It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God"

[straggler]

People often point to all the suffering in the world as an argument against God. Sometimes it's to argue against the existence of God, sometimes it's to imply that if there is a God, he's evil.

Christopher Hitchens gets asked in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpKBxHMlzCU) what "anti-theism" has contributed to the world. Hitchens responds by saying that theism seemed to offer nothing to Joseph Frtizl's daughter.

But it got me thinking. Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God? If we take the Abrahamic faiths as our example, we know that the inhabitants of hell will suffer far beyond what any person has suffered in this world. Islamic tradition narrates the story of an inhabitant of the hellfire who will spend every waking moment thinking that nobody could be suffering as much as he is, when in actual fact, he will be the person who is suffering the least. To put it another way, every single inhabitant of hell would, by all accounts, trade their spot with Fritzl's daughter in the blink of an eye. Or, I'll put it another way: If you want to talk about the worst kinds of suffering, you look silly talking about anything earthly.

But silly seems to be how a lot of God bashers don't mind looking.

The Abrahamic faiths also seem to indicate pretty strongly that those who suffer the worst in this life, will have it "the best" in the next life.

If we say for the sake of argument that the God of Abraham is the one true God. I then ask you which scenario is worse:

Spending 24 years locked in a cellar, being raped by your father nearly every day, eventually being freed, living (most likely) for no more than 90 odd years, in which you then transition to the next life, where you will enter a state of eternal bliss, the likes of which you couldn't ever hope to experience here on earth.

Or..

Live a fairly comfortable life here on earth, but due to a pretty selfish existence, burn for an eternity in hell.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't take the suffering to argue against the existence of God (which is a waste of time), but rather to point out the flaws in any religious interpretation that claims to understand God and that God is merciful and just.

[Paul in Qatar]

I just wanted to point out that "thoedicy" is my new word for the day. Thank you.

[Alka Seltzer]

The problems of evil and arbitary suffering do not disprove the existence of god, but it does suggest that a benevolent god does not exist.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

I find that absurd, why should it be necessary to pay such a price?

In my view, any god that would create a hell does not deserve to be worshipped, only feared.

[raindog]

I don't take the suffering to argue against the existence of God (which is a waste of time), but rather to point out the flaws in any religious interpretation that claims to understand God and that God is merciful and just.
I don't believe you can "...point out the flaws in any religious interpretation....." with anything but a form of witnessing.

Do you?

[raindog]

The problems of evil and arbitary suffering do not disprove the existence of god, but it does suggest that a benevolent god does not exist.



I find that absurd, why should it be necessary to pay such a price?

In my view, any god that would create a hell does not deserve to be worshipped, only feared.
What if he didn't create such a hell?

How does that change things?

[RickJay]

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?
Well, of course.

The problem is that there isn't any eternal bliss. Atheists aren't arguing the pros and cons of earthly suffering versus eternal paradise. They're pointing out the fact that there is no eternal paradise. There's no equation to be worked out there. The existence of earthly suffering is simply one of a jillion arguments against the existence of God; in the sense of the Abrahamic God, earthly suffering is pointless (a person who doesn't suffer much is just as equally rewarded in Heaven as one who does, as long as she's pious.)

I'd agree earthly suffering isn't the strongest argument against God's existence, but only because there are so many other even stronger arguments.

But as Bryan Ekers points out, earthly suffering points to another weakness in the Abrahamic mythology. Even if you were to believe in the invisible-man-in-the-sky monotheistic God, the nature of earthly suffering argues against the default Abrahamic assumption that God loves human beings. If He does, then why bother with life on Earth at all? Why not just create the souls and plop them directly into Heaven? There's no logical argument for the arrangement we have now if God is eternally loving and merciful - so maybe if there is God, He isn't eternally loving and merciful. Perhaps God is sadistic and cruel. Why not? Based on the available evidence it's every bit as reasonable a conclusion.

And historically, "you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" has been used far too often as a way of excusing NOT helping those who are suffering in real life.

[raindog]

People often point to all the suffering in the world as an argument against God. Sometimes it's to argue against the existence of God, sometimes it's to imply that if there is a God, he's evil.

Christopher Hitchens gets asked in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpKBxHMlzCU) what "anti-theism" has contributed to the world. Hitchens responds by saying that theism seemed to offer nothing to Joseph Frtizl's daughter.

But it got me thinking. Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God? If we take the Abrahamic faiths as our example, we know that the inhabitants of hell will suffer far beyond what any person has suffered in this world. Islamic tradition narrates the story of an inhabitant of the hellfire who will spend every waking moment thinking that nobody could be suffering as much as he is, when in actual fact, he will be the person who is suffering the least. To put it another way, every single inhabitant of hell would, by all accounts, trade their spot with Fritzl's daughter in the blink of an eye. Or, I'll put it another way: If you want to talk about the worst kinds of suffering, you look silly talking about anything earthly.

But silly seems to be how a lot of God bashers don't mind looking.

The Abrahamic faiths also seem to indicate pretty strongly that those who suffer the worst in this life, will have it "the best" in the next life.

If we say for the sake of argument that the God of Abraham is the one true God. I then ask you which scenario is worse:

Spending 24 years locked in a cellar, being raped by your father nearly every day, eventually being freed, living (most likely) for no more than 90 odd years, in which you then transition to the next life, where you will enter a state of eternal bliss, the likes of which you couldn't ever hope to experience here on earth.

Or..

Live a fairly comfortable life here on earth, but due to a pretty selfish existence, burn for an eternity in hell.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?
Thanks for a great post. I suspect you and Pascal would be drinking buddies.

But the responses so far I think are missing your point.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Your theodicy is that suffering by God in Hell is worse than anything anyone can suffer on earth, therefore allowing suffering on earth is not inconsistent with an omnimax God? That makes no sense whatsoever. You're actually kind of arguing against yourself. Hell itself cannot be consistent with an omnibenevolent God. Arguing that God can be more evil than Joseph Fritzi is not exactly a defense of God's goodness.

[Rigamarole]

That's a pretty sadistic view of things you have there, OP, if you're trying to establish a view whereby God tortures people on Earth just so he can slap them on the back when they get to heaven and say, "Was just messin' with ya. Have to test you to make sure you're worthy, ya know?"

And anyway I'd take the comfortable life on Earth any day, laughing my ass off at the ones who purposely bring hardship and suffering unto themselves because they think they are scoring some sort of Afterlife Points, only to find out that when they die nothing happens except that they rot in a box.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?
I would not be interested in that deal, no, but the bigger problem with that as an answer to the POE is that no such condition is necessary or logically reconcilable with a benevolent God. Only an evil God would impose rape, or torture or childhood leukemia as a condition for his so-called "Heaven."

[FriarTed]

...Hell itself cannot be consistent with an omnibenevolent God.

The traditonal idea of Eternal Hell as punishment imposed from outside is indeed inconsistent with the idea of an O-B God. However, if souls are eternal and a soul can harden itself to be eternally irreconcilable to an all-good God, then that soul's eternal rebellion & resulting resentment against that God Who just will not go away is indeed a totally just & proper Hell. While I hold to Annihilation & Universal Salvation as possible options, I cannot deny that a form of Eternal Torment as posited by C.S. Lewis &/or the Eastern Orthodox may well be the final fate of incorrigible souls.

[monstro]

Firstly, if all the suffering in the world can't be used to argue against the existence of God, then neither can all the wonders and beauty be used as an argue for him. I'm frequently told that surely God exists, because there's love and flowers and rainbows and butterflies. But I believe if he gets credit for the good things, he should get credit for the bad things. And if he's responsible for the bad things, then he's not as loving as much as indifferent to his creation. And if he's indifferent, then he doesn't really care for us or our love for him. He's not very lovable or understanding.

Secondly, it's easy to accept suffering if you know there's an external bliss waiting for you. But doesn't that sound awfully convenient? It's no different than the fantasies a wretched prisoner dreams up to help him cope through solitary confinement. The question is, would you still love God even if there was no promise of heaven or hell? Would you follow his commandments and love others even if death was death and there wasn't another door on the other side?

Sounds to me that the concept of heaven is the only incentive for being a Christian, given that God chooses who he'll help or hurt regardless of how much love they have for him. Take away the heaven thing and you're left with nothing but a diety who likes to create both beautiful and ugly things, and allows people to suffer or live abundantly based on a mix of random and non-random factors. Doesn't sound like a very lovable diety to me. Sounds like Chaos.

I'll ask it again: If there was no promise of heaven in the Bible, would you still love God?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What does it mean for a soul to "rebel" against God?

How can an individual "resent" something he/she does not believe exists?

How can God expect people to reconcile themselves with him if he is not willing to communicate with them or prove his own existence?

How does any of that justify allowing suffering on earth?

[straggler]

I don't take the suffering to argue against the existence of God (which is a waste of time), but rather to point out the flaws in any religious interpretation that claims to understand God and that God is merciful and just.
Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples? Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.

Whatever point an atheist is making when he/she references earthly suffering, I sure can't figure it out.

[Grumman]

If we say for the sake of argument that the God of Abraham is the one true God. I then ask you which scenario is worse:

Spending 24 years locked in a cellar, being raped by your father nearly every day, eventually being freed, living (most likely) for no more than 90 odd years, in which you then transition to the next life, where you will enter a state of eternal bliss, the likes of which you couldn't ever hope to experience here on earth.

Or..

Live a fairly comfortable life here on earth, but due to a pretty selfish existence, burn for an eternity in hell.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.
What sort of piss-weak god do you worship? Why doesn't this god have the power to let the mortal have their cake and eat it too, living a life without constant rape and then still getting the good ending?

[Alka Seltzer]

Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples?

Because the existence of hell is not universally accepted by theists.

[straggler]

I would not be interested in that deal, no, but the bigger problem with that as an answer to the POE is that no such condition is necessary or logically reconcilable with a benevolent God. Only an evil God would impose rape, or torture or childhood leukemia as a condition for his so-called "Heaven."
Why did you go for rape, torture and childhood leukemia as your examples? Why not go for runny noses, cold weather and peak hour traffic?

Seems like you wanted to go for some extreme examples of suffering, yes?

Well, you failed pretty badly if this is the worst you could come up with.

[straggler]

Because the existence of hell is not universally accepted by theists.
No problem. Let's assume that those who suffer the worst in this life, have it the best in the next life.

How much suffering would you be prepared to go through during your 90 or so years of earthly existence?

[Slithy Tove]

(hijack) Hitchens' Quo Vadis joke was originally told by Winston Churchill about Labour MP's Christopher Mayhew, and post-war socialism in general.

[straggler]

What sort of piss-weak god do you worship? Why doesn't this god have the power to let the mortal have their cake and eat it too, living a life without constant rape and then still getting the good ending?
Rewards have to be earned if you want to call yourself "just".

[Skald the Rhymer]

Rewards have to be earned if you want to call yourself "just".

Straggler, can you please explain why we should believe in this God of yours rather than Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Marduk, Morrigan, or Thor?

I'm gonna need a particularly good explanation in the case of Thor.

[monstro]

F Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.


Not unless they felt, as I do, that it's an insane set-up.

A sociopath could play a similar game. Let me sexually torture you every hour on top of the hour for ten years and then I'll give you a billion dollars and your own private island where you can live happily for the rest of your life. Would you love that sociopath? Would you gladly submit to the sexual torture and put all your hopes in some mythical-sounding pipedream that you have no proof even exists? Or would you say "HELL NAW!"

That's my whole problem with the Christian logic, my tendency to say "HELL NAW!!!!" to everything. So I guess that makes me insane.

If Christians didn't put such an emphasis on God being loving and wanting a personal relationship with you, then the harping about suffering would be moot. But because Christians in fact do emphasize that God loves you more than you love yourself, then it stands to reason that we can criticize the theology when it chooses to gloss over all personal suffering with stupid platitudes about heaven and God moving in mysterious ways. I much prefer the idea of an indifferent, cold God who's just watching television on a universal-sized TV screen. That kind of God makes sense, given the reality.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples?

"Mild?" Was the Holocaust mild? Your argument is asinine. It's like trying to argue that a stovetop can't really burn you because the sun is so much hotter. Actually it's like trying to argue that the SUN isn't really hot, because you believe in a supernatural sun that's way hotter than regular stars. I think you're being incredibly insulting and belittling to people who suffer incredibly in real life, and you don't make it better by saying God can make it hurt even worse after death.

You're also completely missing the point that it's logically impossible for an omnimx God to allow ANY suffering, earthly or otherwise.
Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.
I don't want any part of your paradise, but the real point you're missing is that good God would ever make the DEMAND that anyone (especially utter innocents) suffer earthly torment. There is no conceivable justification for it because there is no conceivable necessity for it.

