Suffering

[Captain Scarlet]

@ominssiuant one. The argument around: "could god create humans who have free will but that always choose good" is interesting. JL Mackie is a big propenent. I must admit though whilst I find it logically valid I also find it hard to affirm somehow. Is this a solid argument in your mind?

@ tackattack. Apols for my presumption no offence to you ability to think was meant.

[tackattack]

@Captain - No offence taken , just pointing it out, I'm not that sensitive

---

1. knowing only good OR evil would not fit with "free" will therfore I believe with the knowledge of good and evil came choice to do evil or good (bein able to discern and clasify perhaps) and thus was born free will.

Then we could know both good and evil, and still choose to do good each time. God could've made us so that we freely chose good each time (assuming you subscribe to a compatibilist view of free will).

2. Natural suffering (earth quakes, tsunamis, etc.) is a direct result of natural processes and equate all things created under God.

So God is responsible.

4. Suffering (connotation aside) can be used to teach consequences to indiscriminant excercise of free will.

Only in the cases where moral evil is responsible. With natural evil, there seems to be no lesson we can learn.

---

1-There would be no good without evil. We would simply do, so then the causes fall to intent. We would then either trust in what we wanted to do or what someone else wanted to do. Hence the choice to not trust in God and the fall of Adam and Eve.

2- That's what I said, God is responsible but what makes you more important than the tectonic plates of this planet or millions of other species in the eyes of something who created everything?

4- That argument from ignorance won't really fly. You can learn to live harmoniously with your surroundings both inanimate and animate and have a deeper understanding of unity and oneness with God's other creations.

[Captain Scarlet]

2- That's what I said, God is responsible but what makes you more important than the tectonic plates of this planet or millions of other species in the eyes of something who created everything?

Well get you to atheism yet tack :-). I agree nothing at all makes us more important. Christianity however does rather elevate humans above their proper place in the universe. So this is a problem you will have wrestle with.

If god wants us to freely choose to beleive in him and seek salvation and fellowship with him it might be rather a nice idea for him tonot kill newborn babies in tsunamis? Granted if you want to adopt a stance which says "well gosh you know what that may be all part of a masterplan to save the most people", it cannot be logically defeated. But is it morally serious and why does he not materialise Eden or heaven and avoid this brief veil of tears.

[tackattack]

No our developed sense of consciousness and utilization of our surroundings put us at the top of the food chain here on Earth, not God. It has nothing to do with any life we have not yet found elsewhere or things we create, which could indeed dwarf us in importance. this "brief veil of tears" is inheritable brief because our lifespan within time is brief. It's tearful because we are overly attached emotional animals with an overinflated sense of self importance. It sounds pretty harsh, but what makes that baby baby any more or less important than the 50 million ants that died in the same tsunami or the minerals and ores stripped from an ecosystem by mankind? From the perspective of one who created all of it, IMO, little more than the difference between loving 1 of your 1000 pet hamsters a little more than the rest because he has a little strip of red hair down it's back. I grant that a whole lot of humans in general are self- absorbed and ego centric as a mild generality, but that has zero value on productivity within an ecosystem (usually a detriment). As to why he doesn't materialize heaven because we chose and choose to fail to trust in his plan and guidance and are left with our own selves to figure out what's good and evil. Once we as a species become more socially one, in this regard, I think ego will have a swift decline.

[Godscreated]

If Adam and and Eve 'knew god by sight' how come the sight of YHWH would have killed Moses?



The Abrahamic God with his infinite attributes is incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering,

Because they were sinless at the time which meant they were eternal beings. After the fall the impure could not look upon His purity.

---

Godschild as Padraic states a god with attributes such as yours is incompatible with suffering. If he/it is all loving and merciful then he would not be visiting gratuitous suffering as a punishment for humankind. It seems our only sin was to be the people he created in the first place. For this we have to watch millions of innocent children die of disease and natural disasters tear people and lives apart. If we don't live up to his standard then we are bound for an eternity of torture. However my reasoning which you question is that a god can stop this and we don't have to live in a world where there is gratuitous suffering and where some people die agonisingly before they have a chance to know your god and be saved. To demonstrate he can stop this I have given 3 examples in your religion of where god has materialised a world where people beleived in him and there was no suffering. As god why not just do this if you are all powerful and all loving.

