanic vents and asteroids and comets, in a stable medium (water) with thousands of miles of tidal shore lines to act as reaction sites, for 770 million years until the first life forms appeared, and a limited number of statistically possible outcomes that could occur...it's no wonder more complex versions of self-replicating molecules eventually happened.

If I think about it hard enough, and long enough, maybe 100 billion years, I'll grow wings, and be able to fly like an eagle.

How about we wait 100 billion years and then see how we turn out? How we turn out will be an inevitable outcome of 100 billions years of evolution. It would be silly to try to predict what would occur when we have no idea of what the future will hold.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 34 by OnceConvinced]

Why is that nonsensical? You claim it to be so but have not shown it to be so.

Do you consider it nonsensical for a farmer to turn down the voltage on the electric fence so it is not so painful to the cow?

In your example you compare the farmer to God. The farmer did not create the cow, only the fence which was designed to inflict a certain amount of pain. The farmer is willfully turning up or down the voltage. The cows could easily feel agonizing pain if the farmer willed it.

God gave man dominion (the ability to make decisions) in the earth. We can make decisions about how much pain we inflict.

How do you equate the farmer to God, when the farmer did not create the animal? The farmer created the system (fence) to protect and inflict a certain amount of pain.

This is the same as asking God to make the attributes of blue, less blue. Or make the attributes of being alive, less alive.

None of those things show malevolent design. There is no suffering involved in those things.

There are individuals who "suffer" from aquaphobia. To you this may not be suffering, but to another, the thought of a pool or beach is agonizing.

Is your opinion on pain the one everyone should abide by?

Do you disagree that certain things can be turned up or down? Ie, a punch, electric current. Things that can inflict varying degrees of pain. Of intensity.

I agree the intensity of pain can be turned up or down. The turning up or down involves human will.

I also agree that things can inflict a various degrees of pain. It is this point which proves your OP flawed. If there were no degrees to pain (automatically excruciating), and pain from any activity were immediately agonizing, you would have a point. But since there is variation, your perspective is faulty.

Have you ever touched an element on an oven? It is immediate and it is extremely intense. If it is set at a higher heat it will be even more painful. Why would it need to be that intense?

Think of the story of Shadrach, Meeshag and Abendigo and how Nebuchadnezzer was not satisfied that the furnace was hot enough. He wanted it hotter. He wanted to make these three suffer as much as possible.

Yes, I have. When the heat is set to the highest setting, you can sense pain at a low level even before your hand touches the surface. It is only the willful action to ignore the gentle pain and continue to press your hand closer and closer. This willful action is proof that people can be stubborn.

In your example of the farmer and cow, once the animal senses a small amount of discomfort, they may change direction. People sometimes push past discomfort because we are stubborn or curious. In a desire to test the systems God has created, we push against initial indicators of pain. Even before a persons hand would touch a stove element, they will feel the radiating heat signaling danger. Rather than heed this gentle warning, some touch the stove anyway and experience severe burn.

The radiating heat is the gentle warning that you are looking for, but you have conveniently ignored the low levels of pain we have prior to the pain we can experience at a higher level.

Even in your example with a farmer and electrical fence, if the animal gets stuck, that little shock will become excruciating. This is how pain works.

Well of course if they are stuck. It would be like being repeatedly whacked with an object in the same place over and over. However that is not about the intensity of the pain. That is something different again. That is continuous infliction of pain. Like say smacking your child over and over as you have suggested.

If however all a God wants to do is to deter us from say touching something or doing something, then all that is needed is enough pain to deter us. Not extreme pain.

So you are talking about a different scenario there.

If you want a more accurate analogy, let’s say that you the cow are determined to touch that fence no matter what happens. So you continue to touch it, even after it whacks you with a jolt. Once you get into that scenario, then the extra pain you suffer is your own fault.

But this is not a scenario I am suggesting here. I am simply suggesting one touch.