It's also incredibly weird to try to defend God's sadism on earth by arguing that he's an even bigger scumbag after death.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why did you go for rape, torture and childhood leukemia as your examples? Why not go for runny noses, cold weather and peak hour traffic?

Seems like you wanted to go for some extreme examples of suffering, yes?

Well, you failed pretty badly if this is the worst you could come up with.
You cannot address the Problem of Evil by trying to belittle evil.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No problem. Let's assume that those who suffer the worst in this life, have it the best in the next life.

How much suffering would you be prepared to go through during your 90 or so years of earthly existence?
How can a omnibenevolent God demand any suffering at all? It's impossible for an omnimax God to need a reason, therefore it's impossible for God to be omnimax.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

This is ridiculous.

You invented a place called hell, which is defined by comparison to earthly suffering - viz., the suffering in hell is worse than that by a lot -- and now somehow it's supposed to lend credibility to your position that god exists?

The suffering in this world is brought up to point out the fact that there is suffering, and that your god is a douchebag if he's real, not to "prove" that god must not be real.

If the examples given of actual human suffering aren't bad enough for us to feel like your god isn't that appealing, tell us, what's hell like? What happens there?

[you with the face]

Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples?

Suffering is relative, so what some people think are severe misfortunes may look "silly and comparatively mild examples" to you. But the point remains that we live in a world in which horrible things happen to innocent people on a constant basis. You're going to have hard time convincing me that rape by machete, full-body 3rd degree burns resulting from a drunk driving incident, and children born with painful and disfiguring diseases does not constitute examples of suffering that call into question the sweet mercifulness of an all-loving God.

Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.

I'm not getting the point of this. Just because suffering in hell is supposedly worse than the suffering on earth, why is that an argument for God's existence? And, really, why would anyone willingly and joyfully choose to worship an extortionist? If this was a person we were talking about, we'd have locked them up a long time ago, if not electrocuted them for crimes against humanity.

[Alka Seltzer]

Let's assume that those who suffer the worst in this life, have it the best in the next life.

How much suffering would you be prepared to go through during your 90 or so years of earthly existence?

Lets rephrase that question. You, and everyone else, are the inmates of a prison. The length of your sentance is determined arbitarily. The all-powerful govenor has installed CCTV, covering every angle of the prison. He has arranged it so that upon your release you will receive a sum of money, gving you the opportunity to to set-up your new life. The amount you are given is determined by how badly you are treated by your fellow inmates and the guards. You earn dollars for receiving abuse, beatings and suffering rape.

You are asking me if I'd be willing to pick fights with gang-members and how often I'd bend over for the soap in the shower. Can you not see how absurd that is?

Some questions for you Straggler. Do you believe in the existence of hell? If so, what crimes do you believe merit being committed to eternal torture? Do you beleive that the only purpose of life is to determine the fate of your eternal soul?

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't believe you can "...point out the flaws in any religious interpretation....." with anything but a form of witnessing.

Do you?

Yes. If a religion is described to one, one can point out the contradictions it contains, both with itself and with empirical evidence. Perhaps a religion exists which is free of contradictions. I'm not familiar with it, but I'll accept the possibility.

[crowmanyclouds]

... And historically, "you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" has been used far too often as a way of excusing NOT helping those who are suffering in real life.Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

The Preacher and the Slave by Joe Hill (1911) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Preacher_and_the_Slave)

CMC fnord!

[SSG Schwartz]

straggler,

The way I see your argument is this; If I want to be truly blessed when this life is over, I should go out and rob and beat homeless people. After all, they are suffering in this life. I should maim and torture young children. Maybe disfigure a few people by setting them on fire. Not killing anyone, you understand, but leaving them alive, hurting and of course suffering so as these people will have an eternal reward. During the course of my trial, I should accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior and ask for forgiveness. When I am imprisoned I will suffer for the rest of my days. Both from the abuse from the other inmates, and from the memories of the horrors I have inflicted on others. And it would horrify me, because I am a basically good person. I would have to live with the sounds of the screams and the look on the faces of the people I chose to harm to give them a greater reward in the kingdom of heaven. Could I then sit at god's footstool?

SSG Schwartz

[Euphoria]

I believe that organized religion is man's agenda. Read the histories of organized religions to see how a few with a message can manipulate and control the masses. What is a better way to control a society than to convince them that a god in the skies is watching their every move and will punish them eternally if they do the wrong things? Let's not forget the business factor of religion. Religion=big business.
I look at organized religion and spirituality in two different lights. I am very questioning of organized religion, but I have my own spiritual beliefs. I can believe in a higher power without having to dish out the greenbacks. That's my two cents.

[gonzomax]

No problem. Let's assume that those who suffer the worst in this life, have it the best in the next life.

How much suffering would you be prepared to go through during your 90 or so years of earthly existence?

Suffering here is a sure thing. But on the off chance a sky god has a nifty place for an eternity of bliss, should you think" I got Lukemia ,I had my legs cut off in a car accident, I went blind at the age of 5. Damn did I get lucky" Just think how good I am going to have it in this place priests and shamans assure me is there. Yea me.
It is a stupid argument because your heaven does not exist. You can not be assured you just have been dealt a crappy life.

[Sage Rat]

But it got me thinking. Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God?
Because most people pray to God to give them health and happiness, and often say that everything in the world that is good is His, and everything bad is due to Human Fault or Bad Luck. For instance, there was a thread a while back about a plane which nearly crashed, except for the pilot was able to "miraculously" bring it down safely. The popular Christian media held it up the miracle as a proof of God. Anyone with half a brain noted that you could just as easily that God caused the plane to short out and it was the skill of someone who worked really hard to get good at his job that brought it down safe.

The argument might be not-in-keeping with official Christian theology, but practically no-one actually follows any of the various branches of official Christian theology much beyond in name only.

[The Lurker Above]

Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples? Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.

Whatever point an atheist is making when he/she references earthly suffering, I sure can't figure it out.

Generally speaking, atheists don't *believe* in an afterlife. So generally when pulling up examples of suffering we're going to stick to the earthly kind, cause that exists.

Getting upset at atheists using earthly rather than unearthly suffering in their POE arguements is like getting mad at biologists for describing the evolution of horses instead of the *much* more interesting unicorn family tree.

[madmonk28]

I'm an atheist, but for me the suffering doesn't offer proof that there is no God. The suffering does offer proof that if there is a God, he is a complete son of a bitch and does not deserve to be worshipped by me. If anything, He should be looking at how I live my life as a role model (I don't think I've ever caused even one plague).

[ashman165]

Fair enough. But why is it when God bashers/atheists want to present some evidence against God, whether in regards to his existence, his benevolence, theism vs atheism, etc, and they clearly want to present suffering as their evidence, do they pick such silly and comparatively mild examples? Not only do they go for these strange examples, but any sane person would choose an earthly torment for eternal paradise.

Whatever point an atheist is making when he/she references earthly suffering, I sure can't figure it out.

Well, no sane person would accept your premise. Anyway, pointing out the pain, rapes, murders, tortures of people isn't an argument against a god; only against your god because, according to his PR people, he's a good, just, compassionate, merciful, loving god. Well, such a person wouldn't torture, rape, murder and/or torture people. Moreover, emotional blackmail would cut against any concept of such a god.

There's no guarantee though that simply suffering in this world gets one an eternity of paradise. Indeed, the deciding factor has never been how much one suffers here; rather it seems, how much one can suppress one's rational faculties and proclaim a faith in said god, and to do the rites and rituals and all that jazz.

[Kobal2]

I don't get it. Is your point that the worst suffering in this world is peanuts compared to the eternal and unimaginably cruel suffering your God reserves to some of us, and that's a proof that God's kind ?

I'm sorry, but that totally fails to parse on this side of the screen.

[Voyager]

But it got me thinking. Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God? If we take the Abrahamic faiths as our example, we know that the inhabitants of hell will suffer far beyond what any person has suffered in this world. Islamic tradition narrates the story of an inhabitant of the hellfire who will spend every waking moment thinking that nobody could be suffering as much as he is, when in actual fact, he will be the person who is suffering the least.

Judaism, as I learned it, has no hell and no suffering in hell, so you goyim can keep the concept. Even when I used to believe in God I didn't believe in hell. My God wasn't a sick piece of scum.


The Abrahamic faiths also seem to indicate pretty strongly that those who suffer the worst in this life, will have it "the best" in the next life.

Cite? Judaism certainly doesn't believe that, and I've never seen evidence Christianity does. If you want to make up your own religion, be my guest.


If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?

Suffering today for the vague and unsubstantiated rumor of a better life to come? Only an idiot would choose that. Let's see the video at least. Your god is slimier than a used car salesman.

[in hiding]

I think of it as this:

Immortal souls, a benevolent god, and hell. Even conceptually, only two of this three things together make any sense.

Really, what could a human do to deserve eternal punishment? I never understood that. Even more, people seemed to enjoy thinking about others suffering in hell. I don't know, I wouldn't even say hitler deserves hell (and I hope I dont goodwinize the thread). I mean, eternal punishment? That is sick.

So comparing anything to hell will only make any sense to people who believe in it. I would even go further, any god who creates a conscious, feeling being with the ability to suffer and places it in a world like ours in with it will suffer must be considered evil. And if religion claims god to be good, well, then something's off. The argumentation in the OP only makes sense if you are on his/her side already.

[Jackmannii]

Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God?And lightning struck once, and lightning struck twice
And I said "If there's a God, He sure ain't nice"
And Chuck said "God is an Indian giver
I don't trust nothing but the Mississippi River"

The Rainmakers - "Downstream"

[CurtC]

Well, such a person wouldn't torture, rape, murder and/or torture people.

You said "torture" twice.


Cite? Judaism certainly doesn't believe that, and I've never seen evidence Christianity does. If you want to make up your own religion, be my guest.

Luke 16: 19-31: In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus.

[Kobal2]

You said "torture" twice.

He likes torture. :p

[smiling bandit]

All the sources we have on the subject imply that basically, God tosses you out. There is a very good reason why Lewis* among many others, as he was hardly the first to do so but the clearest expositor, though of Hell as being something very unlike a prison. The parables of the Bible, in fact, specifically talk about people being exiled away from their true home or cast outside the warm and inviting home of their true friend or master. Meanwhile, it look at redemption in terms of returning home (the Prodigal Son, etc.) or being invited inside.

However, God does not in any of them go about burning people. In fact, He essentially implies that he forever leaves them alone exactly as they demanded.

* Those unfamiliar with Christian theology may wonder why this is, as Hell and Damnation tend to loom rather large as being associated with Christianity in the popular mind today. This is actually a bit odd and a bit American. A considerable interest in Hell was more a Protestant or populist thing (Dante's Inferno, after all, is a work of fiction which loosely uses popular theology of his day as background). Most serious theologians don't really consider it all too much, as it isn't really their business to deal in Hell, so to speak. In America particularly, early Protestant thinkers had a strong emphasis in sin and damnation and redemption, and it certainly characterd American popular ideas about religion. In Catholic or Orthodox churches, at least, it's not something which gets casually mentioned very often.

I blame the old Jonathan Edwards. Not the new one, who is a really crappy magician. :D

[Bryan Ekers]

You said "torture" twice.

He likes torture.

[Bryan Ekers]

Dagnabbit!

[hotflungwok]

I don't believe you can "...point out the flaws in any religious interpretation....." with anything but a form of witnessing.
This is a ridiculous attempt to distort the definition of witnessing. This is also the third thread I've seen you pull this same tactic. Witnessing in a religious context has a specific meaning. Using logic and evidence to argue against a religious position is not witnessing, and trying to say that it is fails for the exact same reason that the old and lame 'atheism is a religion' claim fails. It's not.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

All the sources we have on the subject imply that basically, God tosses you out. There is a very good reason why Lewis* among many others, as he was hardly the first to do so but the clearest expositor, though of Hell as being something very unlike a prison. The parables of the Bible, in fact, specifically talk about people being exiled away from their true home or cast outside the warm and inviting home of their true friend or master. Meanwhile, it look at redemption in terms of returning home (the Prodigal Son, etc.) or being invited inside.

However, God does not in any of them go about burning people. In fact, He essentially implies that he forever leaves them alone exactly as they demanded.
This still sounds like passive-aggressive, victim blaming horseshit to me. Who's "demanding" anything? You can't make demands from an entity you have no idea exists. This explanation doesn't let God off the hook for anything. He's still eternally punishing people for basically nothing. Trying to cast it as an informed, conscious choice on the part of the victims does not pass the smell test, especially the "informed" part. God has no right to make any demands or set any conditions as long as he refuses to prove his own existence.

