(October 28, 2015 at 10:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 8:19 am)Nestor Wrote: It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

I would disagree with premise one.  Scripture says early on, that this is not the case, and the suffering is the result of the fall and sin (separation from God).  Excessive is somewhat of a subjective and ambiguous term; but even granting this, I'm assuming that you are overly focusing on one particular attribute of God, apart from the others.  I don't think it is a contradiction in regards to God's attributes, that He allows suffering. 

I also do not think that you can enter into the Christian worldview just enough to critique and then back out before the answers.  Much of our suffering is self-inflicted (with the fall you might say all of it is). The suffering that you do see is temporary.  However, there is an answer to this, that the separation and suffering do not to become everlasting.   I don't think that your problem is with unnecessary suffering, just that you want it immediately.  Many choose unnecessary suffering over God.

Not all suffering is the result of human action, though. Some suffering is the result of disease, famine, and weather...all things that Gaud allegedly created. If you're saying that we wouldn't have experienced those things if Adam hadn't fucked up, then those things are not "self-inflicted," nor are they deserved. It's vicarious descendent-punishing, which isn't justice by any proper definition of the word.


Your Gaud made everything, supposedly. This means that suffering exists for one of two reasons: either Gaud created suffering and evil and made them a part of the system by design because he wants us to suffer, which means that he can't be omni-benevolent, or he was unable to prevent the system he created from resulting in suffering, which means that he can't be omnipotent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTKnU9zzf-s

(October 28, 2015 at 8:19 am)Nestor Wrote: It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

The two alternatives are that his god is amoral, or that his god is evil.

Both, of course, are denied by scripture and/or doctrine.

(October 28, 2015 at 10:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 8:19 am)Nestor Wrote: It doesn't really matter what sophism Delicate or any other theist can cobble together in defense of their omnipotent, omnibenevolent monarch. Such a creature is simply incompatible with observation of the world.
1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.
2. There is unnecessary and excessive in the world.
3. God does not exist.

If both premises are true, the conclusion must follow. The logical deduction of God's attributes guarantees the first premise, and the only justifiable inference one is entitled to make - given the information we possess - obliges one to grant premise two. Therefore, the nonexistence of such a deity is established.

I would disagree with premise one.  Scripture says early on, that this is not the case, and the suffering is the result of the fall and sin (separation from God).  Excessive is somewhat of a subjective and ambiguous term; but even granting this, I'm assuming that you are overly focusing on one particular attribute of God, apart from the others.  I don't think it is a contradiction in regards to God's attributes, that He allows suffering. 

I also do not think that you can enter into the Christian worldview just enough to critique and then back out before the answers.  Much of our suffering is self-inflicted (with the fall you might say all of it is). The suffering that you do see is temporary.  However, there is an answer to this, that the separation and suffering do not to become everlasting.   I don't think that your problem is with unnecessary suffering, just that you want it immediately.  Many choose unnecessary suffering over God.

Horseshit. I'd suggest you google the following terms before continuing this conversation: smallpox, tsunami, leukemia, mine collapse, sudden infant death syndrome.

Classic case of blaming the victim. When your wife gets cancer, don't you dare come here looking for sympathy. I will throw these callous, hateful words of yours right back in your face.

There wouldn't even be the possibility of suffering unless god created such a possibility.

Unless, of course, he just turned up and the rules were already there. Make your mind up time. Is he running the show or holding the fort?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKtuk0ZpnbY

(October 28, 2015 at 1:43 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 10:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would disagree with premise one.  Scripture says early on, that this is not the case, and the suffering is the result of the fall and sin (separation from God).  Excessive is somewhat of a subjective and ambiguous term; but even granting this, I'm assuming that you are overly focusing on one particular attribute of God, apart from the others.  I don't think it is a contradiction in regards to God's attributes, that He allows suffering. 

I also do not think that you can enter into the Christian worldview just enough to critique and then back out before the answers.  Much of our suffering is self-inflicted (with the fall you might say all of it is). The suffering that you do see is temporary.  However, there is an answer to this, that the separation and suffering do not to become everlasting.   I don't think that your problem is with unnecessary suffering, just that you want it immediately.  Many choose unnecessary suffering over God.

Horseshit. I'd suggest you google the following terms before continuing this conversation: smallpox, tsunami, leukemia, mine collapse, sudden infant death syndrome.

Classic case of blaming the victim.  When your wife gets cancer, don't you dare come here looking for sympathy. I will throw these callous, hateful words of yours right back in your face.

What fall?

Quote:1. If God exists, there would be no unnecessary and excessive suffering in the world.

But, wait.  Suppose 'god' is a total dick?

A dick?

Oh, Nonstamp has that covered too. This one is just too funny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmhFniUTQIE

You can't blame these fellas. 

They're not able to cope with the reality that sometimes random, fucked-up things just happen. They need to believe everything happens for a reason, at any cost, because truth is simply to frightening for them to consider.
Totally cool with me, if that's how they choose to get by.

But it's no reason to harass to the kids that don't need a pacifier to make it through the day.

I don't agree with the first premise. There maybe unnecessary suffering and excessive suffering but if what is part of plan that is for a greater good, that that good heavily outweighs the negative effects, and that good could only be achieved through that, then it's not evil of God to do so, but in fact, benevolent of him to do so.