In the case of humans we have warning signs before the the pain of one touch. The pain of a burn from a fire comes with a warning sign of radiating heat. Even in the farming example you use, farmers typically include small warning signs to animals that they have reached the boundary of a terrain by cutting the grass differently near the fence. The hedge serves as a primary warning.

Your desire to blame God for "turning up pain" requires a willful ignoring of warning system God included in the human body.

Are we able to control the intensity of a fire burn or ice burn? No. That is all under God’s control.

Incorrect. There are variations to the types of burns a person can experience as a result of fire or ice burn. Prolonged exposure results in more intense or severe burns.

We can control the intensity of a potential burn by being obedient to the warning signs our body detects. If you see something about to happen and cause a burn, more than likely you will shield yourself to reduce the intensity of the burn. If possible you may be able to mitigate or eliminate a burn all together.

Even if you are not able to mitigate, you can reduce the damage that could be done if someone else is not willfully inflicting pain to you.

Your question discredits itself. I am just pointing out why.

No you haven’t. You have proposed a different scenario that is not relevant. Ie continuous pain.

I am trying to focus on the whole “protection� reason for pain. Ie it is there as a protective mechanism. Pain does not have to be as intense as it is to act as a protective mechanism. The whole Electric Fence example is a classic example.

The warnings we detect prior to experiencing pain is part of the protection system. Ignoring the warning of a hot stove element will lead to a higher level of pain. Continued ignorance will lead to increased pain.

The electric fence in your example can be seen as a warning system to protect the cow. If the cow were to bypass the electric fence and get attacked by a wolf, the cow would experience an increased level of pain and probably death. The fence is a part of the warning system of protection. The heat from a fire is a part of the warning system humans have prior to the increased pain of a burn.

If I pose a similar question: Why did God make water so wet? Everyone can see how the question is flawed because the question ignores the definition and composition of water.

How would the wetness of water matter? Would we consider it cruel of god to make water more wet? Or less wet? Would we consider it malevolent at all?

Completely wrong analogy. Just like the case of the cow who is stuck in the electric fence.

In your opinion the wetness of water may not be painful, but to a person suffering from aquaphobia it could be. For this person, the question of why did God make water so wet is on par with your question about pain being so painful.

If you dismiss the question about the wetness of water, you have to dismiss your question about pain being too painful.

There are degrees to everything in creation. Degree's of pain help us to remember certain events more than others.

And I responded to that. I pointed out that pain does not have to be excruciating for us to remember it. I used the example of the cow in the field. A cow learns quickly not to touch the fence without the voltage needing to be turned up that high. We as humans are quite capable of learning the same lessons without all the intense suffering.

And your response was just your opinion about how much pain is too much. To you any pain that is more than a pinch might be too much. To another person, this amount of pain is insignificant.

Variations are a part of all of creation. Many types of fish, animals, angels even humans. Variation is a part of creation. Pain is included in what it means to be alive. A dead person cannot feel pain. Whether the pain inflicted is minimal or agonizing, they cannot feel pain. Being able to feel pain is a part of what it means to be alive.

I am not arguing against that. All I am saying is that you don’t need to turn the voltage up as high as it is. There is no need for it.

WHO IS TURNING UP THE VOLTAGE?

This sounds like the action of humans, not God. Where do you see an instance of God turning up the voltage? (ex. making a flame hotter)

A flame is not agonizing for most people if they touch it momentarily.

Who does that? The majority of burns are as a result of more than a momentary touch. You are talking about a deliberate act to quickly touch and jerk your hand away or something like that. If you were to deliberately try to grab the flame, then you would be in major agony.

Ask any professional chef.

People who cook a lot often touch searing hot pans or boiling water momentarily. Sometimes they get burned because they chose to ignore the warning signs of radiating heat and keep there hand on a hot object.
Sometimes our familiarity with a task puts us in greater danger because we ignore the warning signs of low levels of pain.

It only becomes agonizing with prolonged exposure.

You make it sound like we’re talking like a long period of time here. It only takes a second for a flame to burn you and cause you agony.