This is all off-topic from the POE, though.

[Marley23]

I keep reading "POE" as "purity of essence."

The problem of evil, or suffering in general, don't argue against the existence of an impersonal god. But they're fairly convincing arguments against any kind of compassionate and just god - and if they weren't, people wouldn't have been struggling with these issues for millennia. And when people point this out, the response usually takes one of two forms: "keep saying that and you'll go to hell," or "you can't understand what god is doing." The OP has chosen the former. One's a threat and the other is thoroughly unsatisfying for many people.

[Meatros]

People often point to all the suffering in the world as an argument against God. Sometimes it's to argue against the existence of God, sometimes it's to imply that if there is a God, he's evil.

Christopher Hitchens gets asked in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpKBxHMlzCU) what "anti-theism" has contributed to the world. Hitchens responds by saying that theism seemed to offer nothing to Joseph Frtizl's daughter.

But it got me thinking. Why do atheists so often point to the suffering in this world to argue against God? If we take the Abrahamic faiths as our example, we know that the inhabitants of hell will suffer far beyond what any person has suffered in this world. Islamic tradition narrates the story of an inhabitant of the hellfire who will spend every waking moment thinking that nobody could be suffering as much as he is, when in actual fact, he will be the person who is suffering the least. To put it another way, every single inhabitant of hell would, by all accounts, trade their spot with Fritzl's daughter in the blink of an eye. Or, I'll put it another way: If you want to talk about the worst kinds of suffering, you look silly talking about anything earthly.

But silly seems to be how a lot of God bashers don't mind looking.

The Abrahamic faiths also seem to indicate pretty strongly that those who suffer the worst in this life, will have it "the best" in the next life.

If we say for the sake of argument that the God of Abraham is the one true God. I then ask you which scenario is worse:

Spending 24 years locked in a cellar, being raped by your father nearly every day, eventually being freed, living (most likely) for no more than 90 odd years, in which you then transition to the next life, where you will enter a state of eternal bliss, the likes of which you couldn't ever hope to experience here on earth.

Or..

Live a fairly comfortable life here on earth, but due to a pretty selfish existence, burn for an eternity in hell.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?

Are you serious?

So because getting gutted like a fish is more painful then taking a hammer to my hand, we shouldn't find the latter evil?

You do realize that with an omnimax entity, logically speaking, there's no need for the torment at all, right?

[The Hamster King]

The problem of evil, or suffering in general, don't argue against the existence of an impersonal god. But they're fairly convincing arguments against any kind of compassionate and just god ... Or an omnipotent God. Or an all-knowing God.

The existence of evil proves that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, AND purely good. But He might be any two of the three:


Maybe God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but a complete dick. He sees people suffering and has the power to prevent it, but he doesn't care or actually enjoys it.

Maybe God is loving and kind and aware of human suffering, but has limited powers. He does His best, but there are some things He just can't fix.

Maybe God is loving and kind and has the power to fix everything, but He isn't aware of all the suffering that's going on. When someone calls His attention to a problem (by praying a lot, for example) He may step in and fix it, but lots of things just slip through the cracks.
One of the big holes in Christian theology is its inability to reconcile the notion of an omnipotent, omnisicent, omni-good God with the existence of evil.

[Kobal2]

And when people point this out, the response usually takes one of two forms: "keep saying that and you'll go to hell," or "you can't understand what god is doing." The OP has chosen the former. One's a threat and the other is thoroughly unsatisfying for many people.

Not to mention paradoxical : saying that you can't know God implies that the person making that statement does know him, or at least an aspect of him : his convenient unknowability.
Similarly, if one can't understand what God is doing, what would the purpose of an organized cult be ? It's not like you have any idea whether what you're doing is pleasing him, or pissing him off, or the Bible was just a joke, or a test to see who'd believe that contradictory jumble etc...

So it's not only unsatisfying : it's a self-defeating argument.

[Clothahump]

Live a fairly comfortable life here on earth, but due to a pretty selfish existence, burn for an eternity in hell.

If eternal bliss was offered to me for the price of an earthly torment, I'd take it.

Wouldn't anyone?

Please show proof of the existence of either heaven or hell.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Please show proof of the existence of either heaven or hell.

I protest. The choices are Hel and Valhalla!

[Trans Fat Og]

This is a ridiculous attempt to distort the definition of witnessing. This is also the third thread I've seen you pull this same tactic. Witnessing in a religious context has a specific meaning. Using logic and evidence to argue against a religious position is not witnessing, and trying to say that it is fails for the exact same reason that the old and lame 'atheism is a religion' claim fails. It's not.Well put. With no real case, those "witnessing" to their supposed higher truths must fall back on a "judo" form of rhetoric.

And it's pathetic.

[kevlaw]

One of the big holes in Christian theology is its inability to reconcile the notion of an omnipotent, omnisicent, omni-good God with the existence of evil.

I think this is the essence of the question in the OP - that atheist apologia often focusses on the problem of evil and the contradictions that arise when God is assumed to have the omni* trifecta.

Reframing the question slightly to find out something I have always wondered...

...where does that assumption come from?

Is there support in scripture for an omimax God? Or was that something tacked on later? Does Judaism assume omnimax? Does Islam?

[lekatt]

It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God"


Consider this:

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=651

[ashman165]

You said "torture" twice.

It's bad enough to warrant mentioning twice, no?




Luke 16: 19-31: In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man goes to hell, because as Abraham explains, he had a good life on earth and so now he will be tormented. Whereas Lazarus, who was miserable on earth, is now in heaven. This seems fair to Jesus.

Oh, I see. Are we really going to selectively quote from the bible to prove a point despite the fact it goes against the central tenets of the faith? Oh wait, yes, we should as that is the only ideal to which all religious folks actually adhere.

[Sitnam]

I don't believe you can "...point out the flaws in any religious interpretation....." with anything but a form of witnessing.

Do you?
You consider logic a 'faith'? I have a math degree, am I now qualified to pontificate on Calculism?

[ashman165]

I think this is the essence of the question in the OP - that atheist apologia often focusses on the problem of evil and the contradictions that arise when God is assumed to have the omni* trifecta.

Reframing the question slightly to find out something I have always wondered...

...where does that assumption come from?

Is there support in scripture for an omimax God? Or was that something tacked on later? Does Judaism assume omnimax? Does Islam?

How is an atheist's rejection of religion by use of logic, reasoning and evidence an apologetic? It's not as though we're defending a position; we're arguing against a position, which isn't the same as arguing for a position.

[Der Trihs]

The problem of evil, or suffering in general, don't argue against the existence of an impersonal god. But they're fairly convincing arguments against any kind of compassionate and just god - and if they weren't, people wouldn't have been struggling with these issues for millennia. And when people point this out, the response usually takes one of two forms: "keep saying that and you'll go to hell," or "you can't understand what god is doing." The OP has chosen the former. One's a threat and the other is thoroughly unsatisfying for many people.
The latter is also hypocritical in most cases, since the same people who deflect criticism of God with the "he is beyond human understanding" line very seldom hesitate to turn around and attribute all sorts of good activities and intentions to God. Apparently, God is only impossible to understand when understanding him make God look bad.

[The Hamster King]

Consider this:So evil is a teaching experience?

That's a poor answer. Evil tends to beget evil. Hate tends to beget hate. Suffering tends to beget suffering.

If you want to raise a child to be a loving and caring adult, do you treat him with love and care, or pain and cruelty?

If God intends for the existence of evil to help us grow as individuals, he's woefully ill-informed about what makes human beings tick.

And any God with such a poor understanding of human behavior is clearly not omnipotent.

[Sitnam]

It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God"


Consider this:

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=651
God creates new souls, God creates classroom to teach new souls, why doesn't God just create educated souls?

[Der Trihs]

And any God with such a poor understanding of human behavior is clearly not omnipotent.Nitpick; clearly not omniscient. All knowing, not all powerful. God could be an omnipotent idiot.

[The Hamster King]

Nitpick; clearly not omniscient. All knowing, not all powerful. God could be an omnipotent idiot.Agreed. I got my omni's mixed up! :smack:

[Skald the Rhymer]

Nitpick; clearly not omniscient. All knowing, not all powerful. God could be an omnipotent idiot.

I disagree. Omnipotence implies omniscience, though the reverse is untrue.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think this is the essence of the question in the OP - that atheist apologia often focusses on the problem of evil and the contradictions that arise when God is assumed to have the omni* trifecta.

Reframing the question slightly to find out something I have always wondered...

...where does that assumption come from?

Is there support in scripture for an omimax God? Or was that something tacked on later? Does Judaism assume omnimax? Does Islam?
1. There's no such thing as atheist apologia. Atheism is not a belief or an assertion, it's an absence of belief or assertion. There is nothing about it that needs to be defended. It's the null hypothesis, the default logical assumption.

2. The answer to all three of your questions is generally yes, but your questions are also moot to the discussion since the POE does not assert that no God exists, but only that no omnimax God can exist. If you want to assert that God is not omnimax, then you're agreeing with the atheists.

[kevlaw]

Is there support in scripture for an omimax God? Or was that something tacked on later? Does Judaism assume omnimax? Does Islam?


2. The answer to all three of your questions is generally yes

Sorry for the ambiguous question. Trying again.

If there is support in Christian scripture for an omnimax God, where can I find it? Or was that something tacked on later?

Does Judaism assume omnimax - if so, where can I find support for it?
Does Islam assume omnimax - if so, where can I find support for it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You won't find one neat little cite in the Bible or the Koran, but you can find numerous quotations for each individual attribute -- omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence both in the Bible and in the Koran. In Islam, they are literal NAMES of Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Names_of_Allah).

In the Bible, you can find support for omnibenovelence in Psalms 18 and 19.

Omnipotence is supported throught by description of God as "Almighty," and Revelation 19:6 actually uses the word "omnipotent"

Omniscience can be supported by all kinds of verses, a few of good examples would be 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16 and Psalms 147:5.

All these attributes are widely accepted within the religions in question, but if you want to argue that God is not omnimax, you should understand that that's exactly what the POE is asserting too. You wouldn't be raising an objection to it, you'd be conceding it.

[Voyager]

Omnipotence is supported throught by description of God as "Almighty," and Revelation 19:6 actually uses the word "omnipotent"

Omniscience can be supported by all kinds of verses, a few of good examples would be 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16 and Psalms 147:5.

There are also all kinds of verses, especially in the earlier parts, which can be used to argue against a tri-omni God. God searches for Adam and Eve in the Garden, God cannot defeat the famous Chariots of Iron, and God repenting his destruction of the world in the Flood. Sure there are lots of "explanations" for this, but it appears that God grew into being tri-omni.

A question, since you're the expert - how much are the Psalms considered to be reliable sources of information? I was taught them as songs of David, as they say, and not as being divinely inspired. Would even a believer in inerrancy call the Song of Solomon inerrant? That seems really pushing it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Psalms and the song of Solomon are pretty well universally understood to be poetic in nature. I don't know of even the most hardcore literalist who would say that those works don't contain metaphors, hyperbole and figurative language. They would still say the messages conveyed are "inerrant," but they would not say that every line is supposed to be taken the most literal way possible. A "literalist" interpretation of the Song of Songs would be that it 's literally about Solomon's wedding, but that it's still a love song, not a newspaper report.

There's a distinction between inerrantism and literalism. Even the most fanatical literalists have to recognize some metaphors. I don't think that any of them actually think a literal beast with seven heads and a whore on its back is going to rise out of the ocean.

[Revtim]

God creates new souls, God creates classroom to teach new souls, why doesn't God just create educated souls?The whole "we suffer in order to learn" argument is a sign that the authors of Judea-Christianity really did not grasp the idea of omnipotence. In addition to your point, that He could make educated souls, it's interested to wonder *why* He would want us to learn.

We want our children to learn, because they will not always have us to protect them and guide them from the bad things in the world, because it is beyond our power. The next best step is to teach the kids to deal with the issues and problems themselves.

But of course it makes no sense for an omnipotent God to need His creations to learn anything. It's like I were to start kicking my dog, so it could learn to deal with me kicking it.

[kevlaw]

You won't find one neat little cite in the Bible or the Koran, but you can find numerous quotations for each individual attribute -- omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence both in the Bible and in the Koran. In Islam, they are literal NAMES of Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Names_of_Allah).

Thanks for that, Diogenes. It was an excellent list and just what I was hoping for.

