I remember reading an article about an Australian missionary in India. He was driving his car with his 3 young sons (his wife was at home in India with their daughter) when his car was blocked by Hindu militants. They burnt his car slowly and stopped the missionary and his sons from leaving the car. He and his 3 sons died a slow and horrible death, no doubt screaming to God in pain and begging his divine intervention. God did bugger all.

Jeffonthenet mentioned that suffering helped him to be humble and less selfish. Jeffonthenet is obviously talking about a different from of suffering. The missionary and his three sons died in pain and suffering and that sort of suffering is not the sort you can gain anything from. Anybody who could have saved the missionary and his three sons and fails to do so cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered loving or merciful or kind. He's evil. Even Hitler would have saved them (after all, they were Caucasian LOL). But God did nothing.

Sir David Attenborough said on the BBC that he could not accept the existence of a benign God because nature tells us such a God can't possibly exist. He gave the example of a worm that could only live in the eye of a human child. The worm would burrow into the eye and eat up the eye slowly and painfully rendering the child irreversibly blind. Many African children are afflicted with this worm.

(August 28, 2012 at 10:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Speaking of mini superheroes, it might be instructive to consider a fictional mini god, like Superman. Although Superman is much more powerful than any human, he is much less (infinitely less?) omniscient and omnipotent than Yahweh is supposed to be. Clearly, the world would have less suffering with Superman in it, as long as the bad guys of the DC pantheon aren't also present. Superman might face a dilemma in balancing his good deeds against the concern that humanity might become too dependent on him to rescue them, like being more careless in construction and pollution and security, and not solving problems they could tackle without him. That is, he could be concerned about stunting humanity's potential and being a moral hazard. So he might do less than he's capable of, prioritizing things like saving the village over capping the volcano or stopping the bombing but not the bomb factories. He would have to strike a balance, using his best (not omniscient but highly aware) judgement.

I think one of the storylines did deal with this. Superman - even when going around his daily life as Clark Kent - could hear a lot of cries for help and consciously chose to ignore them if they didn't seem immediate enough. I think the point was that he would fight against suffering brought on by sudden or arbitrary events but let things take their own course otherwise. Which is why he involves hi,self more with violent crimes and natural disasters than trying to stop white-collar crimes.

(August 28, 2012 at 10:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It seems clear that Superman would be acting immorally if he did not try to prevent some of the suffering that is in his power to stop, but he could be acting morally in not preventing ALL of the suffering that is in his power to stop.

Actually, that's not clear at all. The only thing that's clear is he'd be acting against his own moral principles if he did not help.

(August 28, 2012 at 10:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: In my opinion, answering the PoE while preserving theodicy, requires this sort of answer: that God is preventing all the suffering he can, consistent with not preventing so much suffering that it stifles our moral development or needed free will or some other highly-important good.

I think this is a very hard case to make, given the amount of suffering that seems so pointless. Superman would be a monster if he let children die by inches as they're slowly crushed by rubble after an earthquake, surely no matter his other concerns, he would save them, even if he didn't intervene in more rapid accidental deaths of children, or at least put them out of their misery.

Much harder than you'd think, because

a) It puts limits on god's power if he cannot figure out a way to prevent suffering while finding alternate ways to accomplish those moral goals.

b) He never leaves any evidence of direct intervention.

c) Never gives any indication of what those goals might be.

d) Seems to have changing priorities if he intervenes in one case while doesn't in another similar one.

I'll debate you paesan. Hit me up.

If you got da guts.

Let me be the one debating. I'm a Christian and I maintain that there is absolutely no evidence or rational argument for faith in God. Faith is blind and unthinking.

(August 29, 2012 at 4:44 am)greneknight Wrote: Let me be the one debating. I'm a Christian and I maintain that there is absolutely no evidence or rational argument for faith in God. Faith is blind and unthinking.

I'd like to see this. Mostly because I'm curious about the (particular) way you establishing your faith sans appeals to reason. Do you do it like Kierkegaard? Plantinga? Something else entirely?

(August 29, 2012 at 5:13 am)Categories+Sheaves Wrote:

(August 29, 2012 at 4:44 am)greneknight Wrote: Let me be the one debating. I'm a Christian and I maintain that there is absolutely no evidence or rational argument for faith in God. Faith is blind and unthinking.

