Natural Evil

[Ryft]

I’m not trying to be flip or diminish the true anguish of tragic and unfortunate fates but pain is a given; suffering is optional. Pain provides useful sensory feedback about bodily harm. In that respect pain is a blessing. Suffering, on the other hand, is the emotional response to that pain based on our judgment about it. Athletes endure pain willingly as part of training. That would not qualify as suffering. We suffer when we believe our pain is pointless, unfair or unnecessary. In a theological context, the natural events that cause pains are in some sense just or serve God’s purposes.

Very well said. (This is my attempt to kudos it twice.)

I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but prove that God exists, or stop assigning your beliefs to him/her.

For the purposes of this thread's discussion, God is a given. The existence of God is debated on other threads.

You have probably already observed this often enough to know, but that is the atheist's fall-back position when his counter-argument begins to sustain too many holes; he drops it like a hot potato and runs back to his uncritical mantra, an ignoratio elenchi that exhibits a curious incapacity for the logical principle of arguendo.

---

---

No, it isn't—otherwise people on THIS THREAD would not challenge my arguments with statements such as "I didn't realize you were a theist" (paraphrased).

And why did I say that? To underscore the fact that your very contention was presupposing some God other than the one being assumed for the sake of argument. Since the God that your contention presupposed was not the God of the Bible (because with that God an unbeliever would never be standing at the gates of heaven, much less arguing with him), you were thus invoking some other God—which would be a strange thing for an atheist to do, who does not believe in any God. Hence my statement: "I never took you for a theist."

If we allow the assumption that God exists, on this or any other thread, then the atheist has to always concede the argument.

That is so false it is actually ridiculous. For example, the existence of God can be assumed for the sake of argument when discussing whether or not he is a moral monster. Just because the atheist accepts for the sake of argument that this God exists, it does not follow that he must concede the argument; in fact, most atheists I think would disagree with you, saying that assuming this God for the sake of argument actually HELPS their argument.

---

---

If we state that God transcends or exists independently [of the universe], then why is it not fair to state that he would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering.

Such a statement is not so much unfair as it is invalid. When we are assuming for the sake of argument the God of the Bible (and we are), it is an invalid straw man to state that God "would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering." His existence apart from the universe does not preclude his control of and activity within the universe. It does not follow either rationally or theologically from what is revealed about God in the Bible (e.g., Col. 1:15-17), such as his sovereign will and purpose in all things. "In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other" (Eccl. 7:14; cf. Isa. 45:7; e.g., Amos 3:6). In his hand is "the life of every creature and the breath of all the human race" (Job 12:10).

He transcends and is omnipresent, which by default places him as part of the cause of pain and suffering (such as the aforementioned fire).

I agree that the fire does not happen apart from God's sovereign will, but you said this implies "that God IS the fire" (Msg. 41). That is what I disagreed with (due to its pantheistic connotation, which is antithetical to the nature of God).

When pain and suffering is involved God magically appears transcendent and/or independent, but when goodness [and] charity is involved he is [right] in the middle of it. This is unreasonable in light of an omnipresent creator, because it implies that he opts out of it (which I'll get to).

Not only unreasonable but also unbiblical. God exists transcendentally but is active right in the middle of both prosperity and calamity. "In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other" (Eccl. 7:14); "I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the LORD, who accomplishes all these things" (Isa. 45:7); "If disaster overtakes a city, is the LORD not responsible?" (Amos 3:6). For example, in 2 Kings 19 God reveals that when the Assyrian king Sennacherib laid seige against Jerusalem it was God who had long ago ordained and planned it and was now bringing it to pass (v. 25; cf. Isa. 10:5-16).

The only reasonable position (which I suspect is closer to what you feel) is for God to be aware of the pain and suffering and mourn it, but recognize its necessity for some "transcendent" reason.

No, that is consistent with Open Theism, which I reject as unbiblical.

You did. Here. This time. But you peruse these forums just as I do; you know how pervasive the appeals to emotional arguments are (e.g., hand-wringing about all teh baybeez) and that there is almost never that acknowledgment. But it is to be expected: if your argument has no logical punch, deflect using an emotional one.

I do agree; but I do not believe it is possible to present an example of unnecessary pain and suffering without resorting to presenting an example which is emotional in nature.

That is most unfortunate, since getting emotionally worked up about X does not somehow prove that X is gratuitous. It ignores and fails to eliminate the possibility that something can be both emotionally disturbing and nevertheless be warranted or have a purpose (i.e., not gratuitous).

My main issue with the concept of God in the context of pain and suffering, is based upon moral responsibility for positive action. I would argue that the more power you have the greater your moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering becomes.

I will grant causal responsibility, but moral responsibility? To whom could God even be morally responsible? (Be mindful of the question-begging fallacy in your response.)

As the ultimate power—some say omnipotent power—leads to an ultimate moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering.

If God has a purpose in X coming to pass, then why would he prevent it? That is incoherent. You need to wrap your head around the God your argument is contending with; namely, given the attributes of God, gratuitous evil or suffering is impossible—the two are mutually exclusive entities in the same way that an immovable object and an irresistible force are.

Like Epicurus, we have to question: If God is able but not willing, then the failure to act is considered malicious.

If God is able but not willing... to what? Prevent some gratuitous evil or suffering? Do not jump the gun and assume the very thing to be proved (that gratuitous evil or suffering exists at all). That needs to be established—validly—before questions can be asked about it. And remember, emotional foment over X does not establish that X is gratuitous; nor does ignorance about its purpose establish that it has none.

The question, of course, is based upon the assumption that God is a perfectly moral being, since many consider him to be the objective source of moral goodness.

God is not "a perfectly moral being." That assumes a moral order above God to which his nature and character conforms, which is not only question-begging but also antithetical to biblical theology. For example, A, B, and C are moral goods; God perfectly does A, B, and C; Therefore, God is perfectly moral. But how was the moral quality of A, B, and C determined apart from God? It begs the question against God being "the objective source of moral goodness." Rather, God is a perfectly holy being whose nature and character is the ground of moral order; the moral quality of A, B, and C is determined by the degree to which they conform to the nature and character of God.