reply to post by wildtimes
Someone who is on fire, starving, has multiple broken bones, or a debilitating disease such as Alzheimers or other chronic illnesses SUFFERS
just like anyone else who has that condition imposed upon them.
PAIN is PAIN.
Congenital insensitivity to pain
Different people suffer in different ways, and there is no objective thing called "worst possible misery", so it cannot be the basis for objective
And this is true.
I have Multiple Sclerosis, cousin of Charcot-Tooth-Marie Disorder. I will tell you that even for me, I don't suffer because of it, even though I am
disabled. It is something different for each person. But for some people, suffering arises not simply from pain, but a person's whole outlook on life
and handling diseases or conditions.
I also know a young lady whose mother has ALS, Lou Gherig's Disease. The girl is barely holding on to hope and is very devastated by what is
physically happening to her mother. It really comes down to whether or not you have the ability to deal with things. When hope is removed, then it is
That's how I know that even though pain may be universal, the dealing with it is what causes the suffering. But look at starving children in Africa,
that's very devastating and now we have the problem here in the most wealthiest country on the planet. But children shouldn't have to live like that
and should not have to wonder why they can't eat.
If you take into consideration about how circumstances are different for each person, that dictates the suffering levels, even for their loved ones. I
told a girl one time that had a condition that caused brain swelling that I would rather go through this with God rather than lose all hope without
God and suffer worse. I am not suffering because I have hope for every day.
If Harris and Craig use universal suffering as a basis for argument, then both miss out on the fundamental nature of suffering to begin with and where
suffering arises from. That means that both of them have a subjective morality when it comes to the conditions that cause suffering.
I don't think that should be a basis of argument for either of them. And if they say there is objective morality, then they both should apply that to
how it translates to the individual, which then is no longer objective. When they propose an objective morality, that if it arises from the
individual, then Harris would be right only on the point of whether objective morality has no source, which is this, there is no objective morality at
all, because it is all subjective morality. But that would also make him wrong, on that point. If he says there is no objective morality from God, by
saying one does not need God to be moral, then he is wrong, because it is subjective.
Craig would be right only if the objective morality cannot be made subjective, but the moment he uses a subjective view about where morality rests,
then it is not objective. If Harris would have said that one does not need God to be moral, then he lost simply because he made it subjective. That's
the issue of the whole debate. Craig lost when he fell back onto the same argument of subjective morality.
When the question is posed "Does God give objective morality" then it could only be answered this way..."If God gives objective morality, then it
would have to be completely objective in every way". That would make objective morality universal. If morality is universal, then yes, God gives
objective morality. But the moment it is made subjective, then the question no longer applies.