Causes of Suffering

[no1tovote4]

This is an example of the Argumentum ad Populorum fallacy:
popular opinion has nothing to do with any attribute of your
writing except that some people like it. They might have no
idea what you are talking about, and say they understand
everything when all they really understand is that you are
on God’s side.

We can test it through other forums as well, just as I tested your construct in my last post...

This is boring.





I do not want to leave anyone out.





Duscussed in my last post.






Boring.





Boring.

... And thus the discussion ends.

 

[no1tovote4]

This is an example of the Argumentum ad Populorum fallacy:
popular opinion has nothing to do with any attribute of your
writing except that some people like it. They might have no
idea what you are talking about, and say they understand
everything when all they really understand is that you are
on God’s side.

It was actually internal speculation... Most attempts at extremely dry humor fail miserably on the internet...

 

[kurtsprincess]

What standards do you set?

The list is vast and complex and none are set so solid in stone (moral imperative) as to keep me from being open minded to endless possibilities that there is something that I don't even know that I don't know. As I gain more knowledge my standards may change shape and texture.

You do not disagree that there exists any
moral obligation to prevent suffering, do you?

Yes, I do disagree. Therein lies the vast difference in our perspectives.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I am going to stand by what I said as a self-evident truth.
Merely because we do not always follow it does not make
it less true.

The goal of adherence is to prolong and enhance human life.

Are you saying that only those who have not suffered have a long and enhanced life?

Te creator has infinitely greater powers to make his
choices reality. Human beings had no ability to stop
the spread of plagues until about 150 years ago. God
chose to allow these plagues to evolve when He could
as easily have prevented their existence to begin with.

Everything has a purpose, even if the purpose does not present itself within a million lifetimes. Why would you suppose you should be privvy to that purpose? This isn't your game; you don't get to set the rules; make new ones or berate the one who created the game.

What is the “foundational standard”?

The ground rule that was set in motion upon creation. Whether it is a conscious choice or an unconscious, "hard wired", instinctual will to survive. Everything was created and then the wild card of "choice or free will" was given as the standard by which all else would result.

I set it, in the context of this thread. I think many if not
most people would agree it applies to human beings.
It is the next step of applying it to God where many have
objections, unreasonably so, in my opinion.

If that were so, do you not agree that there truly would be less suffering in the world? The majority of suffering by humans is caused by humans. Therefore, the moral imperative message to prevent suffering hasn't taken hold very well, has it?

I have not been trying to. The connection has never occurred
to me, and I wish to know what makes it occur to you.

It occurs to me because I have held onto a living being when the energy/soul left the physical body. I have experienced the transition. It is not easily explained, but easily becomes a "knowing".

 

[kurtsprincess]

A person who is not religious would have to substitute
some philosophical ethical system. This might be taken
in part from religion, as in observing all the Ten Commandments
except the first.

I am not a religous person Viking. My "substitute philosophical ethical system" is to treat everyone with dignity and respect. And, as in most ethical systems, there will be times when I fail, but my intention is the same.

Yes, but I do not believe the analogy is useful
on account of the powers possessed by God
which the automobile manufacturers do not possess.

I guess your point would be that the creator of automobiles cannot step in and stop the production of autos......which is the cause of much suffering. Whereas, you believe that the creator should stop the production of anything that might cause suffering.

What should the creator do about the sun? Or about the ocean? Or about rain? The list of things that cause suffering (and joy) is endless. What is joy for some is a cause of suffering for others. Each of us would have to have our own, complete universe in order to satisfy all our needs, wants and desires. This is not that place.

If I might borrow your automobile example, I myself
have had three close calls while driving. All could
have resulted in my death, and others’ deaths due
to my negligence. As it was, no one was hurt, and
no damage done except to my cars.

Are you personally taking credit for not causing suffering in the above scenarios? How do you reconcile that it was all your doing and that the creator had nothing to so with the fact that an accident was averted in all three instances?

I wish God had instilled in me and all other people
some more pronounced sense of responsibility,
and perhaps a fear of travelling at high speeds rather
than a love of it.

People who drive slow also cause accidents. Very responsible people have caused accidents. Responsible people who consistently drive slow, or within the speed limit, have caused accidents (and I assume, suffering).