A followup question: What's the history behind rolling up these attributes into the familiar tri-omni attributes? I don't think I could've come up with them on my own from these snippets and wonder when the tradition arose. Is the history of the tradition well-documented the way that the history of the trinity is documented? Wikipedia has a couple of quotes from Aquinas and Augustine that just assume omni* etc

BTW I don't mean to create a bunch of cite-finding work for you. If someone points me in the right direction, I can do the leg work.


All these attributes are widely accepted within the religions in question, but if you want to argue that God is not omnimax, you should understand that that's exactly what the POE is asserting too. You wouldn't be raising an objection to it, you'd be conceding it.

You covered Islam pretty well. Does the Jewish tradition accept that these quotes mean what Christians say they mean? Are they official doctrine in all the main sects of Christianity the way that the Trinity is?

I understand that the problem of evil goes away without omni* - which naturally led me to wonder where the tradition of omni* came from.

[lekatt]

So evil is a teaching experience?

That's a poor answer. Evil tends to beget evil. Hate tends to beget hate. Suffering tends to beget suffering.

If you want to raise a child to be a loving and caring adult, do you treat him with love and care, or pain and cruelty?

If God intends for the existence of evil to help us grow as individuals, he's woefully ill-informed about what makes human beings tick.

And any God with such a poor understanding of human behavior is clearly not omnipotent.

You are just falling back on the old argument that God is responsible for evil which is not true. We humans created the evil and we are responsible for it. Learning to see beyond the evil and rise above it is the responsibility of all of us, the world changes as we change.

[YogSosoth]

Of course god is responsible for evil. If he's benevolent and omnipotent, he'd end it. Since he doesnt, then he cannot be both those things.

[lekatt]

God creates new souls, God creates classroom to teach new souls, why doesn't God just create educated souls?

God did not create the classroom, we humans did. Why didn't God just recreate himself over and over? Because the "why" in the doing is lost. We have free will to follow different paths some known and some unknown, the more of us learning translates into greater knowledge and greater creations.

I wrote that from what I learned in my near death experience.

[The Hamster King]

You are just falling back on the old argument that God is responsible for evil which is not true.If I know a danger exists and I have the power to stop it, am I not responsible for the consequences if I fail to act?

Suppose I see a child playing on the railroad tracks and do nothing, even though it would be trivial for me to stop her, and would put me at no risk. Ten minutes later a train comes along and kills her. I didn't tell the child to play on the tracks, and I wasn't driving the locomotive, but I'm still responsible for her death, through my selfish inaction.

If God has the power to stop evil (as most Christians claim he does) and has knowledge that evil is occurring (again, as most Christians claim he does) then his failure to act is wicked and wrong even if he is not responsible for setting the evil in motion.

[lekatt]

Of course god is responsible for evil. If he's benevolent and omnipotent, he'd end it. Since he doesnt, then he cannot be both those things.

If God cleaned up our messes and made it impossible for us to make mistakes what could be achieved from creating such robots. Nothing. We have free will in order to help co-create with God eventually when we learn to be responsible in our thought and deeds.

We are just children in the spirit sense.

[lekatt]

If I know a danger exists and I have the power to stop it, am I not responsible for the consequences if I fail to act?

Suppose I see a child playing on the railroad tracks and do nothing, even though it would be trivial for me to stop her, and would put me at no risk. Ten minutes later a train comes along and kills her. I didn't tell the child to play on the tracks, and I wasn't driving the locomotive, but I'm still responsible for her death, through my selfish inaction.

If God has the power to stop evil (as most Christians claim he does) and has knowledge that evil is occurring (again, as most Christians claim he does) then his failure to act is wicked and wrong even if he is not responsible for setting the evil in motion.

What you are missing here is that we are eternal and can't be hurt in any way. You are identifying with your body which is not who/what you are. Finding out who you really are is another part of the puzzle.

[The Hamster King]

God did not create the classroom, we humans did.That directly contradicts your link (http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=651): "The physical world, in which we now live, was created to provide a classroom for young souls to learn about themselves and others."

Making up random nonsense and changing your stance from post to post is not an effective way to argue ... .

[monstro]

Another response to the question of suffering that I hear frequently is that those who suffer the most often have the most faith in God and are generally more at peace than those who aren't suffering. People who believe this usually cite inspirational "Chicken Soup for the Soul" stories about handicapped people who run marathon races and rescue kittens stuck in trees. Suffering, they say, not only makes those people stronger but they inspire the rest of us to have faith in God when we're suffering.

But there are plenty of people who had loads of faith in God who's stories don't make into the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" series. They don't because they end up suffering horribly and tragically, with no happy ending until death arrives.

God doesn't give you more than you can handle...until he decides to kill you.

[The Hamster King]

What you are missing here is that we are eternal and can't be hurt in any way.Congratulations. You've just rationalized away the idea of right and wrong.

If all pain is meaningless because we are all eternal souls then why is it wrong to hurt another human being?

[Stalingraduate]

I can't help but notice that we keep using a Christianity-centric (perhaps Islamic-centric as well) view that God (if it exists) is for some reason supposed to be benevolent. A lot of folks are saying, "well, if God is an evil prick, then that's not a god I would want to believe in." If one actually believes in God, though, it's not really a choice as to whether or not to believe. Belief is belief. It's not a lifestyle or a diet. You can't just change it. People these days may change their religion every other week, but theoretically religions are supposed to reflect the true beliefs of their followers, who would stop following if their beliefs diverted from the religion's tenets. It's possible to have a cruel, capricious God, and still believe in that god. Supposedly, people who believe in a particular deity do it because they actually, really do believe in it, not just for some expected reward.

Look at the Old Testament God. Cruel and capricious as hell (even though the idea of hell wasn't there at this point). Singles out an entire group of people, a "chosen people," to toy with, letting the crap get persecuted out of them, making them walk through the desert for a ridiculous length of time, among other things. Decides for the hell of it to come down and kill the first born of a separate group because it was screwing with the first group. This is the kind of God that you were when you were playing Sim City and, after spending a huge portion of the game building your town into a metropolis, decided to subject it to fires, floods, and a big alien robot. Despite this, there are a lot of folks that believe in this kind of god. They're called Jews. (Yes, I realize I am grossly oversimplifying Judaism, Jewish culture and Jewish mythology here)

It's not surprising that Judaism produces so many agnostics and atheists (I happen to be one of these "spiritually agnostic, culturally Jewish" folks). That said, I know a number of Jews who are pretty religious, and they don't live in fear of God. They just accept the idea that we're not supposed to know why God does what God does. Maybe it's out of cruelty or good fun. Maybe there's some other reason, a reason that's actually pretty good and makes sense once you hear it directly from God. Hard to say unless you get contacted by the big guy directly. Or maybe the answer is revealed to you after you die.

Saying "that's not the kind of God I want!" is not an argument against there being a cruel God. The argument of "If God is real, then there shouldn't be hatred and tragedy" also fails, because it's fully possible that God thinks amputees and burn victims are hilarious.

[monstro]

Saying "that's not the kind of God I want!" is not an argument against there being a cruel God. The argument of "If God is real, then there shouldn't be hatred and tragedy" also fails, because it's fully possible that God thinks amputees and burn victims are hilarious.

But if God is so cruel, how are we supposed to love and worship him? By just focusing on the flowers and rainbows and lollipops?

[Stalingraduate]

But if God is so cruel, how are we supposed to love and worship him? By just focusing on the flowers and rainbows and lollipops?

Why are we supposed to love God? :confused:

Then again, love doesn't always happen for good reasons. I've known women who stay with the men who beat them, and abused children who cry at their sadistic parents' funerals.

Maybe people love God for when He/She/It isn't cruel. If God has been beating the crap out of you for most of your life, and then for one day decides to be nice and give you that big raise, you know what people say? "Thank God!"

[monstro]

Why are we supposed to love God? :confused:

Well, the 10 Commandments tell us that if we want his steadfast love, we've got to love him back and keep his law. I'm just saying...it's kind of hard not to be a blasphemer if God finds mutilation and torture hilarious.

It's not just Christians who talk about God having love for his creation.

Then again, love doesn't always happen for good reasons. I've known women who stay with the men who beat them, and abused children who cry at their sadistic parents' funerals.

Maybe people love God for when He/She/It isn't cruel. If God has been beating the crap out of you for most of your life, and then for one day decides to be nice and give you that big raise, you know what people say? "Thank God!"

And it doesn't make sense. It would be one thing if people would acknowledge that their love for God doesn't make sense. But instead they rationalize it in a million contradictory ways, causing non-believers to drift further and further away from them and their god.

[Czarcasm]

I wrote that from what I learned in my near death experience.Bad dream, you mean. According to your own records, you didn't have an NDE.

[lekatt]

That directly contradicts your link (http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=651): "The physical world, in which we now live, was created to provide a classroom for young souls to learn about themselves and others."

Making up random nonsense and changing your stance from post to post is not an effective way to argue ... .

I should have said the evil, then. I am sure most understood.

[lekatt]

Congratulations. You've just rationalized away the idea of right and wrong.

If all pain is meaningless because we are all eternal souls then why is it wrong to hurt another human being?

That is not what I said. Nor did I change right and wrong. You don't wish to understand I guess.

[Kobal2]

I understand that the problem of evil goes away without omni* - which naturally led me to wonder where the tradition of omni* came from.

I think that'd go hand in hand with aggressive* monotheism : upon the consolidation of manygods into monogod, the one god naturally had to take the powers of all the minions, and even be more powerful than the pantheon combined. Otherwise the religious pissing contest would be all skewed in favor of pantheism : they could just zerg the monogod, or something.

So you start with a single Gawd that knows more, can do more, and is less of a random evil jerkwad than the older gods of the neighbouring tribes. Considering the hijinks of the Roman gods, the latter is a far cry from omnibenevolence, but still ;).

From that point on, whenever the monotheistic group encounters another religious group, be they pantheists or monotheists as well, the Monogod can't but take from them whatever attributes He doesn't have yet - if He's the one true God, He must beat all the other gods, He can't be the one true God if some other god can, I dunno, stop the Sun dead in its tracks and He can't.

Since Buddha is omnibenevolent, and Odin is omniscient (or nigh-omniscient ? I must confess my Norse lore ain't what it used to be. Skald, an expert counsel if you please ?), and there's a god out there for every single power and every natural phenomena, well... overtime, you're bound to wind up with an omni* God.

So, IMO, the omni* tradition comes from missionary PR, simple as that. You can't convert anyone to your faith if your God ain't better than theirs.

*not in the sense of being warlike, mind you, but in the sense of aiming to convert other people to the creed - a Christian novelty.

[straggler]

Not unless they felt, as I do, that it's an insane set-up.

A sociopath could play a similar game. Let me sexually torture you every hour on top of the hour for ten years and then I'll give you a billion dollars and your own private island where you can live happily for the rest of your life. Would you love that sociopath? Would you gladly submit to the sexual torture and put all your hopes in some mythical-sounding pipedream that you have no proof even exists? Or would you say "HELL NAW!"
That wasn't the question. The question was, why do atheists point to such comparatively mild examples of suffering, when clearly trying to stress a point about the types of severe suffering that exist?

[straggler]

"Mild?" Was the Holocaust mild?
Compared to the eternal torment of hell as laid out in the Judeo-Christian traditions?

Um, yes, Diogenes.

[straggler]

What sort of piss-weak god do you worship? Why doesn't this god have the power to let the mortal have their cake and eat it too, living a life without constant rape and then still getting the good ending?
The Abrahmic God, by all accounts, does have such power. Your argument rests on a baseless assumption that you know the will of God. You clearly don't.

[straggler]

This is ridiculous.

You invented a place called hell, which is defined by comparison to earthly suffering - viz., the suffering in hell is worse than that by a lot -- and now somehow it's supposed to lend credibility to your position that god exists?
Huh? Where on earth did I argue that?

If the examples given of actual human suffering aren't bad enough for us to feel like your god isn't that appealing, tell us, what's hell like? What happens there?
If you are so poorly versed in these topics that you've never read the Abrahamic traditions' accounts of hell, you are hopelessly ill-informed to be even participating in this discussion.

[straggler]

I'm not getting the point of this. Just because suffering in hell is supposedly worse than the suffering on earth, why is that an argument for God's existence?
Again, who is arguing this? Are you in the right thread?

[Der Trihs]

That wasn't the question. The question was, why do atheists point to such comparatively mild examples of suffering, when clearly trying to stress a point about the types of severe suffering that exist?Because nothing more is necessary. Unlike you, they don't regard such things as rape and torture and the Holocaust as "silly" ( and by doing so, you demonstrate one of the many reasons religion is evil ). Nor have you presented evidence that sucking up to your demon god won't result in being thrown into Hell anyway.