I gave you the reasons why those are the only three times that has happened.

[Captain Scarlet]

@godschild. I know but you miss my point. Why god did them is irrelevant, the fact he can do it and chooses not to do it now is devasting for his supposed attribute of omnibenevolance. It wouldn't be an issue if you said well apart from not being perfect and being all loving he is really, really,nearly, nearly perfect. But you don't you claim perfection and I'm calling that out.

[The Omnissiunt One]

[quote='tackattack' pid='86986' dateline='1281812736']

[quote]1-There would be no good without evil. We would simply do, so then the causes fall to intent. We would then either trust in what we wanted to do or what someone else wanted to do. Hence the choice to not trust in God and the fall of Adam and Eve.[/quote]

Why no good without evil? Certainly we wouldn't notice good if evil didn't exist, but is this really such a big deal? I can't quite understand you here.

[quote]2- That's what I said, God is responsible but what makes you more important than the tectonic plates of this planet or millions of other species in the eyes of something who created everything?[/quote]

Well, apparently we are his special creation. Tectonic plates have no capacity for suffering, and most of the animal kingdom has a lesser capacity for suffering than we do. Those animals who feel pain as we do suffer too, so their suffering must be accounted for too.

[quote]4- That argument from ignorance won't really fly. You can learn to live harmoniously with your surroundings both inanimate and animate and have a deeper understanding of unity and oneness with God's other creations.[/quote]

Unless you're a baby who dies painfully shortly after birth, or an animal with no capability for moral advancement.

[tackattack]

@ The Omnissiunt One-
1- And while I envision that a caring creator would feel remorse at suffering, and that an increased ability to suffer would weigh heavier than an inability to suffer, from a perspective of omnimax principles I don't believe that when looking at humanity as a whole he sees more than a start and finish alongside everything else he's created. He could of course focus his will on an individual, but it seems impractical, which is why he has given us the Holy Spirit and angels. That one of the reasons I believe in the Holy trinity.

4- Your point originally was suffering can't be productive, I was merely pointing out that it could indeed be. If you want to evoke images of dying infants for your argument whatever, but don't expect a reaction from me. How can we evolve if there are no obstacles to overcome? Everything was provided for us , we decided to go at it on our own and have been since. Everyone talks about why God just can't create paradise for us, well he did. If it poof magically appeared what self-respecting skeptic would actually be comfortable there. Suffering and want are just as much a part of life as death is and Religion attempts to answer why we all want, need and suffer. Your point was that it has zero productivity. Where would natural selection be if there was no need to select?

[The Omnissiunt One]

@ The Omnissiunt One-
1- And while I envision that a caring creator would feel remorse at suffering, and that an increased ability to suffer would weigh heavier than an inability to suffer, from a perspective of omnimax principles I don't believe that when looking at humanity as a whole he sees more than a start and finish alongside everything else he's created. He could of course focus his will on an individual, but it seems impractical, which is why he has given us the Holy Spirit and angels. That one of the reasons I believe in the Holy trinity.

Okay, but that doesn't really explain why he allows suffering.

4- Your point originally was suffering can't be productive, I was merely pointing out that it could indeed be. If you want to evoke images of dying infants for your argument whatever, but don't expect a reaction from me. How can we evolve if there are no obstacles to overcome? Everything was provided for us , we decided to go at it on our own and have been since. Everyone talks about why God just can't create paradise for us, well he did. If it poof magically appeared what self-respecting skeptic would actually be comfortable there. Suffering and want are just as much a part of life as death is and Religion attempts to answer why we all want, need and suffer. Your point was that it has zero productivity. Where would natural selection be if there was no need to select?

Dying infants surely disprove the idea that all suffering leads to moral advancement, as does the suffering of animals. By saying that suffering is necessary for moral advancement, you're supposing that an omnipotent god couldn't have found another way to help us advance, at least with less suffering than there is. What's so good about moral advancement, anyway? What's so good about natural selection?

[tackattack]

1-I addressed accountability for suffering, the why of suffering was addressed in my rebuttal to point 4.

4- I didn't say all suffering leads to human advancement. I said suffering is a primary part of learning and evolving. Lots of suffering is needless, hence the term "needless suffering". They can be traced causally back to any number of reasons, most however are man-made in origins, hence my stance that mankind does far worse in the name of God than God does through man.