Do you not see how one is unable to apply a general rule to something. There will always be a counter-point that is just as valid.


Viking, thank you for the continued discussion. I've enjoyed it. I've also enjoyed reading the viewpoints of all participants in this discussion. It's been very enlightening and stimulating.

I'm off to visit with the grandkids for a few days and will be unable to continue. Take care all.

 

[USViking]

Nonsense, colloquial usages are often different in other areas. Hence we have explanation to back it up....

What is the name of your substandard dictionary?

And it was lacking in logical application as was clearly pointed out. Attempting to direct question to a specificity not originally assumed or salient to the argument is an attempt at digression and does not add to the argument.

Rot. You asked:
You really have no concept of the term spiritual growth?
I answered:
I take it to mean something like continuous improvement in conforming to the will of God.
I believe my answer was so winningly and shockingly
sound that it has caused you to have a panic attack,
from which you have yet to recover, as your persisting
babbling demonstates.

No, those quotes came later after the correct application of the fallacies you have attempted to use to support a fallacious foundation of argument, they are simply part and parcel of the poisoned fruit...

No, the quotes came after failure by you to comprehend
plain English.

That was the entirety of the point, you suggest certainty where there is none in your fallacious argument by oversimplification. I have pointed out many different scenarios that more than prove that it was a simplification to an extreme and thus a fallacious argument.

Ad Naseum is attempting to repeat it after it was proven fallacious, and this is only done because you do not objectively look at your own illogical construct.

Boring.

Almost nothing in here has been based on my faith, you attempt to erect another strawman. Just another fallacy in a desperate attempt to hold onto a fallacious foundation.

It is not a strawman. You are under the mistaken impression
the beliefs you are defending (whether they are actually yours,
or not) have some foundation in logic- this is not peripheral to
your argument, it is central. The truth that your logic is corrupt,
and you have nothing to base your beliefs on except faith.

What I call "realization" is but one suggested definition... You keep attempting to direct certainty where none was suggested. Still another attempt at the strawman fallacy.

The only certainty I directed your attention to was that
your suggested definition rested on faith alone, and it does.

I mean that often people learn the most when they have the most need to change their circumstance, that suffering often produces need and need often will add to knowledge while complacency will never add to knowledge whether physical or spiritual. Some forms of suffering are not even within the physical...

How does this platitude concern the case of a dying two year-old, or entire
communities drowning in a flood?

Let's use another analogy...

Assume first that I am a terrible teacher of mathematics, but am able to do math with ease... (pshhh, assume no assumption needed here.)

I have three daughters, sometimes when the oldest is working on a particular difficult math problem she suffers in her frustration... While emotionally I want to relieve her suffering and to do this I could simply do the problem for her and thus ease her suffering; but then what would she learn and what would happen when the test came? Her suffering would be worse because she never mastered an understanding of the problems that she is now faced with. Now she ends up failing as well...

By attempting to ease her suffering, I first didn't allow her to learn and master what she could, I wouldn't be allowing her to be all that she can be, then secondly I set her up for failure in the future. What I did was far worse than allowing her to suffer through the frustration.

In fact by attempting to ease her temporary suffering (the body) I have actually caused more in the future... It would, in fact, be morally imperative for me to let her work through the problem, suffer her frustration, learn the subject matter and thus increase her understanding.

This is suffering for education....

I won’t argue with this at face value.

However, it is a strawman of your own. Your daughter’s suffering
is in this case trivial compared to the catastrophic forms of suffering
which are the true subject of this thread. God is not immoral because
he fails to keep us from stubbing our toes (or having trouble with our
homework). He is immoral because he fails to keep us from being
infected with fatal malignancies, and other omissions leading to
agonizing pain, mutilation, loss of life, and bereavement.

Now let's apply your construct to this one and see if it does allow for the larger picture...

1. I have an imperative to relieve her suffering. (I must do her math homework for her or I am immoral...)

2. I have the power to prevent her suffering. (I can do that math homework.)]
…hence you do not actually have the power to prevent her suffering
by doing her homework.

