Life Without Pain and Suffering

[Cornelius Plautus]

Many people seem to think that God should protect us from all pain and suffering, and others think that there is no God, as there is pain and suffering. The rationale, I suppose, is that God is supposed to love mankind as his children; however, some say God is a poor -and non-existent- father because of this assertion. But, is it not true that a parent must let their children suffer for them to grow? Is it not true that a child must eventually overcome their hardships individually. Is it not true that when success is earned it is worth far more than when it is given freely?

Could we then argue that God allows the human race to suffer so that it can learn and improve itself? Could we then argue that any God that may exist is allowing the race to suffer for its own good? To me, freedoms and advances in society are all the more precious and valuable because we know what life was like before they came into existence.

[Elfdude]

In normal people morality is closely related to desperation. Without pain and suffering there'd be no desperation and for the vast majority of people probably no immorality. God would've accomplished his goal of restoring humanity to goodness much faster and much less malevolently. It seems more accurate to flip the position of god as the king of lies, jealous and wrathful with that of the devil in many instances throughout the bible.

[43rdFoot]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Good is a comparative idea. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no light without darkness.

[Elfdude]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Good is a comparative idea. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no light without darkness.

Proof?

I'll admit the words for good and evil wouldn't exist but there's no reason to conclude that a hypothetical world without pain and suffering wouldn't be good by most's definition.

[43rdFoot]

Proof?

I'll admit the words for good and evil wouldn't exist but there's no reason to conclude that a hypothetical world without pain and suffering wouldn't be good by most's definition.

Imagine you live your entire life without any pain, without any monetary problems, without any emotional difficulties. Your life is what some would call "perfect."


Without having an understanding of what it's like to not have that, could you really begin to understand what you have? If you lived a life without sickness, could you really say you know what it is to be healthy? Could you even understand the concept of healthy?

[Elfdude]

Imagine you live your entire life without any pain, without any monetary problems, without any emotional difficulties. Your life is what some would call "perfect."

No, it would be perfect. This is why cocaine addicts and meth heads love their drugs. It's nice to live without suffering. If they didn't convey side-effects and the world wasn't hostile I'm sure we'd all be using.

Without having an understanding of what it's like to not have that, could you really begin to understand what you have? If you lived a life without sickness, could you really say you know what it is to be healthy? Could you even understand the concept of healthy?

What is the value of understanding the value of what you have? The assertion that evil makes good possible or that misery makes joy possible is purely based off of false philosophical premises that do not reflect reality. I'm sorry but emotions are made via biological feedback loops. Misery is simply something we feel to encourage us to survive in a hostile environment. It gives us an impetus to not touch that fire or stand in front of that bear. If there was no misery or suffering there would be no reason to fear the fire or the bear. We'd still find happiness and goodness however.

[43rdFoot]

No, it would be perfect. This is why cocaine addicts and meth heads love their drugs. It's nice to live without suffering. If they didn't convey side-effects and the world wasn't hostile I'm sure we'd all be using.

Cocaine and Meth heads love their drugs because it gets them high. You can't be high without low can you?

What is the value of understanding the value of what you have? The assertion that evil makes good possible or that misery makes joy possible is purely based off of false philosophical premises that do not reflect reality. I'm sorry but emotions are made via biological feedback loops. Misery is simply something we feel to encourage us to survive in a hostile environment. It gives us an impetus to not touch that fire or stand in front of that bear. If there was no misery or suffering there would be no reason to fear the fire or the bear. We'd still find happiness and goodness however.

I'd say your philosophical premise does not reflect reality. Reality is that good and evil exists. Reality is that light and darkness exists. Reality is that you will be sick at some point in your life.

Happiness is a comparative state of mind.

[MaximiIian]

there's no reason to conclude that a hypothetical world without pain and suffering wouldn't be good by most's definition.

So, pretty much, this is leading to the hedgehog's dilemma.
The simple fact is, pain and suffering is every bit a part of life as joy and love. Without both, it's neither life nor reality.

[Phier]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Good is a comparative idea. There can be no good without evil, just as there can be no light without darkness.

Nonsense.

This is the gobblygook, the kind of meaningless platitude that sounds profound yet really says nothing.

If there is no evil good is still good, it just gets less attention. The fact that other people beat their wives does not make my lack of beating mine 'good'. When I give to charity it is good, other people doing bad things does not make it good.

Good only stands out in relief to evil, but remove the evil and it is still the same.

[43rdFoot]

Nonsense.

This is the gobblygook, the kind of meaningless platitude that sounds profound yet really says nothing.

If there is no evil good is still good, it just gets less attention. The fact that other people beat their wives does not make my lack of beating mine 'good'. When I give to charity it is good, other people doing bad things does not make it good.

Good only stands out in relief to evil, but remove the evil and it is still the same.

No, remove all evil and good loses any context. Good is only as it can be perceived.