I'd like to see this. Mostly because I'm curious about the (particular) way you establishing your faith sans appeals to reason. Do you do it like Kierkegaard? Plantinga? Something else entirely?

Never heard of those people, if they are real people in the first place. But I will do a good job in my debate with a diehard fundamentalist Christian.

(August 28, 2012 at 1:35 am)genkaus Wrote:

(August 28, 2012 at 12:29 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: This relies upon the question, what is the goal being accomplished, and what is necessary to achieve that goal?

And since you cannot even establish the existence of such a goal, much less determine what is necessary for it, the entire position is unjustified.

If you are saying that the existence of God is incompatible with suffering, it is not me making the claim I must defend, it is you.

Quote:

(August 28, 2012 at 12:29 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: If the ultimate goal of all life for God is to make the greatest amount of free creatures to enjoy God to the greatest degree and glorify Him for the longest amount of time, then all sorts of things can be necessary.

And a lot of suffering would still be unnecessary.

How could you possibly know such a thing with any degree of certainty?

Quote:*snicker*

Possible. Yeah, right.

It is impossible that God exists? How do you know? Could you share your reasoning with me?

The possible scenario I proposed is below

Quote:

(August 28, 2012 at 12:29 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: God is perfect in Holiness. For one to dwell in the presence of God, one must achieve perfect holiness. If God were to create free creatures to be in His presence forever, this would mean that they would have to be perfectly Holy as perfect holiness is incompatible with sin. And if God were to create them free, then they would have the freedom to sin. When they sin, they necessarily suffering must be in the world or God would be unjust to not punish sin. Consider also the fact that an omniscient being would know all truths and comprehend everything past and present in an instant. In such a scenario, it seems hard to believe that you could know that God couldn't have a reason for allowing suffering to occur, especially when it seems that there are possible scenarios in which He could have a reason for suffering to occur.

So much bullshit packed in one paragraph that it all stinks to high heaven. This by itself has the potential to derail the whole topic if we go into the bullshit of omniscience vs free-will and your god's convoluted idea of justice. So, I'll just stick to the following points.

The best response to the problem of evil is probably free will, so if you cannot talk about that, you are completely ignoring the strongest rebuttals to your position.

Quote:1. The position you are trying to justify is that "no suffering is unnecessary" or that "all suffering is necessary". So far, all you have given are empty hypothetical scenarios showing.

Not true. I should know better than anyone what I am defending. I am maintaining a negative case against people who claim to know that God cannot exist because of suffering.

Quote:2. According to the latest one, if suffering is the consequence of sin, then anytime the innocents suffer, that suffering is unnecessary.

I could respond a few ways. It could be, as Augustine supposed, that no one is innocent. It could also be that since life is entirely a gift, no one has the right to complain to God about suffering as they should rather thank Him for creating them and giving them life and breath.

Quote:Finally, is it common Christian apologetic practice to simply ignore arguments that you cannot respond to? Is it common to see a bunch of arguments, all of which go against your position and then pick the easiest one to counter and pretend none of the others ever existed? Can anyone tell me the name of this fallacy.

I've quoted everything you said and responded. Perhaps you are just frustrated that reason is not on your side.

(August 29, 2012 at 9:10 am)greneknight Wrote: Never heard of those people, if they are real people in the first place.

I can't get no
charitable interpretation!
But srsly. Faith is irrational to you, yet you identify yourself as religious so you must have faith. What constitutes this faith?
You need not do it here, but I'm curious.

(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I could respond a few ways. It could be, as Augustine supposed, that no one is innocent.

Oh, gag me! What is more innocent than an infant?

Quote:It could also be that since life is entirely a gift, no one has the right to complain to God about suffering as they should rather thank Him for creating them and giving them life and breath.

Oh, bullshit! If life is such "a gift", why do so many people kill themselves? And frankly, I would rather be dead than be a quadriplegic. Being dead is not necessarily bad and being alive is not necessarily good.

(August 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm)Thor Wrote:

(August 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I could respond a few ways. It could be, as Augustine supposed, that no one is innocent.

Oh, gag me! What is more innocent than an infant?

You would be amazed how prevalent this twisted attitude is:

theSAVED Wrote:[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=19388&Page=1

Emphasis as per original quote.