Causes of disease, hunger and pain.

[McCulloch]

The bad things happen when people and angels oppose Jehovah. If they always had obeyed Him, everyone's life would have been enjoyable, peaceful, fulfilling and happy. If Adam had not turned against Jehovah, he would still be here and there would be no things like disease, hunger and pain.

This was posted in Theology where "because the Bible says so" is an acceptable argument. But I would like to ask a broader question.

Is there any evidence or reason to believe that disease, hunger or pain have anything other than natural causes?

[marco]

Is there any evidence or reason to believe that disease, hunger or pain have anything other than natural causes?

No evidence but plenty of reasons, good or bad. God is good and disease is bad. God did not impose disease, so man somehow brought it about. Simple.

Since God does no evil there must be someone doing evil. Therefore there must have been a fight before man was made. Therefore the leader of that fight must be evil. Had to be to oppose good God. Therefore he brought evil into the world - and blamed man. Simple.

Perhaps we can't blame Satan and Adam for faults in the Earth that lead to earthquakes since these are structural faults associated with creation. But if people build homes beside volcanos and possible earthquakes, they are foolish, and God can't be blamed. He probably meant to fix the faults but went for a break, ergo the Sabbath, ergo earthquakes.

Hunger is of course caused by greed and God has said: Do not be greedy! But man disobeys. Ergo, man's fault.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

I can never tell with you whether you are being facetious with statements like these:

He probably meant to fix the faults but went for a break, ergo the Sabbath, ergo earthquakes.

Assuming you are serious, I have to risk deviating from the topic by asking:

1) how are you using the term "probably"? 2) Do you understand the Sabbath as a period of time, or mode of existence, during or in which God is inactive?

[marco]

Assuming you are serious, I have to risk deviating from the topic by asking:

I had hoped my grammatical constructions would have indicated a frivolous Marco. The arguments I put forward are regurgitations of what has been given to me in explanations in the course of debates.

I firmly believe that disease, hunger and pain are the direct consequences of our being on Earth, operating in bodies susceptible to harm.

[bluethread]

The bad things happen when people and angels oppose Jehovah. If they always had obeyed Him, everyone's life would have been enjoyable, peaceful, fulfilling and happy. If Adam had not turned against Jehovah, he would still be here and there would be no things like disease, hunger and pain.

This was posted in Theology where "because the Bible says so" is an acceptable argument. But I would like to ask a broader question.

Is there any evidence or reason to believe that disease, hunger or pain have anything other than natural causes?

That depends on what one sees as "natural causes". There are countless cases where "natural causes" is listed as the cause of death. This is generally an indication that no single cause could practically be determined and no external cause could be reasonably identified as the probable cause. Under this approach, there is no such thing as an "unnatural" cause of death, because all undetermined deaths that can not be reasonably identified with an external cause, it is designated as natural by definition. Regarding hunger and pain, these are generally symbiotic, but can also be psychosomatic. If one can find a definitive work on such things, that would be interesting. However, people tend focus more on treatment than identifying a specific cause.

[FarWanderer]

The bad things happen when people and angels oppose Jehovah. If they always had obeyed Him, everyone's life would have been enjoyable, peaceful, fulfilling and happy. If Adam had not turned against Jehovah, he would still be here and there would be no things like disease, hunger and pain.

This was posted in Theology where "because the Bible says so" is an acceptable argument. But I would like to ask a broader question.

Is there any evidence or reason to believe that disease, hunger or pain have anything other than natural causes?

No, but agency is a valid alternative causal framework. Evil can cause us the three sufferings listed above.

The problem isn't a supposition of the Supernatural, but a supposition that ALL suffering can be avoided with proper morality.

[marco]

No, but agency is a valid alternative causal framework. Evil can cause us the three sufferings listed above.

Evil works through man's greed or inefficiency or neglect so man is the cause, not the abstract notion.

The problem isn't a supposition of the Supernatural, but a supposition that ALL suffering can be avoided with proper morality.

A supposition that God is moving around causing things is certainly a problem, and can lead people to do wicked things or indeed can frighten them into being good. It is of course an absurdity to believe that the action of a human caused mosquitoes, lung cancer and the crucifixion. Yet even though a portion of the world's population think this is the case, we've walked on the moon.

[FarWanderer]

No, but agency is a valid alternative causal framework. Evil can cause us the three sufferings listed above.

Evil works through man's greed or inefficiency or neglect so man is the cause, not the abstract notion.

Seems incoherent to me. How can evil "work through" things without it itself being causal in some sense?

The problem isn't a supposition of the Supernatural, but a supposition that ALL suffering can be avoided with proper morality.

A supposition that God is moving around causing things is certainly a problem, and can lead people to do wicked things or indeed can frighten them into being good. It is of course an absurdity to believe that the action of a human caused mosquitoes, lung cancer and the crucifixion. Yet even though a portion of the world's population think this is the case, we've walked on the moon.

Depends on what God is, but in any case the lesson of original sin is that all suffering is caused by immorality.

[McCulloch]

The lesson of original sin is that all suffering is caused by immorality.

The claim of original sin is that all suffering is caused by immorality. This claim is made without supporting evidence. While it is true that many bad behaviours result in suffering, either for the sinner or for someone else, it does not follow that all suffering is caused by sin or that there would be no suffering if the sin had never happened.

The supporters of the doctrine of original sin causing all suffering have yet to present one iota of evidence of reason in support of this idea. In fact, the evidence seems to go against them. There was disease, pain, hunger and death long before there were humans. The people who thought that the Plague, Typhus and other diseases were caused by sin have had no success against these epidemics. Repentance, piety and prayer have no effect. But those who have looked for less spiritual causes of suffering have been amply rewarded.

[bluethread]

There was disease, pain, hunger and death long before there were humans. The people who thought that the Plague, Typhus and other diseases were caused by sin have had no success against these epidemics. Repentance, piety and prayer have no effect. But those who have looked for less spiritual causes of suffering have been amply rewarded.

Disease is just natural processes that get out of control. Pain is a blessing. Without it we can experience great harm or death, before we even know it. Hunger is a result of of limited resources(natural or artificial). Death, if not caused by trauma, is the result of an immune/genetic deficiency. That said, understanding the proximate causes does not negate any further extrapolations, i.e. origin, responsibility, accountability, etc. Identifying a natural proximate cause does not negate the nature/nurture paradigm.