Once again, not true. Ask any person who cooks regularly how often or how long they touched a flame or searing hot object without getting burned.

Some individuals hands actually change over time and become calloused so they can withstand longer periods of exposure. If God were malevolent as you suppose, this should not be able to occur. The pain should always remain consistent. But this is not the case.

If all pain were immediately agonizing, you could claim God was malevolent. This is not the case (except for your mind).

You are making up a scenario that is not a realistic scenario.

See what happens if you hold your hand over the flame for a second rather than less than a second. See what happens if you try to run your hand through a large fire. See what happens if you grab a hot pan on an element. See what happens if you place your hand on a hot element for a second. That is the type of scenario that a child experiences. That is the type of scenario that we all experience from time to time, even as adults.

Playing a game like trying to whisk your hand over a candle flame is hardly relevant to what I’m talking about here.

Hence my point, your twisted perspective only works in your mind. When we look at reality, we see this is not the case.

In your mind, you equate a person feeling high levels of pain as malevolent design. In reality, we do not see malevolent design but variations within the world.

This involves the action of a person to inflict pain on another person. This has nothing to do with creation, but a person willfully inflicting pain on another.

If God creates say flames to be painful so as to deter us from touching them, then it is an example of a God inflicting pain on us. It’s exactly the same type of scenario.

More opinion without any substantiation.

So if you are kidnapped and tortured, you blame God for allowing you to feel pain, instead of the people who actually inflicted the pain. Sounds like you are looking for any excuse to blame God for your problems.

I would blame the torturer of course, because he’s using God’s system to inflict pain on us.
I would also have to blame God for creating a system that this torturer could exploit.

This is the crux of your argument. You blame God for creating a system that people can exploit.

So as I stated in an earlier post, you do have a problem with variation and diversity. Because we have the ability to make choices (dominion) in the earth, we can benefit and exploit some of the systems God created. In your mind, should God have made us like robots who cannot override or make independent decisions?

Are you upset with having the ability to make choices?

God is the one who designed and created the source of the pain and determined how much pain it would inflict.

Once again you ignore the actions of people. The statement above is not true.

It is true if we consider the fact he created the universe and set in place the rules for how things would work.

So, can non theist blame evolution or quantum mechanics for allowing us to feel too much pain?

Why or why not?

If it were true, everyone would experience the same amount of pain.

God can set the system up whatever way he wants. Apparently he decided that some people should be more susceptible to pain than others. That in itself is again malevolent design. Making some people more sensitive to agonising pain than others.

You mean the system that includes a brain that can help you identify danger and pain in advance to protect or prevent pain. The warnings related to a potentially dangerous activity is also a part of that system. Do you ignore the fact that we are able to detect danger?

Is it malevolent design to warn a person that a fire is hot and dangerous?
Is it malevolent design to make the warning system of those who are more sensitive to pain be hyper active?

If someone punches you in the face, you may experience more pain and bruising than another person.

Malevolent design. You are not helping your argument here. Why would God do that. If you could determine with your own kids that one will be more sensitive to pain than the other, would you make your child that way? Or would you make them as less sensitive to agonising pain as possible?

I love my children. I would not make one more susceptible to suffering than the other.

If I could determine which of my children would be more or less sensitive to pain, I would choose the option that would ensure their safety for a longer period of time. Because I am human and the information I have is limited, I am not qualified to make this type of decision. Your decision to make your children less susceptible to pain may actually put them in harms way. They may feel invincible and take on more risky behavior.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/magaz ... -pain.html
and http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 74604.html
or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenita ... ty_to_pain
Those who are less likely to feel pain are more likely to

Children with this condition often suffer oral cavity damage both in and around the oral cavity (such as having bitten off the tip of their tongue) or fractures to bones. Unnoticed infections and corneal damage due to foreign objects in the eye are also seen. Because the child cannot feel pain, they may not respond to problems, thus being at a higher risk of more severe diseases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenita ... ty_to_pain

Though you may think you are being a good or loving parent by reducing your child's pain sensitivity, you may actually be putting their life in danger.