3. I have failed to prevent her suffering numerous times. (I always refuse to do her math homework.)

4. Therefore I have failed to do what is morally imperative. (I am a terrible and uncaring immoral father who has allowed his child to suffer.)
Now let's apply my insistence on a larger picture...

By not relieving her immediate suffering (in this analogy it is comparative to suffering in this physical life.) I have actually relieved her suffering, or made it much less, specifically on test day (analogous to the spiritual existence that may come after). Did I do the right thing? ]

Your construct fails the most basic of tests, it is therefore a logical fallacy. Now we work to determine what made it fallacious.

It didn't take into account the larger picture... (a few that I have put forward: test day, spiritual existence, more than this body, that sometimes we may benefit from suffering and therfore it is not morally imperative to relieve suffering, but in fact morally imperative to allow it...) And thus we find that it failed at its inception by oversimplifying the issue. It failed at step one, any further argument based on the foundation of this argument is simply a continuation of a fallacious argument....

All this is merely an elaboration of your strawman.

It depends on the belief system you are questioning. Such as the one of the Bible which suggests disease would not exist without sin. That because of the failure of man to stay within the paramaters set by the spiritual there was released on man his own suffering.

We could also argue that without the suffering of the disease mankind wouldn't have learned even as much as they have about how the body and mind work, our understanding would be at the most basic of levels. If God followed your construct and thus catered to our every need our complacency would regard no need to even ask the questions that we have used to advance ourselves so far.

Those are just two of the possibilities, other belief sets would provide different answers....

I will reserve possible comment on these for later.

We are not arguing my belief set, and they are therefore not salient to the discussion. This is another attempt at distraction from the fact that you have put forward fallacious logic to support your assertions.

All "belief sets" are salient to this discussion.

Rubbish, this is once again focusing only in the physical to the detriment of the spiritual, by ignoring the larger picture you once again enter the original fallacy of oversimplifying the argument. That there may be reasons that we do not yet understand in this lifetime is clear (just as my daughter didn't understand why I refused to do her work at first), that you refuse to speculate beyond your own limited understanding is also clear. But it doesn't add to the argument, it is simply another ad naseum repitition of the same fallacy.

Those who have departed this life may enjoy revelation in the
spiritual realm. However, those of us who are still here can
enjoy no revelation except that which intrudes on the physical.
All perfectly logical, and simple.

Rubbish, I put that as one way that they can be part of a larger picture that you still refuse to speculate on.

Part of a logical construct is its ability to withstand this type of speculation, yours was lacking from its inception, it cannot answer the questions when it is applied, it has oversimplified on important segments.

This is not a logical construct, it is a statement of faith.
As such, it cannot be disproven, although it could easly
be proven by an act of revelation.

God can be both moral and allow suffering, your construct failed to produce the answers and therefore failed in its inception. This has been the point of the argument from the beginning, your construct is flawed. I have shown it by first asking questions that your construct could not answer, then by actually applying the construct to other areas that tested the very first part of the construct, the moral imperative to relieve suffering... It was found to be lacking from that very first step.

Boring.

Once again, you erect a strawman. You have not heard me discuss even once my own beliefs (other than to mention that I have them and was not going to discuss them), so far I have put forward questions... just speculation to test your own oversimplified logical construct that has failed at every attempt to answer the questions when applied.

You have said you are a Buddhist. I believe the position of God
in Buddhism is actually peripheral, so I should have omitted reference
to Him. Your emphasis on the spiritual is not peripheral, and I
will not withdraw any other part of my specualtive comment.

This is a view, and as my beliefs hold nothing in this conversation we have been having, so yours too do not.

I am working on this post to bring this conversation back to the original intent, to test your logical construct and see if it can withstand the scrutiny...

Scrutiny of beiefs has been the sole purpose of this thread.
That you have chosen the affectation of defending beliefs
you do not actually hold yourself is beside the point.

It failed.

You failed.

 

[no1tovote4]

What is the name of your substandard dictionary?

Don't be such a dink! I used explanations to give you a more in depth explanation of my meaning.

Rot. You asked:
You really have no concept of the term spiritual growth?
I answered:
I take it to mean something like continuous improvement in conforming to the will of God.
I believe my answer was so winningly and shockingly
sound that it has caused you to have a panic attack,
from which you have yet to recover, as your persisting
babbling demonstates.