[straggler]

Lets rephrase that question. You, and everyone else, are the inmates of a prison. The length of your sentance is determined arbitarily. The all-powerful govenor has installed CCTV, covering every angle of the prison. He has arranged it so that upon your release you will receive a sum of money, gving you the opportunity to to set-up your new life. The amount you are given is determined by how badly you are treated by your fellow inmates and the guards. You earn dollars for receiving abuse, beatings and suffering rape.

You are asking me if I'd be willing to pick fights with gang-members and how often I'd bend over for the soap in the shower. Can you not see how absurd that is?
Yep, it's patently absurd. The Abrahamic traditions talk about existence being eternal. Life on earth is merely a transitive, temporary state. Now, if you were to ask me if letting gang members beat me up would lead to an eternal paradise once my transitive earthly existence is over, then yes, I would give it serious consideration.

Some questions for you Straggler. Do you believe in the existence of hell? If so, what crimes do you believe merit being committed to eternal torture? Do you beleive that the only purpose of life is to determine the fate of your eternal soul?
I have absolutely no idea.

[straggler]

straggler,
The way I see your argument is this; If I want to be truly blessed when this life is over, I should go out and rob and beat homeless people. After all, they are suffering in this life. I should maim and torture young children. Maybe disfigure a few people by setting them on fire. Not killing anyone, you understand, but leaving them alive, hurting and of course suffering so as these people will have an eternal reward. During the course of my trial, I should accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior and ask for forgiveness. When I am imprisoned I will suffer for the rest of my days. Both from the abuse from the other inmates, and from the memories of the horrors I have inflicted on others. And it would horrify me, because I am a basically good person. I would have to live with the sounds of the screams and the look on the faces of the people I chose to harm to give them a greater reward in the kingdom of heaven. Could I then sit at god's footstool?
SSG Schwartz
:confused:

[straggler]

Suffering here is a sure thing. But on the off chance a sky god has a nifty place for an eternity of bliss, should you think" I got Lukemia ,I had my legs cut off in a car accident, I went blind at the age of 5. Damn did I get lucky" Just think how good I am going to have it in this place priests and shamans assure me is there. Yea me.
It is a stupid argument because your heaven does not exist. You can not be assured you just have been dealt a crappy life.
"But heaven doesn't really exist!", if true, is not a relevant argument to this discussion.

[straggler]

Generally speaking, atheists don't *believe* in an afterlife. So generally when pulling up examples of suffering we're going to stick to the earthly kind, cause that exists.
That's fine - just don't expect to convince many believers using such comparatively mild examples of temporary suffering.

[straggler]

Well, no sane person would accept your premise. Anyway, pointing out the pain, rapes, murders, tortures of people isn't an argument against a god; only against your god because, according to his PR people, he's a good, just, compassionate, merciful, loving god. Well, such a person wouldn't torture, rape, murder and/or torture people. Moreover, emotional blackmail would cut against any concept of such a god.
You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody.

[straggler]

Because nothing more is necessary. Unlike you, they don't regard such things as rape and torture and the Holocaust as "silly"
Der Trihs, if your best response is to disingenuously quote me out of context, then it only serves to detract from whatever overall point you are making, rather than enforce it.

[Der Trihs]

You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody.No, they wouldn't. Such "transitory" suffering is easily enough to compel you to make whatever choice will end it NOW. Your hypothetical afterlife won't make that agony hurt any less.

Der Trihs, if your best response is to disingenuously quote me out of context, then it only serves to detract from whatever overall point you are making, rather than enforce it.I didn't quote you out of context; you've been systematically calling all sorts of horrible things words like "silly".

And you are completely ignoring the point that there's no reason to think your evil god would NOT throw people into Hell even if they sucked up to him. There's no reason to think that such a god won't just throw EVERYONE into Hell no matter what they do. That's exactly what I'd expect from the monster you are describing.

[Kobal2]

You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody.

That presupposes the actual existence of such eternal torment (a concept, I hasten to add, that was absent in Christianity until the Middle Ages). In the absence of any kind of proof, or even hint towards that (again, it's not in the Bible), it seems... well, silly to say or think that earthly suffering is irrelevant.

[Revenant Threshold]

You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody.I think the general problem with your argument is in the phrasing it as an either-or. Yes, I agree with you, temporal suffering is less harsh than eternal punishment - even the most mild punishment, over an eternity, would easily beat out any kind of horrible unpleasantness we could come up with here. But the question is not which option out of the two means the least suffering, but why there has to be suffering at all, or at least why suffering is not reduced to the minimum possible under that particular God. Each and every piece of suffering, temporal or otherwise, must be accounted for under a benevolent God. So when I bring up suffering in a God debate, it's not to make the argument about temporal suffering being the worst possible thing, but to make the argument that unnecessary suffering exists, in however comparitively small an amount.

[Marley23]

Your argument rests on a baseless assumption that you know the will of God. You clearly don't.
You've now used the second argument I paraphrased earlier. Congratulations!

A lot of folks are saying, "well, if God is an evil prick, then that's not a god I would want to believe in." If one actually believes in God, though, it's not really a choice as to whether or not to believe. Belief is belief. It's not a lifestyle or a diet. You can't just change it.
If people can't change their beliefs, why have ideas of god and religion evolved over the centuries? This thread makes it clear that they have done so.
theoretically religions are supposed to reflect the true beliefs of their followers, who would stop following if their beliefs diverted from the religion's tenets.
Theoretically, maybe. But I don't think it works out that way in real life.
It's possible to have a cruel, capricious God, and still believe in that god.
I almost commented on this in my first post. What you're saying is true, but that's not the god most people want. Most people want a god who makes the world more understandable and bearable, who rewards their good deeds, makes their suffering worthwhile, and perhaps punishes those who wrong them.
Supposedly, people who believe in a particular deity do it because they actually, really do believe in it, not just for some expected reward.
This fails to understand why people believe, I think.

[straggler]

No, they wouldn't. Such "transitory" suffering is easily enough to compel you to make whatever choice will end it NOW. Your hypothetical afterlife won't make that agony hurt any less.
Now you've switched to using strawmen. I am not arguing that a pleasant afterlife would ease the suffering one might experience in this world. Incidentally, it could certainly erase any memory of it.

I didn't quote you out of context; you've been systematically calling all sorts of horrible things words like "silly".
No, I haven't. Cite please.

And you are completely ignoring the point that there's no reason to think your evil god would NOT throw people into Hell even if they sucked up to him. There's no reason to think that such a god won't just throw EVERYONE into Hell no matter what they do. That's exactly what I'd expect from the monster you are describing.
And the relevance this has to the discussion is.. ?

[straggler]

That presupposes the actual existence of such eternal torment (a concept, I hasten to add, that was absent in Christianity until the Middle Ages). In the absence of any kind of proof, or even hint towards that (again, it's not in the Bible), it seems... well, silly to say or think that earthly suffering is irrelevant.
In other words, atheists are prepared to pre-suppose that a God exists for the sake of arguing that He is allowing suffering on earth, but when believers retort by pointing out that there exists an eternal torment that is comparatively much worse to anything experienced here on earth, atheists change their mind and decide that it's not acceptable to pre-suppose the existence of a God?

That is a hopelessly, hopelessly inconsistent line of reasoning.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Now, if you were to ask me if letting gang members beat me up would lead to an eternal paradise once my transitive earthly existence is over, then yes, I would give it serious consideration.

It's worth examining why you would merely "give it serious consideration" rather than outright say "yes, of course; come beat me; the reward is eternal paradise, after all". For the sake of argument, think of happiness as something available in a measurable quantity. Your argument implies that having a small quantity of happiness immediately (say, 0 utils for twenty-four years while you're locked in a cellar and raped by your father) is entirely outweighed by a large amount of happiness received in perpetuity.

What you ignore is that we discount the happiness available at future times—future happiness is worth less than present happiness. Pulling numbers out of my ass for the sake of demonstration, say I have two choices:

1) I can be locked in a cellar and raped by my father for 24 years, during which time I receive 0 utils. At the end of year 24 I die and because of my suffering ascend to heaven; then I receive 100 utils per year forever.

2) I avoid being raped by my father. For 24 years I receive 45 utils, and as before I die just before turning 25. My modicum of happiness displeases God; my soul separates from His love and I receive 0 utils per year forever.

Assume further that I discount happiness at an effective rate of 5%. The math is not difficult. Due to the magic of geometric series, at commencement the present value of scenario (1) is about 620 utils; the present value of scenario (2) is 666 utils*. The immediacy of earthly pleasure outweighs the eternity of heavenly bliss.

Of course this exercise is facetious, but I trust it's clear: eternal happiness does not render earthly pain meaningless or silly. That pain is happening now.


* I swear I didn't plan that: sum 45/1.05^x, x = 0..24 = 665.94.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So life is pretty much a hazing conducted in order to get into the Heaven fraternity? And god's take on it is "Shut up or I'll give you something to really cry about?"

Yeah, sign me up for that philosophy.

[Bryan Ekers]

Assuming God actually exists, which religion (if any) has some solid evidence that their interpretation of God's nature and intent is accurate?

[Kobal2]

In other words, atheists are prepared to pre-suppose that a God exists for the sake of arguing that He is allowing suffering on earth, but when believers retort by pointing out that there exists an eternal torment that is comparatively much worse to anything experienced here on earth, atheists change their mind and decide that it's not acceptable to pre-suppose the existence of a God?

That is a hopelessly, hopelessly inconsistent line of reasoning.

I'll skip on the irony of a Christian accusing others of inconsistency. Too obvious.

But, to answer you :
First of all, there's no such thing as a united body of atheists. We don't have a club.

Second, pointing out that "hey, pal, there's horribly worse and abominably cruel suffering in the next world, so be thankful you got raped and tortured for a spell in this world !" doesn't exactly entice me to your point of view that the God you present me is nice and friendly.

Thirdly, as Reverend Threshold points out, the existence of any suffering whatsoever is kind of a big deal when you're trying to sell the idea of an omnipotent and loving God. If he loves us so much, why would he torture us ? If he knows us (and he should, having created each one of us to his specs), why would he need to test us ? If he's omniscient, wouldn't he know before he even creates us what the end result of the test will be ? If he gave us free will so we had the freedom to choose him, and choosing him equals eternal bliss but not choosing him equals eternal torment, is it really that much of a choice, and couldn't he dispense with the kangaroo trial ? Etc, etc, ad nauseam. I'm not going to plow through the entire litany of inconsistencies and paradoxes in the Christian doctrine (especially since there are a bajillion versions of said doctrine these days -I tell ya, it was much easier when everyone was either a Catholic or a heretic :p)

ETA : oh, and yes, a majority of agnostics will be ready to acknowledge the idea that there might be a God, since our current knowledge doesn't explain *everything*. But if you want to jump from "God's in the cracks" to "Hell's real", well, mind the gap.

[straggler]

So life is pretty much a hazing conducted in order to get into the Heaven fraternity? And god's take on it is "Shut up or I'll give you something to really cry about?"

Yeah, sign me up for that philosophy.
No one is trying to sign you up for anything, perhaps you need to re-read the thread.

[straggler]

Assuming God actually exists, which religion (if any) has some solid evidence that their interpretation of God's nature and intent is accurate?
Are you asking me?

Let's say for the sake of argument, that none of them have a shred of it.

Now over to you to conclude with a point.

[straggler]

I'll skip on the irony of a Christian accusing others of inconsistency. Too obvious.

That happened in this thread? Where?

Second, pointing out that "hey, pal, there's horribly worse and abominably cruel suffering in the next world, so be thankful you got raped and tortured for a spell in this world !" doesn't exactly entice me to your point of view that the God you present me is nice and friendly.
Someone was arguing that God is "nice and friendly"?

Thirdly, as Reverend Threshold points out, the existence of any suffering whatsoever is kind of a big deal when you're trying to sell the idea of an omnipotent and loving God.
I'm going to stop reading here. Seems as though you're interested in responding to points other than those raised by me.

[Bryan Ekers]

Let's say for the sake of argument, that none of them have a shred of it.

Now over to you to conclude with a point.

Therefore, we have no reason to assume that anyone promoting a religion has any idea whether or not their description of God is accurate or not. Does suffering prove God's existence? Does it prove God's lack of existence? Any statement about suffering in a religious context is therefore suspect so I have no reason to believe anyone who says suffering in this world will lead to paradise in the next. In the meantime, we have scientific and technological means of relieving a great deal of suffering. Religion, at best, can make someone care less about their suffering.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Compared to the eternal torment of hell as laid out in the Judeo-Christian traditions?

