Natural Evil

[NoMoreFaith]

You need to give due consideration to the words that I use, for I try to choose them quite carefully—such as the word "existentially," by which I draw out the distinction that "God exists transcendentally but is active right in the middle of both prosperity and calamity." In other words, God is not ignorant of, perplexed by, or powerless in the face of human pain and suffering because, as he reveals throughout the Bible—which I provided you some examples of—he is ultimately in control of it all. But, again, "His existence apart from the universe does not preclude his control of and activity within the universe" (emphasis added). That is why your suggestion (Msg. 67) that God could be "detached from the causes" of pain and suffering sets up a straw man; such a suggestion posits a God different from or weaker than the one revealed in Scripture, who is not detached from the causes.

I highlighted that you picked out a sentence, which lists possibilities for the involvement of a deity. I also list the other possibilities, he is detached, or somewhat involved, there is not "both". Picking out one line out of the paragraph beyond context, a strawman does not build.

First, it is unfair to say that I did so "falsely," as if I knew what you really meant but tried to pretend you meant something different.

I likewise found it surprising you could mistake the context, asking where God is when it comes to pain and suffering as spatial co-ordinates, so we'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding and move on.

Given [our] human perspective, what is God's role in inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering upon mankind, when he is in a position to prevent such things?

This commits the loaded question fallacy, akin to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Just as that question first assumes that I had beaten my wife at all and then asks when I stopped, so your question assumes that "unnecessary" or gratuitous pain and suffering exists and then asks what God's role in it might be. What I am doing is hitting the brakes on your question and raising a red flag over the assumption built into it. Since I had agreed that the fire does not happen apart from God's sovereign will, it is incoherent to suppose that he would prevent it or question-begging to suppose that it was gratuitous (unwarranted or purposeless). You cannot ask me to concede the debate prior to engaging it. I dispute that gratuitous evil or suffering is even possible, much less that it exists, just as I would dispute that I have ever beaten my wife. In order to ask about God's role in X, you must first establish that X exists or is even possible—for it would be utterly meaningless to ask about God's role in something that does not and cannot exist.

So the obvious question is; What do you believe is God's purpose for doing so. He is in control of these things, so what in your opinion is the "big picture".
I think we can at least agree it had better be a whopper of a good reason.

Your reflections on responsibility seem to deflect responsibility through the point of view of the Deity, rather than the only conceivable view that we can hold to be evident, which is that from mankinds point of view.

What you are asking, in order to show pain and suffering is malicious, and/or unnecessary given the presence of an all powerful being, that we prove God has a greater reason for what WE see has malicious or unnecessary pain and suffering.

I am going to "appeal to emotion" again ...

I wish that you would not, since that is fallacious and thereby fails to address the question at issue. (It is also troubling to think that you would persist in a fallacy after has been identified and explained.)

I find it troubling that you would spend time to write that and yet completely miss that no appeal was actually made in the end.

I considered it, and didn't edit out this line, but I find it curious you are quick to jump on it, without comprehending no such statement was eventually made.

You are an excellent writer, but occasionally your need to "enforce logic" misses the point being made.

First, the Bible is clear in its theology about the nature of God, sometimes describing in perspicuous black-and-white terms that he is in control of it all, that nothing happens apart from his will, and that he works out all things according to the purpose of his will. And then on top of that the Bible provides some unequivocal examples of those very truths in action (such as the case of Sennacherib). Therefore we are provided sufficient reason to trust God in circumstances where he has not explained himself.

What utter bollocks If you excuse the phrase. The example of Sennacherib, where God saw fit to get involved in a local war, sending Gabriel, Scythe and all, to destroy an army because of a bit of heresy.. is not a good example at all. If nothing else, because God can't be bothered with that sort of thing in the last few thousands years.

This is off topic, but made me smile recalling this incident, a quote from the movie the Prophecy, "..whenever God wanted someone punished or killed it was always an angel that he sent to do his bidding. Knowing this, would you ever want to really meet an angel, always having one wing dipped in blood?"
Pretty chilling thought I always felt.

Anyway, you claim this provides sufficient reason to trust that a natural disaster has a reason? Exactly HOW does this story of God sending angels to go kick some blasphemous ass equate to natural disasters.

Second, there is an analogy in how I would raise my children. I not only make it clear to them that there is a purpose behind the things I do, even if they do not know or understand it at the time, but also in certain cases I do take the time to explain to them what the purpose was. Consequently (just as I would tell them) they have sufficient reason to trust me in circumstances where I do not explain myself; and sometimes that trust is of life-or-death importance.

There are limits to the trust a child should place in their parents, and quite frankly, if I caused pain and suffering to a child you would ALWAYS clearly explain why.
There is no part, as a parent, where you would inflict pain and suffering and fail to explain the purpose for doing so. Especially when if it were to involve final mortal death to something or someone they love.

I'm open to hear examples of when you feel it would be reasonable for a parent to hurt a child and not explain their reasoning for doing so.

Third, just because they do not know what my purpose is in some circumstance, it does not follow that there is no purpose; for example, this could be a case where I simply did not tell them what it is. This is the very same point I made to you about God, that ignorance about the purpose for X does not establish that it has none. (Arguments from ignorance are invalid.)

It does not however follow, that the child should still respect the parent when abuse continues with no explanation, or on extremely equivocated obtuse grounds. I expect no person to willingly accept unreasoned abuse.
In fact, most of the time, we call social services. It establishes that despite the parent, being the sole cause of the childs existence, it does not automatically warrant unfailing faith and respect regardless of the punishment doled out, unreasoned or obscure, upon them.

I'm happy for you that you have such faith there's a plan, based upon the assumption of gods existence, but personally I find such a view perplexing.

