What ruins life

[Compassionist]

Life would be awesome if there were no suffering, unfairness and deaths. These things ruin what could be an amazing experience. I feel so much grief about all the suffering, unfairness and deaths. I wish I could go back in time and prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths but I can't. If I were all-knowing and all-powerful, there would be no suffering, unfairness and death. I would just make every being equally all-knowing and all-powerful and give them an infinite number of universes each so all will be equally weatlhy and healthy and wise and eternal.

[Compassionist]

Are you suggesting that in order to have an ability to love we must live in a dangerous world with evil people? Why should that be the case?

I'm suggesting that in order to have the ability to love we must have free will. I am then also suggesting that if we have free will, then one could not logically make it so that no suffering or unfairness took place.

Also if that's the case, then how could there be any love in heaven?

I believe there can be love in heaven because I believe there is free will in heaven.

No living thing has free will. We have constrained will. We are constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Lack of free will is the source of all problems. If I had free will (being free to do anything I wish) I would have gone back in time and prevented all suffering, unfairness and deaths. I would have made an infinite number of all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful friends to share the omniverse with and we would all have lived happily ever after. Since I lack free will, I, you and all the other sentient biological beings have to suffer, experience unfairness and die. I think selfishness is one of the leading causes of suffering, unfairness and deaths in the world. If living things were all-centred instead of being self-centred, the world would be a more balanced and more egalitarian place. It starts at conception. The foetus diverts nutrients from the mother, at the expense of the mother for its own gains. All living things consume things at the expense of others. For example, carnivores consume the meat of other sentient beings and water and oxygen. Herbivores consume plants and water and oxygen. Omnivores consume both the meat of other sentient beings and plants and water and oxygen. Photoautotrophs consume photons and atoms. Chemoautotropohs consume atoms. All living things are self-centred instead of being all-centred. Living things are naturally evil. I would have preferred it if I were never conceived into this horrific and unjust world but I had no say in the matter. I am a vegan but that's not good enough because I still consume plants and water and air. I am ashamed of being a biological organism which consumes atoms. I am sad that I can't prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths. I have prevented some suffering, relieved some suffering, have reduced some unfairness and have postponed some deaths. What I have achieved is tiny compared to what I want to have achieved by now.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

Life would be awesome if there were 1) no suffering, 2) unfairness and 3) deaths.

I don't agree.
1) Suffering many times builds character and creates appreciation
2) Unfairness? Maybe. Though that can also build appreciation
3) The idea of living forever is terrible to me because we don't know what happens after death.

Maybe if # 2 & #1 above didn't last for a long time, it would be better. But death....everything 'dies'. It's the balance of life. Death is a change in physical status. I'm not sure why that would be bad.

If all living things were omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent and the owner of an infinite number of universes each, why would we need anything else? We would then be infinitely happy forever as we would always make perfect choices with our omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence. It is our imperfections which causes us and others suffering. It is not our fault that we are imperfect. We are imperfect because we evolved in an imperfect reality. We were not created by a perfect God. Otherwise, we would also have been perfect and the world would also have been perfect. It is possible there are evil Gods who enjoy causing suffering, unfairness and deaths.

[Compassionist]

Life would be awesome if there were no suffering, unfairness and deaths. These things ruin what could be an amazing experience. I feel so much grief about all the suffering, unfairness and deaths. I wish I could go back in time and prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths but I can't. If I were all-knowing and all-powerful, there would be no suffering, unfairness and death. I would just make every being equally all-knowing and all-powerful and give them an infinite number of universes each so all will be equally weatlhy and healthy and wise and eternal.

Would you still do these things if one needed to wipe out everyone's ability to love to do so?

I would make all beings equally omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent which would make them all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful - perfect.

[Compassionist]

The good news is one day God will create a new world that is free from suffering and pain.

If there was a God who could create a world that is free from suffering and pain why not just do that from the get go?

Life would be great if there was no suffering, but also incredibly boring.

Wouldn't it then follow that an eternal life in heaven would also be incredibly boring?

If not, then why not? Will there be suffering in heaven?