I don't care if it was. It is not salient to the discussion at hand which is testing your logic construct to see if it was valid. I provide scenarios and then we test your construct to see if it fits. So far it has failed in every case. Your construct is a failed construct and thus it is a logical fallacy. The only uncertainty would be which fallacy was used at that point...

No, the quotes came after failure by you to comprehend
plain English.

Rubbish, the quotes came to attempt to support the more limited view which your construct must have in order to be a valid construct. Each one was another attempt to prop up a fallacy.

Boring.

Translation: Unanswerable...

It is not a strawman. You are under the mistaken impression
the beliefs you are defending (whether they are actually yours,
or not) have some foundation in logic- this is not peripheral to
your argument, it is central. The truth that your logic is corrupt,
and you have nothing to base your beliefs on except faith.

I am not defending any beliefs at all, only providing possibilities to test your construct. You keep, purposefully IMO, missing the point of the conversation which was a test of your construct. It even failed in the more limited physical implementation under which you at first supposed that it must exist.

The only certainty I directed your attention to was that
your suggested definition rested on faith alone, and it does.

Mine does not rest on faith at all, I have not provided any specific set of beliefs only possibilities to test your construct. Your limited understanding of testing a logic construct shows a lack of the basic understanding of logic constructs, as well as a misconception of how a test is applied. It never suggests a certainty only possibilities or probabilities that can be tested against the construct.

(Using a substandard Logic Textbook? )

If you attempted to apply such a failed construct in your chemistry class you would fail, if you attempted to apply it in a logic class you would surely fail.

How does this platitude concern the case of a dying two year-old, or entire
communities drowning in a flood?

A larger view... Much larger... That of eternal life, that of social understanding as well as individual understanding... Even the flood can create for us a greater understanding of how the physical world we live in and progress our knowledge... Those are three possibilities of how we might improve our lot because of the suffering in ways that we would not through complacency.

I won’t argue with this at face value.

However, it is a strawman of your own. Your daughter’s suffering
is in this case trivial compared to the catastrophic forms of suffering
which are the true subject of this thread. God is not immoral because
he fails to keep us from stubbing our toes (or having trouble with our
homework). He is immoral because he fails to keep us from being
infected with fatal malignancies, and other omissions leading to
agonizing pain, mutilation, loss of life, and bereavement.

No, it was a direct testing of your construct. It even fails in the more limited physical existence under which it was first constructed.

All this is merely an elaboration of your strawman.

All this is just an attempt to use the name of the same fallacy I proved yours to be. In my scenario I did not put forward any part that you had not stated. In yours you have, consistently throughout. First attempting to say I have provided certainties, then later just making up assertions that never even existed (such as defense of any faiths... or of any of the possibilities suggested against which to test your theorem...)

I will reserve possible comment on these for later.





All "belief sets" are salient to this discussion.

Only as "possibilities" to test your construct against. Otherwise they are just wrapping paper. I have specifically chosen to not use my religious beliefs in this thread, there is no need to proselytize when my only point of discussion is a test of your construct.

Those who have departed this life may enjoy revelation in the
spiritual realm. However, those of us who are still here can
enjoy no revelation except that which intrudes on the physical.
All perfectly logical, and simple.

Except those here can grow spiritually, use their suffering to learn to be better people. To say that they cannot means you actually believe that nobody can learn from a mistake. It is simply hogwash.

This is not a logical construct, it is a statement of faith.
As such, it cannot be disproven, although it could easly
be proven by an act of revelation.

Except it must be a construct as it was what you posted in answer to my question: Where is your logic?

So, it was given as a logic construct and thus was tested as one. As I stated before, had you simply stated "This is what I believe, it isn't based in logic." the conversation would have ended there.

Boring.





You have said you are a Buddhist. I believe the position of God
in Buddhism is actually peripheral, so I should have omitted reference
to Him. Your emphasis on the spiritual is not peripheral, and I
will not withdraw any other part of my specualtive comment.

Regardless, any views I have expressed in this thread have nothing to do with my beliefs and are simply possibilities against which to test your construct.