[Boyar Son]

Nonsense.

This is the gobblygook, the kind of meaningless platitude that sounds profound yet really says nothing.

If there is no evil good is still good, it just gets less attention. The fact that other people beat their wives does not make my lack of beating mine 'good'. When I give to charity it is good, other people doing bad things does not make it good.

Good only stands out in relief to evil, but remove the evil and it is still the same.

but how can we recognize it in the first place? good is a desired feeling or action meaning it's a certain thing we want above other actions. if there were no other actions how can we tell what's 'good' (my invented definition which i gave 4 seconds to make in this context), if there was no evil how can we differentiate what is good or not good? isn't good what we make it to be... i lost my line of thought.

[Desperado †]

If there is no evil good is still good, it just gets less attention. The fact that other people beat their wives does not make my lack of beating mine 'good'. When I give to charity it is good, other people doing bad things does not make it good.

What's the point of an adjective if it applies to everything? They can only be used in relative, and similarly these concepts can only exist in relative.

If everybody gave to charity the same amount and this was an unavoidable fact of life, you would not describe it as good. Describing reality as 'good' is superficial because we know of nothing else.

[Phier]

What's the point of an adjective if it applies to everything? They can only be used in relative, and similarly these concepts can only exist in relative.

If everybody gave to charity the same amount and this was an unavoidable fact of life, you would not describe it as good. Describing reality as 'good' is superficial because we know of nothing else.

If I give to a charity and you don't. I did some extra 'good' you did not. If I give to a charity and you burn it down and eat the office staff, that makes your actions evil and mine were still good. You didn't need to murder them all for my actions to be good.

I think the concept missing here is neutral, which should upset any dungeon masters.

[Tacitursa]

Good is only as it can be perceived

Wrong. Its chemical reactions in the brain.

Imagine a world with no evil then imagine having sex with your wife or girlfriend. Are you telling me it wouldnt make you feel good and happy?

Your implying it wouldnt feel like anything, just neutral and passive. No good , no happyness right? Yes or no

[Desperado †]

If I give to a charity and you don't. I did some extra 'good' you did not.

Exactly, so you are good, whereas I am not. But if we both gave to charity, and both where the only beings in the universe, some third party observer wouldn't describe it as good.

If I give to a charity and you burn it down and eat the office staff, that makes your actions evil and mine were still good. You didn't need to murder them all for my actions to be good.

If we were the only beings in the universe and I had also given to charity equally, yes I would have to.

I think the concept missing here is neutral, which should upset any dungeon masters.

Whether or not you want to define 'bad' as a lack of good or anti-good (please explain how that would work), you're showing that adjectives can only be used in relative. If you still can't understand, split it into 'good' and 'lack of good'.

Just consider this. If everything was red, we wouldn't describe something as red, because there is no need. The adjective red would not exist (and neither would blue or purple etc.).

[Banana Jelly]

I believe that god made nature. He let nature take it's toll. He let us specially have the knowledge to overcome obstacles. He let us have the knowledge to know how to protect ourselves from some types of pain and suffering. But some are mandatory, as nature has to run it's course. I don't believe god is malevolent just because he allow's evil or "bad" thing's to happen. Such as poverty. We have the power to stray afar from it.

[gambit]

If God wanted us to have an understanding and growth of hardships, why wouldnt he simply hardwire the knowledge into our DNA? Considering a significant portion of our personalities and most of our instincts stem from genetics, it seems pointless to make us go through a trial of such faiths, which means another good portion of us probably wont succeed said trial, when he could just "program" the eventual growth into us from the very beginning and 100% of every single human soul would be at God's disposal for whatever reason he wants us to live, even if its just to live.

No, its much more likely we live in a godless world, or God is simply much less perfect than he claims to be

[Adrian]

Many people seem to think that God should protect us from all pain and suffering, and others think that there is no God, as there is pain and suffering. The rationale, I suppose, is that God is supposed to love mankind as his children; however, some say God is a poor -and non-existent- father because of this assertion. But, is it not true that a parent must let their children suffer for them to grow? Is it not true that a child must eventually overcome their hardships individually. Is it not true that when success is earned it is worth far more than when it is given freely?

Could we then argue that God allows the human race to suffer so that it can learn and improve itself? Could we then argue that any God that may exist is allowing the race to suffer for its own good? To me, freedoms and advances in society are all the more precious and valuable because we know what life was like before they came into existence.

How does god play into that ? we are we progress by any means we can where the does "god" play into that ?


What we see is human nature and ingenuity thats not god thats us

[iudas]

I don't believe in God and that has zero to do with moral or philosophical concerns.

One cannot imagine humans without pain and suffering - these are biological mechanisms that appeared many millions of years before humans. I like being a human. I'm fine with suffering and eventually dying.

[Kamonlas007]

Life without pain and suffering would make us, well we wouldn't be human then, its as much as part of our emotions as it is everything that exist in this world