heaven is free of suffering (premise)

What is "heaven"? Or do you mean that heaven is equivalent to freedom from suffering?

How does 6 follow from 2, 3, and 5?

What is "heaven"? Or do you mean that heaven is equivalent to freedom from suffering? — Cavacava

In this context, heaven could be anything free of suffering.
Of course there's an implicit assumption that such a heaven exists, which (to me) seems like the weakest part of the argument.

How does 6 follow from 2, 3, and 5? — Michael

Observation tells us what's already considered unwarranted suffering. Don't think you'll find many doctors claiming that "the child missing out and suffering due to cancer" is warranted, or that all suffering is warranted. What's considered warranted suffering could, for example, be a kid having uncomfortable dental work done. Is it justifiable that all suffering is warranted?

Observation tells us what's already considered unwarranted suffering. — jorndoe

So it doesn't follow from 2, 3, and 5? You're just asserting that observation shows this to be the case?

2. suffering is not a necessary condition (from 1)

Because heaven is free from suffering... but as you indicate heaven has been assumed. Isn't the argument that suffering is a necessary state of man far more likely, since we have not experienced it other wise, a pain-free existence can only be imagined. In order to support the argument shouldn't it try to establish heaven as a necessary presumption, a condition for our (?) conception of man.

There's agreement, from all the religious and religious/philosophical traditions, with your premise that, ultimately, Reality is free of suffering, and is said to be good beyond description. As I understand it, that question isn't the topic of your , post, and the eventual eternal goodness of Reality is accepted as a premise.

Suffering is part of life, but (whether or not there's reincarnation), life or lives is temporary, eventual suffering free Reality is eternal, by your (widely-agreed) premise.

Obviously, as goes without saying, now in life, we're here to deal with it, and there isn't any point in evaluating it or complaining about it. (or being a Nihilist or committing suicide)

if there's reincarnation, the good and bad experience would tend to average-out, and could ongoingly improve. But, according to traditions that believe in reincarnations, and also to ones that don't, a good eternity can follow after temporary life (or lives).

So, from the above, suffering isn't a necessary condition, but is often part of life, to some varying degree...just a fact of life.

Why we're in life, why this life started, is probably outside the topic of your initial post. My explanation is that infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories are inevitably "there", as hypothetical stories. Your in a life because there's a life-experience story (this one) with you as its Protagonist. ...because you're someone about whom there can be such a story, due to your inclinations. wants, needs, etc.

Michael Ossipoff

@Michael, deductively alone? No, it's:

• limited option: there is unwarranted suffering — evident (Y)
• comprehensive option: all suffering is warranted — justified? justifiable? (N)

But of course it can easily get more complicated. According to some there is indeed such a heaven, except it extends to humans only, well, and if that's Jesus' hangout, then he supposedly suffered, or so their story goes, ... And some always want to get into the semantics, sometimes warranted means deserved, sometimes unwarranted means useless or just preventable, ...

suffering ... is ... just a fact of life — Michael Ossipoff

(Y) Could perhaps even be accounted for in terms of biological evolution. Maybe the rest is overthinking it, or a kind of reification.

Anyway, tossing 1 out renders the remainder a different inquiry altogether. No given warrant of any kind, just what's found by (empathetic) humans.

Could perhaps even be accounted for in terms of biological evolution. — jorndoe

Human aggressive tendency can be accounted for in that way. But suffering also general throughout the animal kingdom, and is recognized in Vedanta and Buddhism as part of life.. ...just generally not as ridiculously unnecessarily so as it is with humans.

Anyway, tossing 1 out renders the remainder a different inquiry altogether. — jorndoe

It seems to me that #1 is strongly supported. And there's a very wide consensus for it, in many diverse belief-systems.

I can't guarantee that there's reincarnation, or the kind of Eternity that I've spoken of. Instead of saying that they're implied by my metaphysics, maybe I should just say that they're consistent with it.

Maybe the best objection is: Nightly, we reach deep-sleep, nothing or close to nothing, but, in our waking-life, we don't remember any experience at all about it.

But an answer to that would be: It's now known that we don't remember most of our dreams either--only the ones that happen at or near when we wake up.

That being so, evidently the fact that we don't remember something doesn't prove that we don't experience it.

Michael Ossipoff

And I hasten to add that, even if we just go to sleep at death, and it's just like what we remember about ordinary going to sleep, that doesn't sound like a time of suffering.

And so, either way, there's an Eternity without suffering.

Michael Ossipoff

A heaven exists that's free of suffering (premise) — jorndoe

I think a religious response might be along the lines that 'this world' with all of the above-mentioned suffering, is actually unreal; that beings are born into it on account of them not knowing this; being born into it, they suffer various ailments and conditions on account of being born into this domain; when finally understanding that this is so they are then liberated from it into a 'domain of no suffering'; which is, actually, real in a way that 'this world' is not.

In this view, which is common to many religious traditions, suffering is not so much warranted as inevitable, as a consequence of physical existence. Certainly in the Christian understanding, those 'here below' are obliged out of goodness and mercy to try and prevent or assuage suffering by any humane means; but that doesn't obviate the fact that the final release from suffering is the meaning of the term 'salvation', and that such release can't be obtained by other means.

5. if all suffering is warranted, then a large number of human activities are unwarranted (observation ‡) — jorndoe

I can't grasp this statement. To paraphrase, if suffering is warranted then there are human activities which are unwarranted. How so? If all human activities involve suffering then this cannot be true. If some human activities do not involve suffering it doesn't follow that they are necessarily unwarranted activities.

How do you derive "a large number of human activities are unwarranted"?

4. if all suffering is warranted, then a large number of human activities are unwarranted — jorndoe

This seems to rest on an unstated premise that, if a phenomenon X is warranted, then activity to prevent X is unwarranted.

How does this explain soccer?

Or, for any rugby fans out there:

The All Blacks' expected demolition of the Wallabies in Dunedin this coming Saturday is considered to be warranted, given their overwhelming superiority. Does that mean it is unwarranted for Wallaby defenders to even try to tackle them?

Camus might suggest that, like Sisyphus, the Wallabies can be happy, and find meaning, in their vain attempts to tackle the Kiwi attackers.