Scrutiny of beiefs has been the sole purpose of this thread.
That you have chosen the affectation of defending beliefs
you do not actually hold yourself is beside the point.


You failed.

However it was not the purpose of our conversation, which was "Where is your logic, USViking?" to which you answered with the constructy which I have been testing and finding wanting throughout the thread. The construct fails it is based on a fallacious foundation of logic.

 

[USViking]

A moral obligation ? Who are we morally obliged to?

To ourselves, and other human beings

 

[USViking]

The list is vast and complex and none are set so solid in stone (moral imperative) as to keep me from being open minded to endless possibilities that there is something that I don't even know that I don't know. As I gain more knowledge my standards may change shape and texture.

OK- your standards are sort of a moving target.

Yes, I do disagree. Therein lies the vast difference in our perspectives.

So there was no moral obligation to eradicate
smallpox, for example?

 

[USViking]

Are you saying that only those who have not suffered have a long and enhanced life?

No.

Everything has a purpose, even if the purpose does not present itself within a million lifetimes. Why would you suppose you should be privvy to that purpose? This isn't your game; you don't get to set the rules; make new ones or berate the one who created the game.

You are comfortable with this, I am revolted by it-
another impasse.

The ground rule that was set in motion upon creation. Whether it is a conscious choice or an unconscious, "hard wired", instinctual will to survive. Everything was created and then the wild card of "choice or free will" was given as the standard by which all else would result.

What I was getting at is that there are events which
seem unconnected with consciousness, choice, or will.
An asteroid hitting the Earth, and wiping us all out
would be a dramatic example.

If that were so, do you not agree that there truly would be less suffering in the world? The majority of suffering by humans is caused by humans. Therefore, the moral imperative message to prevent suffering hasn't taken hold very well, has it?

Of course there would be less suffering, and obviuosly
the moral imperative is not being followed by many people.

It occurs to me because I have held onto a living being when the energy/soul left the physical body. I have experienced the transition. It is not easily explained, but easily becomes a "knowing".

I suppose the soul might as easily be material as spiritual.
I think I read the Stoics took this view.

 

[LOki]

1) Death to Self- It is very painful to give up your own will and choose to follow Jesus. This is the basic choice in becoming a Christian. God puts us through this to test our will, to make us show Him where our loyalty lies.

I think human sacrifice is wrong--even if it's sacrificing the self. I think that the call to human sacrifice is a leading cause of world suffering.

2) The Cross-When Jesus carried His cross, he was alone, mocked, and persecuted. Our cross is the persecution, mockery, judgment, and hatred of the people around us, even in our own families, that we incur when we turn away from the world and choose to follow Him.

I think torture is wrong. I think glorifying torture is wrong. I question the morality of sanctifying the torture of human beings or a particular human being. I think elevating torture to a moral virtue is a recipe for more torture and greater suffering in the world.

3) Sin- when we sin, we suffer the heart pain of being separated from God. Sin also has consequences, which we must bear.

Maybe this explains the moral pain I experiance when I consider glorifying and celebrating torture, human misery, and human sacrifice.

4) Refiner's Fire- this type of suffering is "undeserved." This is something that God puts us through to teach us, purify & empty us, to "refine us like gold."

Refusal to accept this undeserved suffering (upon myself or upon others) is probably why most Christians think I'm going to hell.

 

[USViking]

I am not a religous person Viking. My "substitute philosophical ethical system" is to treat everyone with dignity and respect. And, as in most ethical systems, there will be times when I fail, but my intention is the same.

“Dignity and respect”, but if you pass someone tied
to the railroad tracks you just keep on walking because
you have no moral obligation to prevent their suffering.

I guess your point would be that the creator of automobiles cannot step in and stop the production of autos...... which is the cause of much suffering

It is not the automobiles which causes suffering,
it is the behavior of the drivers.

Whereas, you believe that the creator should stop the production of anything that might cause suffering.

Whereas no matter how virtuous our behavior, we are
still susceptible to malaria, smallpox, malignancies, birth
defects, earthquakes, tornados, etc., etc., etc.

What should the creator do about the sun? Or about the ocean? Or about rain? The list of things that cause suffering (and joy) is endless.

He can eliminate any of the hazards these pose.

What is joy for some is a cause of suffering for others.