I believe a loving parent would actually take the full life of the child into consideration, and not just a perceived risk of pain. It is because I love my children, I know they can and will experience pain, and it is my responsibility to help them make decisions on how to reduce or mitigate pain by making wise decisions.

Why do you conveniently ignore the willful actions of humans who cause pain?

I don’t. Why do you conveniently ignore that the system was designed and set by God for this sort of suffering?

I embrace the system, which includes not only the ability to feel pain but also the ability to sense or be warned of impending pain. This system of warning gives me the opportunity to make a decision and take action to mitigate or prevent pain.

You often use the phrase "turning up voltage/pain" which is a willful action on the part of humans. You then say God is malevolent because He willfully causes pain by creating a system that others use to inflict pain. It is God's fault that person X inflicts pain to person Y. Yet, you say you do not absolve or ignore the willful actions of humans.

So you consider being able to feel pain a part of malevolent design.

No. I have already pointed out in my OP that it’s a protective mechanism set by God. My problem is with the unnecessary intensity of the pain. More than what is necessary to teach humans what they should and shouldn’t mess with.

Do you realize that a part of the pain system is the warning system to prevent intense pain? The heat a person feels from a fire is a warning that it can cause severe pain.

Outside of your opinion, where is your support for this claim.

The bible. Genesis. God created everything in 6 days and saw that it was good.

Still no evidence. Where is the malevolent design? Again I ask, do you consider being able to feel pain a part of malevolent design?

You stated no, above and then say it is malevolent. Which is it?

Once again you talk of things that are irrelevant to this topic. None of those things would be considered malevolent.

Is this a fact or your opinion. For some, too much pleasure is a bad thing.

As I stated above, I would rather have experienced intense pain and live, then experience not so intense pain, and die as a result.

Would you be saying that if you were suffering agony in Hell?

Going to hell is considered a second death. Above I stated I would rather live.

Humans are very hard headed and can be prideful. It is because of pride we often do not heed the warnings of others. The extent of pain caused by a severe burn serves as a reminder that we are impervious to harm.

If we are that stubborn as you claim… more stubborn than cows apparently, then if we continue to touch what we shouldn’t, we will once again get that stab of pain. We call people like that masochists. Those are in the minority.

Humans aren’t that stupid. Seriously. Say if touching an element gave you the same amount of pain as say a flick of a rubber band against your skin, would you keep touching it?

Stubborn and stupid are not the same thing.

Have you ever spent an extended period in an emergency room?

There are many individuals who have needed to be stitched up as a result of stupid decisions. These decisions ignored the obvious danger and resulted in severe injury.

Sometimes, people make silly decisions. Even sillier than one a cow on a farm might make.

If you are able, ask any ER nurse about the cases of pure stupidity which are reported in hospitals everyday around the world.

A small amount of pain will not work because as a result of sin, humans are rebellious. In our rebellion, we push the limits of pain.

Now you are just preaching. None of this can be shown to be true in reality.

What you are doing here is justifying malevolence. The pain has to be brutal for us to learn lessons. No, we in modern society now know this is not true. It’s why we don’t flog people anymore. It’s why we no longer are allowed to smack our kids. We know that inflicting pain is not the right way to go. It’s cruel. It’s malevolent.

Discipline of a child is not malevolent. A parent who smacks a child to correct their behavior can provide a small "shock" to the child to communicate that such behavior is unacceptable or dangerous. Only when the pain is "turned up" as you say it is deemed abuse.

A parent who slaps a child on the wrist as they are reaching for a knife, may save the childs life as the associate the knife with pain. Often, verbal communication is insufficient. A child needs to know that an activity is dangerous or can cause pain.

You claim that it cannot be shown true in reality that people are more likely to push the limits to engage in potentially risky activity. Do people ignore the risk of contracting an STD, by having unprotected sex? Why? Even with all of the knowledge, and warnings, people will ignore the danger and have sex with a person they may have met for the first time. They put their life on the line and can experience severe pain, but the temptation of pleasure can override one's apprehension to remain safe. This is one example of sin causing rebellion against the system God created.