Indeed. But the skeptic would ask himself, "Does the fact that it appears gratuitous mean that it actually is gratuitous?" And the answer is no, of course. Just because something appears to be the case that does not somehow mean it actually is the case.

I believe that I have phrased this continually as "the appearance of", from our point of view, which remains to be the only relevant and evident status of events.

The appearance of gratuitous, or unnecessary pain and suffering may well just be the appearance of it, and perhaps there is a reason for it, if a God were to exist, be it any deity of particular flavour.
The paradox of pain and suffering in the presence of a loving creator can only be considered from the point of view of the afflicted.

I can make up a million stories to explain evil in the world, and to explain why it would not be gratuitous but this would never be considered a true explanation, and equally, you would have no right to deny the truth of whatever was stated. It simply comes down to faith that it is the truth, and frankly, faith has never been interested in truth, merely assertion.

We may claim that whatever God does is inherently moral ...

I am not sure who "we" refers to here, but if someone claimed that then I would dispute it—as I did in my previous post: "That assumes a moral order above God to which his nature and character conforms," whether inherently or otherwise, which "begs the question against God being ‘the objective source of moral goodness’."

I consider that you do consider God as inherently moral, in that he is the source of objective morality, even if he is not bound by it.
His actions, by being the source of objective morality would necessitate his actions as inherently moral, that is, if Morality comes from a God, then whatever that God does, is inherently moral, to himself.

... which makes the comparison to [the immovable object and irresistible force] contradiction a false analogy, since neither the immovable nor the irresistible can experience being moved or resisted from their perspective ...

No, sir. They are mutually exclusive. Surely you understand what that means. In other words: (1) If an immovable object is a given, then an irresistable force is logically impossible. (2) If an irresistable force is a given, then an immovable object is logically impossible. This is analogous to our discussion, and it plays out like this: (3) If gratuitous evil is a given, then God is logically impossible. (4) If God is a given, then gratuitous evil is logically impossible. (This is due to the very nature of the God that is being discussed, who is self-existent [aseity], holy, sovereign, eternal, actus purus, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.)

This does not address the flaw in the analogy. God does not answer to an objective morality, and is not required by any part of the listed nature to have our best interests in mind, nor to have any emotion regarding the pain and suffering of mankind.
An immovable object, or irresistible force remains immovable or irresistible regardless of perspective, whereas gratuitous evil does exist, by perspective. This is an important distinction which renders the analogy false.

What seems to be apparent to me, is that you are unwilling to accept gratuitous evil because you believe you can see things from God's point of view, rather than human.
But the only perspective you can actually claim, is that from personal experience. Any claim requires a specific interpretation of the bible to be true, which I doubt I need to expand upon.

This is the ignoratio elenchi fallacy, since I have indeed provided sufficient reason to think it is not gratuitous

Evidently not.

Moreover, I have confronted your every objection to the contrary and carefully explained why they failed to make your case, not least of which is the complete absence of any proof that pain and suffering is gratuitous—not appears gratuitous, but actually is gratuitous.

I never claimed it was gratuitous. I claimed it appeared gratuitous, and furthermore the biblical statements do not provide any explanation beyond elaborated versions of God moving in mysterious ways, which do not engender any rational for the faith itself.
As you say, the only rational explanation is point 3, if gratuitous evil exists, then God does not exist. If a) God Exists and b) Therefore there is no gratuitous evil, then it is reasonable to expect an explanation. No biblical quote convinces otherwise without a private belief and faith, which defy rationality.

And I could not have made your task any easier when I said that "God" and "gratuitous evil" are mutually exclusive: you need only prove a single case of gratuitous evil or suffering and I lose the debate.

I love it, any example is an appeal to emotion, and any lack of it is failing to provide examples. Cute.

This is an exceptionally disingenuous statement, since any example of gratuitous evil is simply met with an overly verbose method of saying we should merely have faith god has a plan he is not telling us about. Which is somewhat pointless to state to someone who essentially does not believe God is axiomatic.

My argument does not deny that human pain and suffering exists, sir. It denies that it is ever gratuitous. And I grant that pain and suffering may appear gratuitous, but the issue is not about whether it appears gratuitous or not—which it obviously can and does—but whether it actually is gratuitous or not.

Precisely. The only argument that can be had in this instance, is does God exist. You have faith there is, I see no reason to have such faith.

God has a purpose for it. Fine. We do not know this purpose. Fine. These concepts themselves must be then be established—validly—before an answer can be provided. You are skipping to the conclusion without a valid proposal that your axioms are indeed true.

What axioms?

That God exists. That God has a purpose that is beneficial to mankind.

You have stated that God is a rule unto himself, not bound by morality, which does not necessitate that his actions are beneficial to us, the only being whom can apply the feelings of pain and suffering in a meaningful sense.

Let me simplify your argument: "God can do what he likes because he is God. Deal with it."

Yes.

Since God is not bound by morality, why would we assume his actions have our interests in mind any more than an ant assumes humans will look after them.

"Moral quality" is defined relatively by the recipient of action X, not objectively ...

That follows from your world view, perhaps, but this discussion regards the biblical world view.

The biblical world view is yours, and your explanation why you do not feel natural evil exists. The bible was never mentioned in the OP, this discussion is only biblical relevant because you believe in it, and therefore the substance of our discussion.

I believe it all boils down to "do you believe in God". Which makes further debate somewhat irrelevant.
If you believe in God you can demand he's got a good reason if you like, but remain silent on what that reason might actually be, is not a substitute for a solid argument it exists beyond the fact if it doesn't exist, there is no God.
The probability slider is definitely not on your side in that instance, at least ........ from my perspective.