Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn’s intense suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn’s suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawn’s suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawn’s suffering been prevented. Could an omnipotent, omniscient being have prevented the fawn’s apparently pointless suffering? The answer is obvious, as even the theist will insist. An omnipotent, omniscient being could have easily prevented the fawn from being horribly burned, or, given the burning, could have spared the fawn the intense suffering by quickly ending its life, rather than allowing the fawn to lie in terrible agony for several days. Since the fawn’s intense suffering was preventable and, so far as we can see, pointless, doesn’t it appear that … there do exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse?
To see the truth behind the appearances of realitt. I don't believe in this God for moral validation. That's not an option for anyone who is totally honest about the pain and suffering in the universe. But there is something to it all, and if you can't have moral comfort you might as well go for broke with the truth
Um, yes, sure, there are instances of suffering an omnipotent being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good. But so what? Suffering (especially of animals) isn't something inconsistent with God's nature to allow.
You know Epicurus is a polytheist, right?
Are Atheists willing to read sources, but not able?
Then they are not intelligent or educated.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh this image?
Is he neither able, nor willing?
Then why is he on /his/?
Lol. What makes you think God isn't the truth? Truth = Objective Reality = God. Puerile education that you posses.
What makes you so certain that suffering of any kind is pointless? Your presumption is merely that. A presumption. Why would an Omni-Being such as God allow anything pointless to happen AT ALL? Is that even possible? No, because it would undo your whole argument as well as the absoluteness of God's omnipresence. Holes in your logic.
>if animals can't speak english then their experiences are fake
This is fucking preposterous.
They feel pain, sadness, loss, happiness, fear etc. Are you a psychopath? If a mute human being cannot speak while he/she is being burned alive, does that invalidate his/her suffering? No it doesn't. And it never will.
You're just plain delusional. I'm astounded.
>misunderstanding the definition of "consciousness" vs. "sapience"
The overwhelming non-existence of any indication in the slightest that god exists.
>Truth = Objective Reality = God
Is claiming "god" means whatever you want it to mean some spicy new meme?
Your opinions hold no weight in an argument that contextually assumes the existence of God, which is exactly what this thread is doing. We are discussing the meaning of suffering in relation to God. So, if you're going to try to convince anyone that God does not exist, it should be OP. Fucking autist.
If you kick a dog in the face it will make a very loud noise and proceed to be very upset.
The fact that something yells in pain when you hurt it is just as valid a reason to believe it actually is in pain as someone telling you it hurts. You wouldn't just assume they're lying and it doesn't really hurt, so why would you assume an animal's cries are just for show?
I'm laughing at this rn. What a convienient explanation. "God exists but we can't comprehend him so I don't need to prove jack"
>extremely tragic event happens
>no apparent reason, just how life happens
>don't worry guise, god did this for a reason but we just don't know why cuz we're mere mortals
What's the point?
>If you kick a dog in the face it will make a very loud noise
>and proceed to be very upset.
Not agreed. You're interpreting this. The dog lacks language, the dog lacks consciousness, you are imposing your own language based opinion on the internal state of the dog.
You are anthropomorphising the dog. YOU ARE LITERALLY FURRY.
The death of that fawn serves a purpose: the propagation of further life in the form of decomposition bacteria and flora such as conifers that can only spawn in the flames of forest fires. Furthermore, the death of that deer provided humanity with a thought experiment that contrarian atheists can use to circlejerk over the supposed inexistence of a divinity they shouldn't care about, which is truly a fruitful endeavor, no?
I know I'm interpreting it.
But you must also understand that when someone tells you it hurts you're also interpreting their words. There's a million and one ways you can read into what someone means by saying that, and if they don't speak your language you couldn't read into it at all so it would be no more coherent than an animal's cries of pain. But what a rational person would do is take the most obvious solution here, that they are indeed in pain.
> the dog lacks consciousness
That's a bold declaration. Do you have any proof?