Um, yes, Diogenes.
This is a ludicrous argument. You're dismissing all real human suffering by trying to invent imaginary suffering which you say is worse.

It doesn't help you at all, not the least of which becvause only an evil God would invent Hell, but also because you're attempting to basically deny that evil exists on earth. You can't solve the Problem of Evil by trying to deny that evil exists. This thesis is a failure fronm start to finish.

[Kobal2]

That happened in this thread? Where?

Christianity, historically, is a mish-mash of contradictory beliefs, pagan ceremonies (and beliefs) and as a general rule, as we say in French, "says everything and its contrary". Hence, the quip.

Someone was arguing that God is "nice and friendly"?

Oh. All right then. God is a hateful son of a bitch, but we should praise him all the same. I suppose we should also be eternaly thankful to, say, Russia, for not nuking every last one of us. They can, they don't, they're merciful ! Hallelujah, tovarich ! Hosannah amensky !

I'm going to stop reading here. Seems as though you're interested in responding to points other than those raised by me.

Not answering the actually problematic preguntas. Gotcha. So, this God dude, nifty, huh ? Praise Him, amiright ?

[straggler]

Therefore, we have no reason to assume that anyone promoting a religion has any idea whether or not their description of God is accurate or not.
So how come atheists are allowed to ask "Why does your God allow so much suffering in the world?".

If all I ever heard from atheists was "Your God doesn't exist, so no point pondering over 'what ifs' or 'how comes'", then you'd have a point. But that's not what I see.

[straggler]

This is a ludicrous argument. You're dismissing all real human suffering by trying to invent imaginary suffering which you say is worse.

It doesn't help you at all, not the least of which becvause only an evil God would invent Hell, but also because you're attempting to basically deny that evil exists on earth. You can't solve the Problem of Evil by trying to deny that evil exists. This thesis is a failure fronm start to finish.

If my "thesis" was trying to prove the existence of God, or that God isn't evil, then what you've written here might be relevant. So save this dialogue for someone who comes along to argue as such.

[straggler]

Oh. All right then. God is a hateful son of a bitch, but we should praise him all the same. I suppose we should also be eternaly thankful to, say, Russia, for not nuking every last one of us. They can, they don't, they're merciful ! Hallelujah, tovarich ! Hosannah amensky !
*acts like someone who was trying to argue the opposite*

This is somewhat fun, but shouldn't charades be played over in MPSIMS or The Game Room?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So how come atheists are allowed to ask "Why does your God allow so much suffering in the world?".

If all I ever heard from atheists was "Your God doesn't exist, so no point pondering over 'what ifs' or 'how comes'", then you'd have a point. But that's not what I see.This is either extremely disingenuous or pathologically inflexible thinking. There's nothing inconsistent with believing that god does not exist, and also asking how you reconcile your belief in god with human suffering.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So how come atheists are allowed to ask "Why does your God allow so much suffering in the world?".
This question derives from theists' own assertions about God. You say God is all powerful, all good and all knowing. If all these things are true, then evil and suffering cannot logically exist, because nothing can happen that is not the will of God, and an omnibenevolent God cannot will evil and suffering. That means even if there is a God, he's either unwilling to stop evil, unable to stop it or ignorant of it. There is no logical way in which God can possess all three of those '"omni" qualities and still allow evil. You have not come close to addressing this problem with your OWN conception of God, or really even shown that you fully comprehend what the POE is.

[Beadalin]

If my "thesis" was trying to prove the existence of God, or that God isn't evil, then what you've written here might be relevant. So save this dialogue for someone who comes along to argue as such.
So what is your thesis? Restate it in one sentence for those of us that are slow on the uptake.

[kevlaw]

If my "thesis" was trying to prove the existence of God, or that God isn't evil, then what you've written here might be relevant. So save this dialogue for someone who comes along to argue as such.

What is your thesis, Straggler?

Perhaps if you state it clearly, it'll help the discussion stay on point.

[Skald the Rhymer]

You won't find one neat little cite in the Bible or the Koran, but you can find numerous quotations for each individual attribute -- omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence both in the Bible and in the Koran. In Islam, they are literal NAMES of Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Names_of_Allah).

In the Bible, you can find support for omnibenovelence in Psalms 18 and 19.

Omnipotence is supported throught by description of God as "Almighty," and Revelation 19:6 actually uses the word "omnipotent".


Omnipotent can mean several things, and does not necessarily imply the ability to do anything that can be expressed in words. The meaning of a word cannot always be gleaned from its components. For example, Odin was called "All-Father," but that does not mean he was considered the genetic ancestor of humans, dwarfs, elves, or giants.

[Voyager]

So how come atheists are allowed to ask "Why does your God allow so much suffering in the world?".

If all I ever heard from atheists was "Your God doesn't exist, so no point pondering over 'what ifs' or 'how comes'", then you'd have a point. But that's not what I see.

Look up proof by contradiction some time. Atheists have a strong enough case that we don't have to just yell "no God" as an argument. The POE argument goes like this:

1. Assume a tri-omni god.
2. We can derive from this that this god will create a world with minimal (not no) suffering.
3. We examine our world, and see that there is not minimal suffering - not even close. We can easily imagine a world with free will and less suffering than there is today.

4. Therefore, the omnibenevolent god does not exist.


I can see a person who gets this, and is somehow convinced that a monster god exists. I'm fine with that. However if this person tries to get others to worship or pray to this monster god, he's a monster too. The only reasonable response is that in del Rey's "For I'm a Jealous People."

[Voyager]

Omnipotent can mean several things, and does not necessarily imply the ability to do anything that can be expressed in words. The meaning of a word cannot always be gleaned from its components. For example, Odin was called "All-Father," but that does not mean he was considered the genetic ancestor of humans, dwarfs, elves, or giants.

And Jesus saying God is his father did not literally mean that. Omnipotence commonly means the ability to do any logically possible thing, not to create a taco too big to eat.

[kevlaw]

4. Therefore, the omnibenevolent god does not exist.


I can see a person who gets this, and is somehow convinced that a monster god exists. I'm fine with that. However if this person tries to get others to worship or pray to this monster god, he's a monster too. The only reasonable response is that in del Rey's "For I'm a Jealous People."

There is a lot of ground between 'God does not exist' and 'God is a monster'.

The problem of evil is only a problem for one very narrowly defined kind of God which, incidentally, is why I am trying to understand how the idea of a omni* God came about. It doesn't seem to be a very credible kind of God and doesn't seem to be supported by the bible (DtG's excellent cites notwithstanding).

[Skald the Rhymer]

And Jesus saying God is his father did not literally mean that. Omnipotence commonly means the ability to do any logically possible thing, not to create a taco too big to eat.

Quite so. And, as I note, other meanings of omnipotent and almighty exist.

[straggler]

This question derives from theists' own assertions about God. You say God is all powerful, all good and all knowing. If all these things are true, then evil and suffering cannot logically exist, because nothing can happen that is not the will of God, and an omnibenevolent God cannot will evil and suffering. That means even if there is a God, he's either unwilling to stop evil, unable to stop it or ignorant of it. There is no logical way in which God can possess all three of those '"omni" qualities and still allow evil. You have not come close to addressing this problem with your OWN conception of God, or really even shown that you fully comprehend what the POE is.
God this, God that.

My OP swipe was at the non-sensical arguments made by atheists when they produce illogical examples of suffering when they're clearly searching for its most extreme cases, when arguing against God.

Your post failed to address this entirely.

[straggler]

This is either extremely disingenuous or pathologically inflexible thinking. There's nothing inconsistent with believing that god does not exist, and also asking how you reconcile your belief in god with human suffering.
For the sake of an argument, you either assume God exists, or you don't. Not "I'll assume he's true when making my argument, then deny his existence when you make yours". THAT is disingenuous arguing.

[straggler]

So what is your thesis? Restate it in one sentence for those of us that are slow on the uptake.
It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God".

[Marley23]

It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God".
And why is that?

[The Hamster King]

It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God".It does, for certain values of "God".

The existence of suffering isn't proof that no form of God exists. But it is proof that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God doesn't exist.

[straggler]

And why is that?
Because when atheists cite earthly examples of suffering while arguing some fact or point against God, they're clearly thinking as hard as they can to come up with the worst kinds of suffering they can conjure.

If the argument rests on a pre-supposition that God exists, earthly examples of suffering are nowhere near the top of the scale.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God".
It's impossible for both suffering and an omnimax god to exist simultaneously, and we know, without a doubt, that suffering exists. Even in your own ridiculous argument that suffering after death is even worse than suffering in life, suffering STILL EXISTS. You aren't making it go away by pointing to something worse. The existence of ANY evil refutes the existence of an omnimax God.

I'll make it simple. Answer these four questions.

1. Is God all powerful?
2. Is God all knowing?
3. Is God all good?
4. Does evil exist?

If the answer to 4 is yes, then the answer to at least one of the first three has to be no.

[kevlaw]

The existence of suffering isn't proof that no form of God exists. But it is proof that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent God doesn't exist.

POE is certainly a problem for an omni* God but I don't think it is quite a proof. It doesn't address the 'God works in mysterious ways" defence for example.

[The Hamster King]

If the argument rests on a pre-supposition that God exists, earthly examples of suffering are nowhere near the top of the scale.But if the sufferings of Hell far exceed the sufferings of Earth, that only makes the Problem of Evil worse for theists.

If the fact of earthly suffering is inconsistent with the omnimax God hypothosis, the existence of Hell is even more inconsistent with it!

[The Hamster King]

It doesn't address the 'God works in mysterious ways" defence for example.However, if one ascribes to the idea that "God works in mysterious ways" it logically follows the the desires of God are unknowable and therefore should have no influence on human affairs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

POE is certainly a problem for an omni* God but I don't think it is quite a proof. It doesn't address the 'God works in mysterious ways" defence for example.
Because that's not a defense. Asserting that God has any reason at all, mysterious or otherwise, amounts to a statement that God needs a reason. It is impossible for Omnigod to need a "way" to do anything. Whatever his goal is can be effortlessly and instantly accomplished without suffering. No mysterious purpose can justify EOG, because no purpose can logically be necessary.

[Bryan Ekers]

So how come atheists are allowed to ask "Why does your God allow so much suffering in the world?".

It's just shorthand for "why are you ignoring the contraditions in your religion?"

If all I ever heard from atheists was "Your God doesn't exist, so no point pondering over 'what ifs' or 'how comes'", then you'd have a point. But that's not what I see.

Well, because your god goesn't exist (or at least we have no reason to assume it/He does), discussing its nature is indeed pointless. However, some religious persons try to use their beliefs to influence law, politics and science. At that point, calling out the irrationality of their beliefs is fair game because whether or not their god can inflict suffering (or stand back and watch as suffering occurs in the situation He created), they certainly can if left unchecked.

[Marley23]

Because when atheists cite earthly examples of suffering while arguing some fact or point against God, they're clearly thinking as hard as they can to come up with the worst kinds of suffering they can conjure.
This argument is a complete failure. The claim that they're just looking at the downside is irrelevant if they are right. If somebody argues that the federal bailout is a bad idea because it'll run up the deficit, I can't declare the argument void because they're looking at the bad parts!

If the argument rests on a pre-supposition that God exists, earthly examples of suffering are nowhere near the top of the scale.
Since earthly life is the only thing we know we have, I think it is indeed at the top of the scale. If we were sure about anything else, the whole topic would be settled.

[ashman165]

You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody.

I realize that it's common among those who advocate for a particular god to think that repetition of an idea makes it true, but it doesn't. Merely repeating your mantra that no one would choose x over y doesn't make it so. Of course, you can then modify your stance to the no true Scotsman fallacy if you wish, but your point doesn't somehow gain power by doing so.

Anyway, to iterate: such a concept doesn't argue against a god; merely it argues against your god. We are all atheists about, well, every other religion out there. True atheists only take it one god further. You disbelieve in thousands of gods man has created throughout time immemorial. What suddenly imbues your god with a greater part of existence than all the other gods you yourself don't believe in? In short, nothing objectively does; only your belief in it him/it/they is different. This is woefully inadequate.

Emotionally blackmailing people to accept him else be punished for all time irrespective of the pain and suffering we deal with in the here and now doesn't counsel one to accept your god. It's a remarkable coincidence that the Abrahamic god isn't powerful enough, righteous enough, wise enough, cogent enough to write a book that all of his subjects must agree upon. If he's oh so powerful, why is it that he has spawned three religions, all of whom are at war with the other two? It doesn't add up.