There are some things, such as cancer, which we may agree
no one finds any joy in.

Each of us would have to have our own, complete universe in order to satisfy all our needs, wants and desires. This is not that place.

I believe the Earth can satisfy our needs, if we manage
them sensibly. Wants and desires do not fall within the
scope of this discussion.

Are you personally taking credit for not causing suffering in the above scenarios?

How could you possibly ask this?

How do you reconcile that it was all your doing and that the creator had nothing to so with the fact that an accident was averted in all three instances?

I do not understand what you are asking me to reconcile.

In two of my cases an accident was not averted. Due to
chance, luck, or fate injury was what was averted.

People who drive slow also cause accidents.

The point I was making was that there is a fairly close,
though not absolute correlation between vehicular speed
and the severity of accidents.

Of course someone who is Very responsible people have caused accidents. Responsible people who consistently drive slow, or within the speed limit, have caused accidents (and I assume, suffering).

They were in no case behaving responsibly when their
error contributed to an accident.

Do you not see how one is unable to apply a general rule to something. There will always be a counter-point that is just as valid.

No, there will not- this is the essence of the strawman fallacy:
focusing on trivial exeptions, and then claiming the entire
argument is refuted.

Viking, thank you for the continued discussion. I've enjoyed it. I've also enjoyed reading the viewpoints of all participants in this discussion. It's been very enlightening and stimulating.

I'm off to visit with the grandkids for a few days and will be unable to continue. Take care all.

Have fun!

 

[USViking]

Don't be such a dink! I used explanations to give you a more in depth explanation of my meaning.

I’ll let it go for now, but since you are being coy I suspect
this dictionary is another one of your concoctions.

I don't care if it was. It is not salient to the discussion at hand which is testing your logic construct to see if it was valid. I provide scenarios and then we test your construct to see if it fits. So far it has failed in every case. Your construct is a failed construct and thus it is a logical fallacy. The only uncertainty would be which fallacy was used at that point...

You asked an independent, autonomous question,
and you got an independent, autonomous, simple,
honest answer.

Rubbish, the quotes came to attempt to support the more limited view which your construct must have in order to be a valid construct. Each one was another attempt to prop up a fallacy.

The quotes came from the part of this thread prior
to the beginning of our exchanges, which you had
failed to familiarize yourself with, and so commited
one of your many blunders.

Translation: Unanswerable...

No, just boring.

I am not defending any beliefs at all, only providing possibilities to test your construct. You keep, purposefully IMO, missing the point of the conversation which was a test of your construct. It even failed in the more limited physical implementation under which you at first supposed that it must exist.

Fine, substitute “possibilities” for “beliefs” in what I said,
and you are still left with your corrupt logic, and sole reliance
on faith rather than evidence and reason.

Mine does not rest on faith at all, I have not provided any specific set of beliefs only possibilities to test your construct. Your limited understanding of testing a logic construct shows a lack of the basic understanding of logic constructs, as well as a misconception of how a test is applied. It never suggests a certainty only possibilities or probabilities that can be tested against the construct.

(Using a substandard Logic Textbook? )

Fine, substitute “possibilities” for “beliefs” in what I said,
and you are still left with your corrupt logic, and sole reliance
on faith rather than evidence and reason.

If you attempted to apply such a failed construct in your chemistry class you would fail, if you attempted to apply it in a logic class you would surely fail.

I happen to have made Phi Beta Kappa.(19 As, 16 Bs, 5 Cs)
No chemistry though, and only one philosophy course.

A larger view... Much larger... That of eternal life, that of social understanding as well as individual understanding... Even the flood can create for us a greater understanding of how the physical world we live in and progress our knowledge... Those are three possibilities of how we might improve our lot because of the suffering in ways that we would not through complacency.

Your tiresome “larger view” should encompass smaller views
as well. You assume, on faith and nothing else, that this larger
view, arising from the spiritual realm, nullifies all suffering in
the physical realm. You are entitled to do so. I am as entitled to
reject it, and to cite lack of evidence not as proof of my stance,
but as grounds for skepticism.

I won’t argue with this at face value.