Last question, how can an atheist be mad at God?
How can you be upset with God for malevolent design, and at the same time claim to be against a belief in God?

To contrast, I do not believe in Santa. Never did. I knew it was my parents who purchased gifts, and I also knew my childhood home did not have a chimney. So, if I did not get a gift I desired, I did not get upset with Santa. How could I? There was no one to get upset with. Even as a child, I knew it did not make sense to get upset with the concept of a person that does not exist.

Why then are so many atheists on this site upset with God? There are many claims of God being unfair, impartial, vengeful, blood thirsty, etc.

[Talishi]

Why then are so many atheists on this site upset with God? There are many claims of God being unfair, impartial, vengeful, blood thirsty, etc.

Not one atheist on this site is upset with God. Atheism is a rejection of the claim that any god exists. One cannot be upset with a nothing. I am upset, however, with an alleged follower of this god, like the current GOP VP nominee, who would force women to seek expensive funeral arrangements if they have a miscarriage.

[KingandPriest]

Why then are so many atheists on this site upset with God? There are many claims of God being unfair, impartial, vengeful, blood thirsty, etc.

Not one atheist on this site is upset with God. Atheism is a rejection of the claim that any god exists. One cannot be upset with a nothing. I am upset, however, with an alleged follower of this god, like the current GOP VP nominee, who would force women to seek expensive funeral arrangements if they have a miscarriage.

I beg to differ. Just look at the comments in the What is Love? discussion I started. The tone of the responses includes anger. Why do some even need to get angry at God, the bible or Christians when defining love.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 34 by OnceConvinced]

Why is that nonsensical? You claim it to be so but have not shown it to be so.

Do you consider it nonsensical for a farmer to turn down the voltage on the electric fence so it is not so painful to the cow?

In your example you compare the farmer to God. The farmer did not create the cow, only the fence which was designed to inflict a certain amount of pain. The farmer is willfully turning up or down the voltage. The cows could easily feel agonizing pain if the farmer willed it.

God gave man dominion (the ability to make decisions) in the earth. We can make decisions about how much pain we inflict.

How do you equate the farmer to God, when the farmer did not create the animal? The farmer created the system (fence) to protect and inflict a certain amount of pain.

Let’s change the analogy then. Let’s say that the farmer created the cows. He created them in a lab or something. Will that make you feel better? It doesn’t take away the malevolence of setting the voltage so high on the electric fence, does it? In fact, we could argue it is even more malevolent, ie the farmer designed the cow to suffer pain when touching an electric fence.

This is the same as asking God to make the attributes of blue, less blue. Or make the attributes of being alive, less alive.

None of those things show malevolent design. There is no suffering involved in those things.

There are individuals who "suffer" from aquaphobia. To you this may not be suffering, but to another, the thought of a pool or beach is agonizing.

And who designed them to be aquophobic? Who knitted them together in their mother’s womb so that they would be aquophobic?

But regardless, you can’t turn up the wetness of water. Nor can you turn down the wetness of water. Unlike pain which can be turned up or down.

Have you ever touched an element on an oven? It is immediate and it is extremely intense. If it is set at a higher heat it will be even more painful. Why would it need to be that intense?

Think of the story of Shadrach, Meeshag and Abendigo and how Nebuchadnezzer was not satisfied that the furnace was hot enough. He wanted it hotter. He wanted to make these three suffer as much as possible.

Yes, I have. When the heat is set to the highest setting, you can sense pain at a low level even before your hand touches the surface. It is only the willful action to ignore the gentle pain and continue to press your hand closer and closer. This willful action is proof that people can be stubborn.

Oh come on! Are you serious? When you touch an element you have grabbed it before you even realise that there is heat there. By the time you feel the seering skin scorching heat you’ve already touched it firmly. It’s not a willful action. There is a delay before the brain realises there is pain.

