I think this thread has run its course.

Ebon: The point I meant to debate was whether suffering and suffering agents were necessary to sustain material life. Why did God made that kind of life is not something I feel able to defend. I had already stated that I didn't wanted to discuss evil in heaven for now; since there appears to be no other objection aside from that one, I rest my case.

You rest your case?!?!?! You've simply asserted that pain is necessary and then refused to entertain our counterarguments, and now you claim victory? This is pretty shoddy work I have to say. Not only have I and others (like Mrnaglfar just above this comment) raised objections as to why pain is necessary, but you still haven't answered the question as to how you know there are no bodies in heaven and why that even matters!

Are you sure about that? For suffering not to exist God would have to eliminate fire that could burn us (that means no sun), liquid in which we could drown (no water!), most chemical reactions that involve high or low PH substances... he would have to eliminate even gravity! Among plenty other stuffs. I can hardly see how life could be maintained in a world like that.

Yes, I am sure of it. Every wonder why fire has to burn our skin? Do you think it's beyond god's power to make our skin incapable of being burned by fire or chemical substances?
Or how about the simple sensation of pain? Have you ever wondered why such a thing is needed in the first place? Couldn't those things just not make us feel pain?

How about hunger; have you ever understood why god would create a being that needs to eat? Couldn't we just absorb solar energy, or have our own supply that doesn't require us to eat so no one would starve or feel the pain of hunger again?

Birth defects are a nice one too; god created DNA I assume? Why do you suppose he made something that occassionally breaks or changes, resulting in a lifetime of dysfigurement from people?

There's also the issue of viruses and bacteria; surely, we could live without HIV, or small pox, or anthrax, or any number of viruses that seemed designed to infect and destroy our body for their benefit. Don't you think god could have elimentated those too?

I might also add that it seems rather odd that an omnipotent god (and don't forget omnibenevolent) would not be able to conceive or create life that didn't rely on suffering.

Are you sure about that? For suffering not to exist God would have to eliminate fire that could burn us (that means no sun), liquid in which we could drown (no water!), most chemical reactions that involve high or low PH substances... he would have to eliminate even gravity! Among plenty other stuffs. I can hardly see how life could be maintained in a world like that.

Ebon: The point I meant to debate was whether suffering and suffering agents were necessary to sustain material life. Why did God made that kind of life is not something I feel able to defend. I had already stated that I didn't wanted to discuss evil in heaven for now; since there appears to be no other objection aside from that one, I rest my case.

Again, there is no biological life in heaven, we have no bodys.

So why didn't God just make us that way from the beginning?

So, you concede that Miller's argument is wrong and that conscious, free-willed existence does not require the existence of pain and suffering. Correct?

Off course conscious free-willed existence does not requires it. Conscious free-willed LIFE does.

Your own theology, as described by you, proclaims that human beings in heaven do not need to suffer in order to sustain life.

Again, there is no biological life in heaven, we have no bodys.

There is no "life" in heaven, at least no biological one.

And you know this.... how?

I might also add that it seems rather odd that an omnipotent god (and don't forget omnibenevolent) would not be able to conceive or create life that didn't rely on suffering. I see no reason why we should have to have pain and suffering in order to be alive, because honestly, there is no reason for it. You can trot out all the CS Lewis that you like, but all the rules go out the window when god can make the rules. god could have made a different mechanism than pain to alert us to bodily danger, for instance. These things are simply not necessary.

There is no "life" in heaven, at least no biological one.

So, you concede that Miller's argument is wrong and that conscious, free-willed existence does not require the existence of pain and suffering. Correct?

If you do not concede that suffering is neccesary to sustain life on earth then you better present an objection to it.

We already did, in case you didn't notice. Your own theology, as described by you, proclaims that human beings in heaven do not need to suffer in order to sustain life. Clearly, then, human beings on earth don't need to either.