Excellent questions. Thank you for asking them.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #22]

I do not define 'free will' as "being free to do anything I wish." An initial stab at a definition would be the freedom to choose A or not-A in a situation. I think we have a free will, in the midst of the genetic, environmental, nutritive, and experiential factors that influence us towards A or not-A.

Assuming time travel were possible, I don't think we could go back and prevent all suffering, unfairness, and deaths, even if we wanted to and had the power to prevent what we saw as suffering and unfair. I think we lack the wisdom of what is suffering and unfair in every situation. At least, on our own as humans. I think what you seek would require the omnsicient wisdom of God.

Would you still do these things if one needed to wipe out everyone's ability to love to do so?

I would make all beings equally omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent which would make them all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful - perfect.

I think it is logically impossible to be able to guarantee morally perfect choices, while giving people the ability to love. To love, I define as to will the good of others. If you guarantee morally perfect choices, then you are not allowing one to will anything; they simply must choose the good of others.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #22]

I do not define 'free will' as "being free to do anything I wish." An initial stab at a definition would be the freedom to choose A or not-A in a situation. I think we have a free will, in the midst of the genetic, environmental, nutritive, and experiential factors that influence us towards A or not-A.

Assuming time travel were possible, I don't think we could go back and prevent all suffering, unfairness, and deaths, even if we wanted to and had the power to prevent what we saw as suffering and unfair. I think we lack the wisdom of what is suffering and unfair in every situation. At least, on our own as humans. I think what you seek would require the omnsicient wisdom of God.

Would you still do these things if one needed to wipe out everyone's ability to love to do so?

I would make all beings equally omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent which would make them all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful - perfect.

I think it is logically impossible to be able to guarantee morally perfect choices, while giving people the ability to love. To love, I define as to will the good of others. If you guarantee morally perfect choices, then you are not allowing one to will anything; they simply must choose the good of others.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not convinced there is a God or Gods. I am an agnostic. If you can prove ithere is a God or Gods, please do so. We are using different definition of free will. I prefer my definition because in my definition, free will is actually free from all constraints. Of course, as things stand, we don't have that kind of free will. It is also pointless to debate what it would be like if all beings were omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent because such beings do not exist.

[The Tanager]

We are using different definition of free will. I prefer my definition because in my definition, free will is actually free from all constraints. Of course, as things stand, we don't have that kind of free will.

And you think that us not having that kind of free will is a problem? Why? Even if you would try to prevent all suffering, unfairness, and death, that doesn't mean other people would. They might try to inflict more sufferings, unfairness, and deaths, right?

It is also pointless to debate what it would be like if all beings were omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent because such beings do not exist.

Okay, but my question still remains. If you had to, then would you sacrifice our ability to love in order to end all suffering, unfairness, and death?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not convinced there is a God or Gods. I am an agnostic. If you can prove ithere is a God or Gods, please do so.

It depends on what you mean by 'prove'. I don't think I can show with 100% certainty, but I also think that is a silly standard to have outside of pure mathematics. I do think theism makes better sense of all available data than atheism and agnosticism. I think various lines of argument point in that direction: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral arguments, argument from reason, among others. I'd be willing to talk about any of them with you, if you wish.

[Compassionist]

We are using different definition of free will. I prefer my definition because in my definition, free will is actually free from all constraints. Of course, as things stand, we don't have that kind of free will.

And you think that us not having that kind of free will is a problem? Why? Even if you would try to prevent all suffering, unfairness, and death, that doesn't mean other people would. They might try to inflict more sufferings, unfairness, and deaths, right?

It is also pointless to debate what it would be like if all beings were omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent because such beings do not exist.

Okay, but my question still remains. If you had to, then would you sacrifice our ability to love in order to end all suffering, unfairness, and death?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not convinced there is a God or Gods. I am an agnostic. If you can prove ithere is a God or Gods, please do so.

It depends on what you mean by 'prove'. I don't think I can show with 100% certainty, but I also think that is a silly standard to have outside of pure mathematics. I do think theism makes better sense of all available data than atheism and agnosticism. I think various lines of argument point in that direction: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, moral arguments, argument from reason, among others. I'd be willing to talk about any of them with you, if you wish.