You aren't really making an argument here are you? None of the people you replied to had, or were describing the type of beliefs in a god that you are trying to bait with this r/atheism tier thread.
In humans, the nervous system is well understood and the feeling of pain is accepted universally to arise as a consequence of it. It is also indisputable that many other animals, including dogs and fawns, have a nervous system.
Theists are both willing and able to make the most extraordinary mental leap to faith in a creator deity that has revealed himself to man in a highly specific way that has to do with the complex history and mythology of a peoples originating somewhere in or near the land of canaan thousands of years ago, despite the weight of historical and scientific evidence being against this.
But when asked to make the perfectly rational leap that a nervous system belonging to another mammal acts upon it in a way similar to the way that it is well understood to act upon humans, an inference that is held almost universally by thinking men and is on the balance of probabilities by far the most likely truth, the theist replies that this chasm is far too wide for him to jump across, and folds his arms in denial that it can be bridged.
Leaping to the belief that the canaanite god of war is real and is the creator of the universe and sacrificed the blood of gods to save mankind from his wrath, "is but a step" according to the theist. But that mammals experience similar sensations, "no," replies the the theist, "that is the valles marineris."
You can also largely apply intersubjectivity between humans and animals in cases such as this.
This is why it is mutually-understood between dogs and their owners what they mean if one of them starts yelling in pain. They comprehend the reaction, so from their experience they can comprehend the experience.
Of course perhaps dogs experience things wildly differently to humans, but this doesn't seem to be the case when their reactions are largely in line with human reaction to the same stimuli. On that basis the non-verbal communication between species can act in a very similar way to language.
>You can also largely apply intersubjectivity between humans and animals in cases such as this.
The strange thing is that animal lack a dense sequence of communications that appear to have the central phenomena of consciousness: language.
>They comprehend the reaction, so from their experience they can comprehend the experience.
So you agree, animal owners are projecting their own consciousness onto their animals, anthropomorphising them.
>You're using laughably circular reasoning.
It is that, or a regress, or question begging (Popper).
>The strange thing is that animal lack a dense sequence of communications that appear to have the central phenomena of consciousness: language.
That's not true, all animals have some form of crude "animal language" varying from species to species with varying levels of sophistication. Most notably with birdsongs which can be very articulate.
>So you agree, animal owners are projecting their own consciousness onto their animals, anthropomorphising them.
No, with I stressed the mutual-understanding of the situation. Just as we as humans are able to gauge the feelings of a dog based on their reactions dogs are able to do the same thing with humans. This is not a case of anthropomorphising dogs but a clear case of inter-species intersubjectivity.
Not that anon, but an example of animal communication is the Vervet monkey alarm calls.
>Vervet monkeys are the typical example of both animal alarm calls and of semantic capacity in non-human animals. They have three distinct calls for leopards, snakes, and eagles, and research shows that each call elicits different responses. When vervets are on the ground they respond to the eagle alarm call by looking up and running to cover, to leopard alarm calls primarily by looking up and running into a tree, and to the snake alarm call primarily by looking down. When in trees vervets responded to the eagle alarm call by looking up and down and running out of trees, to the leopard alarm call by running higher in the tree and looking both up and down, and to the snake alarm call by looking primarily down.
What are you 19?
You're only considering one type of belief system. What about reincarnation and karma in which case the fawn is being punished for evils done in another life? What if we are separated from the gods? What if this is just a state of chaos? That last one doesn't necessarily mean gods/divinity/nirvana don't exist. Much can be learned from pain, certain lessons must be learned in life before one can escape chaos and return to oneness/divinity.
Don't dwell too much one one (imo quite ridiculous) set of beliefs.
He's right though. Take dogs, certain howls, barks, and growls can mean different things. For them its mostly body language communication though. For example go up to a dog that doesn't know you posturing and acting aggressive, it'll freak out. Go up to it talking in a calm soft tone with an open hand and it'll sniff you and let you pet it. There's also a huge bit about dominance.