[CurtC]

If the argument rests on a pre-supposition that God exists, earthly examples of suffering are nowhere near the top of the scale.

Earthly examples of suffering may not be at the top of the suffering scale, but so what? They're certainly sufficient to disprove an omnimax God.

I'm also completely lost why you're arguing that even greater suffering than we see here is some kind of defense. Greater suffering would just make the disproof stronger.

[ashman165]

In other words, atheists are prepared to pre-suppose that a God exists for the sake of arguing that He is allowing suffering on earth, but when believers retort by pointing out that there exists an eternal torment that is comparatively much worse to anything experienced here on earth, atheists change their mind and decide that it's not acceptable to pre-suppose the existence of a God?

That is a hopelessly, hopelessly inconsistent line of reasoning.

In a discussion about the Easter Bunny, to discuss what his properties are, one needn't assume that he exists, just what his nature would be like if he existed. I think you are stuck in some kind of Aristotelian logic, remaining forever ignorant of Boolean logic.

[Voyager]

There is a lot of ground between 'God does not exist' and 'God is a monster'.

The problem of evil is only a problem for one very narrowly defined kind of God which, incidentally, is why I am trying to understand how the idea of a omni* God came about. It doesn't seem to be a very credible kind of God and doesn't seem to be supported by the bible (DtG's excellent cites notwithstanding).

Sure. I was just showing in a simple form the proof no omnibenevolent god exists. I can also prove that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient in any reasonable senses of those words. That doesn't rule out most gods in our past. As I pointed out above, there is Biblical evidence both for and against a tri-omni god. It seems pretty clear that the roots of our god were in a standard tribal god who was just very powerful and immortal. God has accreted so many new features that he became self contradictory - kind of like feature creep in software.

[Der Trihs]

Now you've switched to using strawmen. I am not arguing that a pleasant afterlife would ease the suffering one might experience in this world. Incidentally, it could certainly erase any memory of it.Ah, so now we throw brainwashing in with the other evils of God.

No, I haven't. Cite please.

Or, I'll put it another way: If you want to talk about the worst kinds of suffering, you look silly talking about anything earthly.From your own OP, and the bolding is even yours. And you've been handwaving "Earthly suffering" away as unimportant all through this thread. Which realistically means you are handwaving away all suffering.

And the relevance this has to the discussion is.. ?The relevance is that it devalues your whole Pascal's Wager. Your entire argument assumes that God is honest and will reward your grovelling and suffering instead of torturing you anyway. Monsters aren't trustworthy. Trusting that a sadistic egomaniac will reward us for being tortured is extremely foolish.

However if this person tries to get others to worship or pray to this monster god, he's a monster too. The only reasonable response is that in del Rey's "For I'm a Jealous People."What happened ? I must have missed that one ( and Google give back nothing ).

[ashman165]

Because when atheists cite earthly examples of suffering while arguing some fact or point against God, they're clearly thinking as hard as they can to come up with the worst kinds of suffering they can conjure.

If the argument rests on a pre-supposition that God exists, earthly examples of suffering are nowhere near the top of the scale.

That's hogwash. I can come up with far worse ways of suffering than what we have here on Earth. But so what? That there's some worse kind of suffering available, doesn't somehow make anyone's actual suffering seem any better. Phew, thank god they only drove nails under my fingernails. It hurts so much the less knowing they could have slowly, methodically starting lopping off bits of me from feet moving upwards. Now that would have been horrible. But it was only nails in my fingers, so it's way cool now.

That there exists something more extreme in measure doesn't somehow make an already extreme something suddenly moderate. Maybe it makes the something moderate by comparison, but not at all in an absolute sense.

When we cite Earthly examples, we do so only because they exist. They're real. The same isn't the case for hell or god's ire and all that nonsense. Moreover, it's completely fine to accept the premises of someone's argument to argue against it. Otherwise, we have a round of assertion - counter-assertion. That isn't a debate; that's a bitchfest.

[Voyager]

It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God".

Define God.

In any case, many atheists point to suffering to show that there is no God worthy of our worship. But it is very hard to argue against a god when your definition of him is so amorphous.

[ashman165]

Define God.

In any case, many atheists point to suffering to show that there is no God worthy of our worship. But it is very hard to argue against a god when your definition of him is so amorphous.

God: n. See also: ad hoc.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

For the sake of an argument, you either assume God exists, or you don't. Not "I'll assume he's true when making my argument, then deny his existence when you make yours". THAT is disingenuous arguing.Are you suggesting I have to agree with a particular position to argue against it?

I may not believe in god, but I believe that others do. What should logically prohibit me from asking them questions about their belief?

[Voyager]

POE is certainly a problem for an omni* God but I don't think it is quite a proof. It doesn't address the 'God works in mysterious ways" defence for example.

Given that omnibenevolence results in a minimum of pain and suffering, if this is contradicted by the world then it doesn't matter what ways and reasons God is using. He still isn't omnibenevolent. We can easily show many incremental cases where suffering is not minimized, after all.

[CurtC]

In other words, atheists are prepared to pre-suppose that a God exists for the sake of arguing that He is allowing suffering on earth, but when believers retort by pointing out that there exists an eternal torment that is comparatively much worse to anything experienced here on earth, atheists change their mind and decide that it's not acceptable to pre-suppose the existence of a God?In a discussion about the Easter Bunny, to discuss what his properties are, one needn't assume that he exists, just what his nature would be like if he existed. I think you are stuck in some kind of Aristotelian logic, remaining forever ignorant of Boolean logic.

Actually, I think he's unfamiliar with reductio ad absurdum. He hasn't grasped that you can disprove something by first assuming it exists and then showing a logical contradiction. He seems to be thinking that with that first step, assuming it exists, that this somehow invalidates the argument.

Hey straggler, here's a tangent. You can easily prove that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, first by assuming that there are a finite number of them, then doing some operations with the largest prime (if there are finitely many, there has to be a largest one), and getting to a logical contradiction, showing that your premise is false. This has stood for millenia as absolute proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers.

Do you accept this as proof?

[ashman165]

Actually, I think he's unfamiliar with reductio ad absurdum. He hasn't grasped that you can disprove something by first assuming it exists and then showing a logical contradiction. He seems to be thinking that with that first step, assuming it exists, that this somehow invalidates the argument.

Hey straggler, here's a tangent. You can easily prove that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, first by assuming that there are a finite number of them, then doing some operations with the largest prime (if there are finitely many, there has to be a largest one), and getting to a logical contradiction, showing that your premise is false. This has stood for millenia as absolute proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers.

Do you accept this as proof?

I think he's largely unaware of how logic works in any instance. But he seems to, as I implied, have a root misunderstanding of logical necessity. For instance, he's arguing in the way that people did from the time of Aristotle to Boole, in that we can only apply logic to extant things. With Boolean logic, we had a more formalized way to speak logically about imaginary things. So, in Aristotelian logic, we couldn't argue about a Unicorn because they aren't real. In Boolean logic, we can still argue logically about it because of what it must be like if it existed in the first case.

While imaginary, we can certainly agree about what qualities would be essential: horse-like, having a horn in the center of its head, some kind of magical abilities. These are things that it would necessarily require. If we meet some animal that has some of those qualities, but not others, we can then use that set of criteria to rule out it being a unicorn in the first instance.

He misses this point altogether.

I'm not quite sure I agree that your argument is an actual proof of infinite numbers, but it's a good way to give yourself plausible belief such is the case. It's like using a drawing to prove something. Drawings don't prove mathematical things, but they do give a plausible reason to believe such is the case. The actual proofs have to be more rigorous. I digress though, for this conversation, it's probably sufficient.

[Revenant Threshold]

I'm going to stop reading here. Seems as though you're interested in responding to points other than those raised by me. An odd post, considering you yourself have only responded to my post through responding to Kobal2.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I'm not quite sure I agree that your argument is an actual proof of infinite numbers, but it's a good way to give yourself plausible belief such is the case. It's like using a drawing to prove something. Drawings don't prove mathematical things, but they do give a plausible reason to believe such is the case. The actual proofs have to be more rigorous. I digress though, for this conversation, it's probably sufficient.

CurtC did give a (vastly simplified) version of the proof, for any given prime number, it is always possible to generate at least one larger prime, which is another way of saying that the number of primes is infinite. I'll stretch it out a little.

Imagine that the only primes you know are 2, 3, 5, 7. You believe that 7is the largest prime number. This can be disproved by multiplying the numbers I listed, and and then adding one. In this case, you get (2*3*5*7*)+1, which is 211. The existence of that number proves that 7 cannot be the largest prime, because it cannot be divisible by 2, 3, 5, or 7. Thus 211 is either prime or the product of two (or more) primes larger than other than 2, 3, 5, & 7. This can be repeated no matter how many primes you are working with.

ETA: (This is not a mechanism for finding all possible primes, by the way. Anybody who knows how to do this, please forward that to me so that I may steal the method and become the world's master cryptographer win a Nobel.)

[YogSosoth]

If God cleaned up our messes and made it impossible for us to make mistakes what could be achieved from creating such robots. Nothing. We have free will in order to help co-create with God eventually when we learn to be responsible in our thought and deeds.

We are just children in the spirit sense.

Paradise could be achieved. God need not act any more forcefully than our government, and you'd hardly call the existent of government to be an unforgivable attack on free will. Like previous posters have said, god could have created the world with enlightened souls already deep in the learned truth and morality he is trying to inefficiently teach us through life. That he doesnt speaks to a severe flaw in how god is commonly understood

And besides, I think if given the choice, most people would choose god cleaning up this mess than let suffering continue on

[ashman165]

CurtC did give a (vastly simplified) version of the proof, for any given prime number, it is always possible to generate at least one larger prime, which is another way of saying that the number of primes is infinite. I'll stretch it out a little.

Imagine that the only primes you know are 2, 3, 5, 7. You believe that 7is the largest prime number. This can be disproved by multiplying the numbers I listed, and and then adding one. In this case, you get (2*3*5*7*)+1, which is 211. The existence of that number proves that 7 cannot be the largest prime, because it cannot be divisible by 2, 3, 5, or 7. Thus 211 is either prime or the product of two (or more) primes larger than other than 2, 3, 5, & 7. This can be repeated no matter how many primes you are working with.


What you're talking about is a method of exhaustion, which in this case can't be a proof. Though someone might be able to now always find a larger prime doesn't mean that such will always be the case. There might be some stopping point. There might not be. But using this method of exhaustion is inadequate because such a method requires that you actually account for all possible numbers. If there is an infinite number of them, then you can never do so. But suppose that there isn't an infinite number of them; rather, just a really, really, really big number of them. The number might be so large that no one can count that high within his lifetime. In any event, the inability of someone to do something isn't a valid argument that it can't be done.

This is why in mathematics we require rigorous proofs. Of course, there is an infinity of numbers out there, and some of the ones near infinity are prime. But we don't know this because we've counted all the way up there.


ETA: (This is not a mechanism for finding all possible primes, by the way. Anybody who knows how to do this, please forward that to me so that I may steal the method and become the world's master cryptographer win a Nobel.)

There isn't a Nobel Prize in mathematics. That would be the Fields Medal. However, the proof exists and is easily found. Euclid actually wrote a proof out for this some 2,300 years ago.

[Skald the Rhymer]

What you're talking about is a method of exhaustion, which in this case can't be a proof. Though someone might be able to now always find a larger prime doesn't mean that such will always be the case. There might be some stopping point. There might not be. But using this method of exhaustion is inadequate because such a method requires that you actually account for all possible numbers. If there is an infinite number of them, then you can never do so. But suppose that there isn't an infinite number of them; rather, just a really, really, really big number of them. The number might be so large that no one can count that high within his lifetime. In any event, the inability of someone to do something isn't a valid argument that it can't be done.

This is why in mathematics we require rigorous proofs. Of course, there is an infinity of numbers out there, and some of the ones near infinity are prime. But we don't know this because we've counted all the way up there.


There isn't a Nobel Prize in mathematics. That would be the Fields Medal. However, the proof exists and is easily found. Euclid actually wrote a proof out for this some 2,300 years ago.

See, kids? This is what happens when you don't use smileys.

[The Lurker Above]

But using this method of exhaustion is inadequate because such a method requires that you actually account for all possible numbers. If there is an infinite number of them, then you can never do so. But suppose that there isn't an infinite number of them; rather, just a really, really, really big number of them. The number might be so large that no one can count that high within his lifetime. In any event, the inability of someone to do something isn't a valid argument that it can't be done.