As things stand, no living thing has free will. There is no point debating this. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of Albert Einstein or a worm or Ted Bundy or a bat I would have behaved like them, made their choices and died as they died. If you had my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, you would have been typing these words where and when I am typing these words. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have been reading these words where and when you are reading these words. Everything is proceeding according to causality. Behind us lie 13.82 billion years of existence and 3.8 billion years of survival and reproduction. Out of the 102.2 billion humans who have been born so far, only 7.8 billion are still alive. I don't know if we will ever reach the technological ability to postpone death permanently but I hope that our descendants do become immortals.

Love, hate, fear, awe and all the other emotions are products of our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I am anti-suffering, anti-unfairness and anti-death. I am pro-enjoyment, pro-fairness and pro-life. If I were omnipotent, I would have had free will, with which I would have ensured that all beings live forever in joy. I am omnibenevolent but I am not omniscient and I am not omnipotent.

I am familiar with all the arguments for and against the existence of God. Given the fact that God failed to prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths, such a being is evil (imaginary or real). Culpability is proportional to ability. With omniscience and omnipotence, comes omniculpability.

[The Tanager]

As things stand, no living thing has free will. There is no point debating this.

Using your definition of free will, I agree it doesn't exist and wasn't debating against that.

If I had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of Albert Einstein or a worm or Ted Bundy or a bat I would have behaved like them, made their choices and died as they died. If you had my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, you would have been typing these words where and when I am typing these words. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have been reading these words where and when you are reading these words. Everything is proceeding according to causality.

This is a different question, though, and I don't agree with you here. Do you have reasons to believe as you do for me to consider?

I am familiar with all the arguments for and against the existence of God. Given the fact that God failed to prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths, such a being is evil (imaginary or real). Culpability is proportional to ability. With omniscience and omnipotence, comes omniculpability.

Why would such a being necessarily be evil?

[Compassionist]

As things stand, no living thing has free will. There is no point debating this.

Using your definition of free will, I agree it doesn't exist and wasn't debating against that.

If I had the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences of Albert Einstein or a worm or Ted Bundy or a bat I would have behaved like them, made their choices and died as they died. If you had my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences, you would have been typing these words where and when I am typing these words. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences I would have been reading these words where and when you are reading these words. Everything is proceeding according to causality.

This is a different question, though, and I don't agree with you here. Do you have reasons to believe as you do for me to consider?

I am familiar with all the arguments for and against the existence of God. Given the fact that God failed to prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths, such a being is evil (imaginary or real). Culpability is proportional to ability. With omniscience and omnipotence, comes omniculpability.

Why would such a being necessarily be evil?

I am not asking anyone to agree with me. Nor am I trying to get anyone to leave their religion. 99.9% of all species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct. Unless we adapt to change the 0.1% who are still extant will also go extinct. Living things behave according to their genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. My conclusion is based on a lifetime of observations. If God is omniscient and omnipotent then God is also omniculpable.Since God failed to prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths God is evil. “Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil.” – Albert Schweitzer, “Civilization and Ethics”, 1949. Using this definition anyone who destroys or injures or limits life is evil. That's why I want to be an autotroph. Only autotrophs are good. All heterotrophs are evil because we all cause harm to other living things. I am a vegan but even vegans are evil because we cause harm to plants. I asked a biotechnological lab to genetically engineer me to be an autotroph but they said that we don't yet have the technology to do that. God is evil because God failed to prevent all suffering, unfairness and deaths. God = evil (imaginary or real). You mentioned in an earlier post that 100% certainty is impossible outside mathematics. That's false. When I slap myself, I feel pain. When I massage myself, I feel pleasure. When I eat a ripe sweet banana, I enjoy its taste. When I eat an unripe banana which is not sweet, I dislike its taste. I am 100% certain of all of these experiences. Please see:

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 30851.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... itish_rule

https://www.newstatesman.com/economics/ ... eparations

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

https://www.adaptt.org/about/the-kill-counter.html

https://www.globalissues.org/article/23 ... and-equity

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com

https://www.evilbible.com