(July 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The argument is not stating all suffering is incompatible with a benevolent creator. It's stating some of suffering is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good. Example, multiple personalities.
I don't believe "since sufferring exists, then benevolent creator does not", that's too general. Neither do I believe the argument "There is too much sufferring..." because that is too subjective.
What I'm stating is that it seems, that some suffering is unnecessary for the system to bring about a greater good (character building) and doesn't do so.
I think think this is a stronger version of the argument, and classical theodicy doesn't address it.
Are we talking about a generally good God by human standards or an omnibenevolent one?
There shouldn't be ANY suffering in a system created by an omnibenevolent God. That is paradoxical.
Why do you feel it is "to general" to say that suffering disqualifies an omnibenevloent God?
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
