I don't see how and am not convinced that this really answered my question.
How can I help you?
So then there being something else besides suffering justifies the existence of suffering?
There is no need for justification. The need seems to be for understanding.
I understand suffering (as bad as it can be) is reason enough for compassion and wanting to do something to alleviate the suffering.
You have missed the point I made altogether that i do not separate ID from its creation. I consider that "we are it having the experience we created for ourselves to have" is a possibility which also answers your question regarding suffering while explaining why there is also joy and happiness etc.
If a creature lives it's short life during which it basically experiences only suffering, does it become "okay" simply because other creatures might have a different experience? Is this the sort of bold statements you wish to make, because that is what can be implied/concluded from your statements.
What creature. Expand on this please. Give a story of such one which we can work on together.
Is it the poor penguin who accidentally let go of its egg and couldn't retrieve it in time and the cold killed it?
Is it the deer the wolves cornered and devoured?
Is it the fish in the net being hauled aboard?
Is it the poor being ignored by the rich?
Tell me...
Notice also that you have set up a false dichotomy here. You essentially posit that either an ID "created this suffering trap just so there would be suffering," or the existence of other things besides suffering means that suffering wasn't the only sole goal, which from what I can tell according to you somehow makes the existence of suffering a-priori justifiable/ethical since you seem to have posited this as the response to my previous query. I don't accept this false dichotomy, and thus my previous post still stands.
Okay.
These are really side topics that I don't see the relevance of.
Therein is part of the problem. We are
all many potential creators of life. We know there is suffering in the world and yet we purposefully bring others into it.
How is that 'evil madness' when ID does it but not when we do?
Basically the exact same statement can be said of the ideas of an afterlife that you have posited, which just brings me back to my point of what reason we have to think such things are true.
No reason either way to think they are true or false. We are dealing with ideas. ID ideas.
I can come up with many views of an what an afterlife or god is, yet no matter my definition many will always disagree with it. Given that the burden of proof is on those asserting or positing the existence of such things, I would say that it is their job to "construct ideas on those accordingly," most certainly not mine. The simple fact is that there is basically an infinite amount of things that could be posited to exist or be true, yet my requirement of evidence to believe something doesn't mean I have to flesh out all infinity of them just so I can continue to want evidence in order to believe things. This is an absurd proposition. If you claim something exists, then it is your job to "construct" said ideas, not mine. Because no matter what you construct, I still won't believe it without some sort of evidence.
In relation to such ideas, burden of proof is only required when claims are made.
Ideas themselves are not claims.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
Evidence offered which still requires some form of belief is simply incomplete.
Incomplete evidence (sometimes referred to as 'compelling') is nothing solid to base belief upon. Once complete, what need is belief in relation to such evidence.
Belief is neither here nor there.