In your example of the farmer and cow, once the animal senses a small amount of discomfort

Clearly you have never touched an electric fence. The pain is immediate. There is no time to draw away before the pain becomes agonising. Our reactions are not that sharp. They are not that fast. You electric shock does not start off soft and then become agonising. It’s a sudden shock of pain.

Elements are the same. You don’t grab an element and then have the chance to draw your hand away before the pain gets too intense.

Surely you’ve had a hot pan or dish on an oven and not realised it was hot? By the time your brain registers that agonising pain you’ve already gripped it solidly. You let go after you’ve felt the agonising pain.

, they may change direction. People sometimes push past discomfort because we are stubborn or curious. In a desire to test the systems God has created, we push against initial indicators of pain. Even before a persons hand would touch a stove element, they will feel the radiating heat signaling danger. Rather than heed this gentle warning, some touch the stove anyway and experience severe burn.

Why would someone continue to hold a burning item if it was causing them agony? In fact the first reaction would be to drop it. That’s my first reaction if ever I unwittingly attempt to pick up a piping hot dish.

The radiating heat is the gentle warning that you are looking for,

Seriously. This radiating heat you talk about does not work as slow as you claim. It’s certainly not that way with electric fences. The pain hits you immediately and gives you no chance to let go first.

In the case of humans we have warning signs before the the pain of one touch.

That is not true. The human brain does not react that quickly. The pain must travel a certain distance to the brain before you feel it. But by then it’s too late to let go.

The pain of a burn from a fire comes with a warning sign of radiating heat.

Tell yourself that next time you accidentally touch a hot dish on the stove.

Even in the farming example you use, farmers typically include small warning signs to animals that they have reached the boundary of a terrain by cutting the grass differently near the fence. The hedge serves as a primary warning.

Not in any farm I’ve ever seen. You either have electric fences or you have hedges (sometimes with non-electric fences) There is no need for a hedge AND an electric fence. Also farmers do not have time to go around cutting grass near the fences. Besides, that would just be removing a source of food for the cow. Whether grass is there or not is irrelevant. It’s the strength of the voltage which we are talking about. There is no need to turn it all the way up when having it low will do the trick.

Your desire to blame God for "turning up pain" requires a willful ignoring of warning system God included in the human body.

Nope, there is no wilful ignorance. I know for a fact that when you touch a hot element on a stove there is no warning. The pain comes before you realise what you’re doing. Same when touching an electric fence, which I have done several times as a kid living on farms. You don’t get any warning. However, it’s the farmer’s choice on just how high he sets the current. If a farmer set the fence too high, it could result in the death of a child who unwittingly touches the fence when attempting to climb. The farmer would be up on charges of manslaughter if such a thing were to happen.

Incorrect. There are variations to the types of burns a person can experience as a result of fire or ice burn. Prolonged exposure results in more intense or severe burns.

Which we often have no control over. Just ask those who have been trapped in burning houses who have been on fire and survived.

WHO IS TURNING UP THE VOLTAGE?

GOD OF COURSE! He is the one who determines how much pain these things inflict, whether your tolerance for pain is low or not.

It only becomes agonizing with prolonged exposure.

You make it sound like we’re talking like a long period of time here. It only takes a second for a flame to burn you and cause you agony.

Once again, not true. Ask any person who cooks regularly how often or how long they touched a flame or searing hot object without getting burned.

I am one such person and I don’t know it’s hot until the searing pain hits me. You don’t get a warning. It doesn’t just slowly creep up on you. The only time I’ve not been burned is when I was deliberately checking first, ie testing out a heat on a pot handle or lid. It’s only when you deliberately test something out that you can avoid the real pain.

Some individuals hands actually change over time and become calloused so they can withstand longer periods of exposure.

Irrelevant

If God were malevolent as you suppose, this should not be able to occur. The pain should always remain consistent. But this is not the case.