However, it is a strawman of your own. Your daughter’s
sufferings in this case trivial compared to the catastrophic
forms of suffering which are the true subject of this thread.
God is not immoral because He fails to keep us from stubbing
our toes (or having trouble with ourhomework). He is immoral
because he fails to keep us from beinginfected with fatal
malignancies, and other omissions leading toagonizing pain,
mutilation, loss of life, and bereavement.

No, it was a direct testing of your construct. It even fails in the more limited physical existence under which it was first constructed.

No, it is a classical strawman argument, another Humpty-Dumpty
of yours which is completely shattered and beyond repair.

All this is just an attempt to use the name of the same fallacy I proved yours to be. In my scenario I did not put forward any part that you had not stated. In yours you have, consistently throughout. First attempting to say I have provided certainties, then later just making up assertions that never even existed (such as defense of any faiths... or of any of the possibilities suggested against which to test your theorem...)

I successfully identified a fallacy commited by you,
one never commited by me

Only as "possibilities" to test your construct against. Otherwise they are just wrapping paper. I have specifically chosen to not use my religious beliefs in this thread, there is no need to proselytize when my only point of discussion is a test of your construct.

Except those here can grow spiritually, use their suffering to learn to be better people. To say that they cannot means you actually believe that nobody can learn from a mistake. It is simply hogwash.

Except it must be a construct as it was what you posted in answer to my question: Where is your logic?

So, it was given as a logic construct and thus was tested as one. As I stated before, had you simply stated "This is what I believe, it isn't based in logic." the conversation would have ended there.

Regardless, any views I have expressed in this thread have nothing to do with my beliefs and are simply possibilities against which to test your construct.

However it was not the purpose of our conversation, which was "Where is your logic, USViking?" to which you answered with the constructy which I have been testing and finding wanting throughout the thread. The construct fails it is based on a fallacious foundation of logic.

You have allowed your posts to degenerate into a tiresome
rehash, re-rehash, and re-re-rehash of earlier statements.

I will continue to monitor what you may have to say for
something new that I can sink my teeth into. If you keep
posting what I have already chewed up and spat out, then
I may not have nothing further to say.

I bid you a tentative farewell.

 

[Annie]

I’ll let it go for now, but since you are being coy I suspect
this dictionary is another one of your concoctions.


You asked an independent, autonomous question,
and you got an independent, autonomous, simple,
honest answer.





The quotes came from the part of this thread prior
to the beginning of our exchanges, which you had
failed to familiarize yourself with, and so commited
one of your many blunders.





No, just boring.





Fine, substitute “possibilities” for “beliefs” in what I said,
and you are still left with your corrupt logic, and sole reliance
on faith rather than evidence and reason.





Fine, substitute “possibilities” for “beliefs” in what I said,
and you are still left with your corrupt logic, and sole reliance
on faith rather than evidence and reason.





I happen to have made Phi Beta Kappa.(19 As, 16 Bs, 5 Cs)
No chemistry though, and only one philosophy course.






Your tiresome “larger view” should encompass smaller views
as well. You assume, on faith and nothing else, that this larger
view, arising from the spiritual realm, nullifies all suffering in
the physical realm. You are entitled to do so. I am as entitled to
reject it, and to cite lack of evidence not as proof of my stance,
but as grounds for skepticism.






No, it is a classical strawman argument, another Humpty-Dumpty
of yours which is completely shattered and beyond repair.





I successfully identified a fallacy commited by you,
one never commited by me





You have allowed your posts to degenerate into a tiresome
rehash, re-rehash, and re-re-rehash of earlier statements.

I will continue to monitor what you may have to say for
something new that I can sink my teeth into. If you keep
posting what I have already chewed up and spat out, then
I may not have nothing further to say.

I bid you a tentative farewell.

You have allowed your posts to demonstrate that you are a self-righteous bore. I'm unsure why anyone would have spent the time no1 did, except he, for some reasons, thought you were worth it.

 

[no1tovote4]

I’ll let it go for now, but since you are being coy I suspect
this dictionary is another one of your concoctions.

You asked an independent, autonomous question,
and you got an independent, autonomous, simple,
honest answer.

That started our conversation, an independant one, and started me questioning the logic construct that was an autonomous, simple, honest answer. It was all done in good faith.