If you can find a way to avoid feeling the pain, then good on you. We as humans can find ways around God’s malevolent design sometimes. It doesn’t change the fact that God has turned the potential pain of something up way higher than it needs to be.

God is the one who designed and created the source of the pain and determined how much pain it would inflict.

Once again you ignore the actions of people. The statement above is not true.

It is true if we consider the fact he created the universe and set in place the rules for how things would work.

So, can non theist blame evolution or quantum mechanics for allowing us to feel too much pain?

Why would we? Evolution is not trying to give us warnings. It's not trying to protect us. It’s not trying to accomplish anything. There is no designer behind it. If there was then we would blame the designer.

. Do you ignore the fact that we are able to detect danger?

Not in the ways you mention earlier in this post. Our brains are not that quick to detect a danger when we go to grab say a hot handle on a pot.

Is it malevolent design to warn a person that a fire is hot and dangerous?
Is it malevolent design to make the warning system of those who are more sensitive to pain be hyper active?

It is malevolent to design a system where the pain is greater than it needs to be. And that is the whole crux of my argument. It’s turning up something to be so much more painful than it needs to be to teach we humans lessons.

Making all those other irrelevant arguments is a waste of time. The fact is if we believe in creation then we have to believe that this god would create things to be way more painful than they need to be. It makes no difference whether there are warning signs. It makes no difference whether the pain creeps up on us or not. it makes no difference if we find ways around suffering pain. The fact is it doesn’t need to "creep up" so high before we learn our lessons.

Though you may think you are being a good or loving parent by reducing your child's pain sensitivity, you may actually be putting their life in danger.

A sensible parent can understand that the pain doesn’t need to be so agonising to keep their child out of danger. It’s sad that your God doesn’t seem to be able to figure that out.

Discipline of a child is not malevolent.

It is if you go overboard with the infliction of pain.

A parent who smacks a child to correct their behavior can provide a small "shock" to the child to communicate that such behavior is unacceptable or dangerous. Only when the pain is "turned up" as you say it is deemed abuse.

Of course it’s abuse. So likewise, when it comes to god, a small sting from a flame or an electric shock would be fine. However a huge smash from it (which is what we actually get) would be abuse.

Last question, how can an atheist be mad at God?
How can you be upset with God for malevolent design, and at the same time claim to be against a belief in God?

It’s called taking a perspective. Ie I take the perspective that god is real and then determine based on that perspective that he is malevolent.

However in reality I don’t believe in God.

To contrast, I do not believe in Santa. Never did. I knew it was my parents who purchased gifts, and I also knew my childhood home did not have a chimney. So, if I did not get a gift I desired, I did not get upset with Santa. How could I? There was no one to get upset with. Even as a child, I knew it did not make sense to get upset with the concept of a person that does not exist.

Now if we were to debate that Santa is real and that it wasn’t your parents giving the gifts, you might debate a little differently, might you not? It’s all about perspective. We can take a topic, take a certain perspective and debate it. That is what I do all the time here on this site. In this particular debate I am taking the perspective that God is real. Of course in reality I don’t believe he’s real so thus have no issues with such a being.

Why then are so many atheists on this site upset with God? There are many claims of God being unfair, impartial, vengeful, blood thirsty, etc.

You seem to have difficulty understanding that people taking certain perspectives in debates doesn't mean they take those perspectives in reality. We take these perspectives so that we can have some common ground with the people we debate. Otherwise our debates would just return back to "Prove God exists".

Hopefully what I’ve said in these previous few paragraphs answers your questions. NO, I am not angry at God. I don't blame him for anything. I am just pretending he is real for the benefit of this debate.

[OnceConvinced]

I beg to differ. Just look at the comments in the What is Love? discussion I started. The tone of the responses includes anger. Why do some even need to get angry at God, the bible or Christians when defining love.

You will find that anger is directed towards the people (and the things they say) making the claims about god. Not the god iteself. I for one get angry when theists say things I know is not true at all. It also irritates me when they make the same claims over and over which have been well and truly refuted.