The quotes came from the part of this thread prior
to the beginning of our exchanges, which you had
failed to familiarize yourself with, and so commited
one of your many blunders.

However, as above, I posted an autonomous question which you answered. Thus began our conversation specifically on the logic construct you posted to answer the question, "Where is your logic?"

No, just boring.

Whatever.

Fine, substitute “possibilities” for “beliefs” in what I said,
and you are still left with your corrupt logic, and sole reliance
on faith rather than evidence and reason.

Rubbish. The only way to test a logic construct is with possibilities that might or might not be covered within the construct. The way to tell if the construct is lacking is when it cannot answer the questions set forward in the possibilities.

Fine, substitute “possibilities” for “beliefs” in what I said,
and you are still left with your corrupt logic, and sole reliance
on faith rather than evidence and reason.

As above.

I happen to have made Phi Beta Kappa.(19 As, 16 Bs, 5 Cs)
No chemistry though, and only one philosophy course.

And therein probably lies the faulty understanding of how a logic construct is tested.

Your tiresome “larger view” should encompass smaller views
as well. You assume, on faith and nothing else, that this larger
view, arising from the spiritual realm, nullifies all suffering in
the physical realm. You are entitled to do so. I am as entitled to
reject it, and to cite lack of evidence not as proof of my stance,
but as grounds for skepticism.

It is only "tiresome" because it is within these possibilities that is found the questions that are unanswered by your construct and therefore show your construct to be a logical fallacy.

No, it is a classical strawman argument, another Humpty-Dumpty
of yours which is completely shattered and beyond repair.

Except it has nothing to do with a strawman fallacy. In order to create a strawman I must create a "statement" by you that was not asserted, I have not done this.

So far the only strawman here is when you attempt to equate possibility with certainty.

I successfully identified a fallacy commited by you,
one never commited by me

Only committed by you. I have shown how it was not committed by me. I have given the quotes and shown where you have stated what you have said you had not stated. Thus the "fallacy" was shown to be a false fallacy.

However you have failed to prove one single certainty that I have posted. Thus building your strawman to take down.

You have allowed your posts to degenerate into a tiresome
rehash, re-rehash, and re-re-rehash of earlier statements.

I will continue to monitor what you may have to say for
something new that I can sink my teeth into. If you keep
posting what I have already chewed up and spat out, then
I may not have nothing further to say.

I bid you a tentative farewell.

That is fine, the only reason I re-hash is because you seem to think you can rebuild your construct when I am not looking by saying "Strawman" with no evidence of such. I have shown your strawman and burned the thing to the ground. You have yet to prove I have made such a construct at all. In fact, I have made no attempt to make a construct, just to test yours.

I tested it with the larger picture, it failed. I tested it within your constraints of this lifetime using an analogy, it failed again. It failed at the original statement that there is a moral imperative to relieve all suffering. I have shown how suffering can make one grow, both intellectually and with the larger view how it could possibly make one grow spiritually and with that have shown that the imperative to relieve suffering as presented could actually be detrimental in the end. You have answered with a statement of faith.... You must prove your possibilities with a certainty... It is rubbish and not in any logic textbook you will bring to bear. We test constructs with possibilities, we found yours to lack.

If it is simply a statement of faith, then relate it as such, I will then allow you to believe in your faith with no constraint, if it is a statement of logic (as you presented it in answer to my question of logic) then it has been shown to be fallacious and a new construct needs to be created and tested that expands its boundaries to answer the questions of the possibilities presented.

I have not stated you are wrong in your conclusion, only in your logic. One can come up with the right answer even when the construct is illogical. But once proven illogical it becomes simply disingenuous to insist in the logic of the construct.

 

[shepherdboy]

I have a real problem with #4.

For example, in what sense can a two-year-old who dies
of a brain tumor be said to have been "taught, purified", etc.?

The same goes for the two-year-old's family even though
some of them, being adults, may be capable of being taught
in ways a two-year-old cannot.

Their our lessons that only the Soul of a human being can understand. That two year old can have those lesson applied to his or hers soul in ways we can not comprehend or understand. The Lord God who is rich in love and mercy can reach anyone in any state of life to fulfill His purpose.