Now my mathematical education was pretty focused on the engineering side of things; but it's my understanding that suggesting that the set of all positive integers may be finite is .... somewhat unorthodox.

If I'm recalling my math classes correctly the proof that there is an infinite number of positive integers is really simple and is a consequence of (one of) the definitions of integers, '0', '1' and '+'. As in to construct the members of the set of all integers you start with ''0' add '1' and call that the next member of the set. You then continue adding 1 to the last member on and on forever.

[Skald the Rhymer]

What you're talking about is a method of exhaustion, which in this case can't be a proof. Though someone might be able to now always find a larger prime doesn't mean that such will always be the case. There might be some stopping point. There might not be. But using this method of exhaustion is inadequate because such a method requires that you actually account for all possible numbers. .

No, it doesn't. The point of the argument is that you can never account for all the possible primes. That is what infinite means.

And it is a proof. Euclid's, to be precise. Behold the more rigorously-stated version. (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/cyc/p/primeprf.htm)

[ashman165]

Now my mathematical education was pretty focused on the engineering side of things; but it's my understanding that suggesting that the set of all positive integers may be finite is .... somewhat unorthodox.

If I'm recalling my math classes correctly the proof that there is an infinite number of positive integers is really simple and is a consequence of (one of) the definitions of integers, '0', '1' and '+'. As in to construct the members of the set of all integers you start with ''0' add '1' and call that the next member of the set. You then continue adding 1 to the last member on and on forever.

I take your point, but you clearly didn't take mine.

I said, outright and unambiguously, that there is an infinite number of them. This isn't novel, it isn't new. I also outright said that even in Euclid's time, some 2,300 years ago, there was a proof showing for at least as much as the prime integers are concerned, that such is the case. How you take the reverse position that I'm somehow actually suggesting the set of all numbers, let alone merely the primes, is finite boggles my mind.

Or, is it your premise that when one offers up a supposition for consideration and then defeats the supposition that one is actually promulgating the supposition is true? For this purpose, my point was that simply asserting there is an infinite number of them and the evidence is by counting some number of them can never reach the proof of the question we want. The reason why is that either there is an infinite number of them, in which case we can never get to the end. Or, the number could be so big that no one can count up to it in a lifetime, or even say three lifetimes. For the purpose of proof, the same result will be reached even if there is a finite number of them such that the number is simply so big that it will take several people's lifetimes to get to it. So, you can't draw the conclusion from the simply inability of someone to count to the number, if it were finite, as proof that it's finite. Or, in other words: failure isn't an argument for impossibility.

Now, of course, the number is actually infinite, which as I said, has been proved for some 2,300 years.

To Skald:

No, that's not the point. For our purposes here, it wouldn't matter if the number is Skewes Number, or infinity. Skewes Number is definitely finite. But you would never be able to count to it. Your inability to do so would never imply that there is actually an infinity of numbers. It wouldn't imply that there's at least a very large finite number of them. Hence, why a proof better than a method of exhaustion is required for anything approaching infinity. Like all proofs in mathematics, the assumptions, conditions, or restrictions are established in the proof. For instance, his initial condition is to assume that the number is finite, then he set about proving by negation the original assumption. Thus showing that it's infinite. I don't see where the confusion is, or why you think that your statement is somehow roughly equivalent to that proof.

By your own conditions, you've only disproved that 7 is the largest prime. Well, groovy. So now we know that it might still be finite, but that the number doesn't end at 7.

[The Lurker Above]

I take your point, but you clearly didn't take mine.

I said, outright and unambiguously, that there is an infinite number of them. This isn't novel, it isn't new. I also outright said that even in Euclid's time, some 2,300 years ago, there was a proof showing for at least as much as the prime integers are concerned, that such is the case. How you take the reverse position that I'm somehow actually suggesting the set of all numbers, let alone merely the primes, is finite boggles my mind.

Ahem,

But using this method of exhaustion is inadequate because such a method requires that you actually account for all possible numbers. If there is an infinite number of them, then you can never do so. But suppose that there isn't an infinite number of them; rather, just a really, really, really big number of them. The number might be so large that no one can count that high within his lifetime.

Suggesting that Skald's informal restatement of the proof doesen't work because you have to account for all possible numbers, and there might only be a really, really big number of them, seems to suggest that you think numbers *stop* at some point.

[Strinka]

I don't see where the confusion is, or why you think that your statement is somehow roughly equivalent to that proof.

By your own conditions, you've only disproved that 7 is the largest prime. Well, groovy. So now we know that it might still be finite, but that the number doesn't end at 7.Because it's pretty clear how to generalize his method to higher primes. He gave a specific example of the procedure outlined in his cite, using n=4. It's not mathematically rigorous because it doesn't explicitly lay out how to it generalizes, but it is pretty clear.

[cosmosdan]

Paradise could be achieved. God need not act any more forcefully than our government, and you'd hardly call the existent of government to be an unforgivable attack on free will. Like previous posters have said, god could have created the world with enlightened souls already deep in the learned truth and morality he is trying to inefficiently teach us through life. That he doesnt speaks to a severe flaw in how god is commonly understood

And besides, I think if given the choice, most people would choose god cleaning up this mess than let suffering continue on

Well sure. The idea of someone other than ourselves doing the work of cleaning up this mess is pretty appealing. That's why it's not cleaned up yet.

Since we're referring to a supposed timeless being why would we think "Why hasn't God fixed it yet?" is a realistic argument.

[CurtC]

CurtC did give a (vastly simplified) version of the proof, for any given prime number, it is always possible to generate at least one larger prime, which is another way of saying that the number of primes is infinite.

This may possibly be the root of the disagreement with ashman165. It's not always possible to generate a larger prime given any prime number. Your further post sort of explained that, but the opening paragraph is wrong, and it's wrong in a way that gets to the point of what I was posting earlier.

If you could generate a new larger prime by going through an operation on a known prime, that would in fact be proof that there are infinitely many of them, but this premise is false - there's no prime-generating mechanism like that.

The proof that I was getting at, and is one way of Euclid's proof, is that if you assume for the sake of argument that there are finitely many primes, then there would be a way to generate a larger prime, by multiplying and adding 1 like you said. This absurdity is the disproof of the premise. However, since we now know that the number of primes isn't finite, our prime-generation algorithm no longer works.

[ashman165]

Ahem,



Suggesting that Skald's informal restatement of the proof doesen't work because you have to account for all possible numbers, and there might only be a really, really big number of them, seems to suggest that you think numbers *stop* at some point.

Ahem, do the words "but suppose" really confuse you that much? This is rather common language used in proofs. I mean, like, um, really common. It's particularly effective when using a proof by negation to suppose the very thing you want to disprove. I mean really. It's quite ridiculous to suggest that when supposing something for the sake of showing it isn't true is actually a suggestion, despite the proof disproving it, that it's true.

Curt is quite correct. My entire issue is that his proof, by its own terms, only shows that 7 isn't the last prime number. It doesn't do anything in the way of proving the assertion that there is an infinite number of them.

Strinka, you may say it's clear how to do the proof correctly, and I don't disagree. However, that isn't what his proof did, nor is it what it attempted to do. He proved 7 isn't the largest prime integer by the conditions he laid out. That someone else is able to come along and extend this to the inter set is of no moment. Moreover, he specifically and correctly said that it wasn't such a proof.

Anyway, this little detour has already taken more column space than it needed to: his proof wasn't for all prime integers by its own terms; he admits outright that it wasn't as much. My statements are perfectly correct and the structure and grammar I used is extremely common in setting up conditions. I will devote no more time to this little tangent.

[Indistinguishable]

This may possibly be the root of the disagreement with ashman165. It's not always possible to generate a larger prime given any prime number. Your further post sort of explained that, but the opening paragraph is wrong, and it's wrong in a way that gets to the point of what I was posting earlier.

If you could generate a new larger prime by going through an operation on a known prime, that would in fact be proof that there are infinitely many of them, but this premise is false - there's no prime-generating mechanism like that.
What the fuck? There are tons of ways to generate larger primes given any prime number; granted, not necessarily computationally efficient ones, but who cares?

It's clear to me that Skald was outlining the following proof:
Theorem: For every number, there is some larger prime number (equivalently, there are infinitely many primes)
Proof: Let n be an arbitrary number. We must show that there exists a prime larger than n. Let r be 1 + the product of all the primes less than or equal to n. This must be greater than 1. Furthermore, r is clearly not divisible by any prime less than or equal to n. However, every number greater than 1 is divisible by some prime; therefore, among the numbers which divide r, there must exist some prime > n. Q.E.D.

That's a perfectly valid proof, and I daresay it's obvious that that was what Skald was saying; although he used the specific example of n = 7 to illustrate the steps, it was clear that he was demonstrating that all those steps could be carried out fully generally, for arbitrary starting n. I don't understand what any of the controversy was.

[Indistinguishable]

Well, actually, on re-reading Skald's post, it might be better to phrase it this way:

Theorem: For every finite set of prime numbers, there is some prime not in that set (equivalently, there are infinitely many primes)
Proof: Let F be an arbitrary finite set of primes. We must show that there exists a prime not in F. Let r be 1 + the product of all the primes in F. This must be greater than 1. Furthermore, r is clearly not divisible by any prime in F. However, every number greater than 1 is divisible by some prime; therefore, among the numbers which divide r, there must exist some prime not in F. Q.E.D.
Corollary: For every number, there is some larger prime number
Proof: For any number n, apply the above to the set of primes <= n.

Like I said, Skald illustrated this using the specific example of F = {2, 3, 5, 7}, but it was clear that he was demonstrating that all those steps could be carried out fully generally, for arbitrary starting F. It seems over-the-top pedantry to say he was not giving a valid proof.

[Indistinguishable]

Well, I imagine ashman165's complaints about Skald's proof were just pedantry regarding "But he didn't explicitly state that we could arbitrarily replace {2, 3, 5, 7} and do everything else the exact same." Fine; if that's the only problem being alleged, then at least we all understand each other on that front.

But I am perplexed as to what inspired ashman165's original comment "I'm not quite sure I agree that your argument is an actual proof of infinite numbers, but it's a good way to give yourself plausible belief such is the case" to CurtC. I can't see anything objectionable in the proof-outline CurtC had given, but perhaps ashman165 can explain the alleged problem in that instance.

[Bryan Ekers]

The pointlessness of the prime number discussion is hurting me, therefore God doesn't exist.

[cosmosdan]

The pointlessness of the prime number discussion is hurting me, therefore God doesn't exist.

Right. Is suffering the big issue in doubting God or is it inanity? :)

[lekatt]

Paradise could be achieved. God need not act any more forcefully than our government, and you'd hardly call the existent of government to be an unforgivable attack on free will. Like previous posters have said, god could have created the world with enlightened souls already deep in the learned truth and morality he is trying to inefficiently teach us through life. That he doesnt speaks to a severe flaw in how god is commonly understood

And besides, I think if given the choice, most people would choose god cleaning up this mess than let suffering continue on

Paradise can only be created by the participates, not by God. We are learning here to discover who we are and grow spirituality. We live in a world of possibilities, it is up to us to explore, discovery, and use the beneficial, while ignoring those with no benefits. It is true there are flaws in how God is commonly understood. A lot of flaws, brought about by mistakes in interpretation of the sacred texts. Interpretations, assumptions, conclusions, and theories will never lead us to truth, only an open mind, and a humble heart can do that.

[monavis]

Paradise can only be created by the participates, not by God. We are learning here to discover who we are and grow spirituality. We live in a world of possibilities, it is up to us to explore, discovery, and use the beneficial, while ignoring those with no benefits. It is true there are flaws in how God is commonly understood. A lot of flaws, brought about by mistakes in interpretation of the sacred texts. Interpretations, assumptions, conclusions, and theories will never lead us to truth, only an open mind, and a humble heart can do that.

The so called sacred texts, the interpretations etc. are not of( or from) a God but humans, who decided what they wanted to pass on as sacred, just as humans decided what a God would want or not. There is nothing that is written, learned,taught, or believed that is not of human origin. It is to each his own.Humans decide what is holy and what is not.

Because some human said God said, or did something, is just that person, and what person believes in. In reality it is not a belief in A God but belief in another person's teaching or telling that God told Him or her such a thing. Humans like to con people a lot, so what was said or told to them could well be just their own hallucinations and other people believed it was true.

[The Hamster King]

Paradise can only be created by the participates, not by God.This agrees with what the atheists have been saying. One way to reconcile the existence of suffering with the idea of God is for God not to be omnipotent. And if God can't create Paradise by himself, then he clearly isn't.

[YogSosoth]

Paradise can only be created by the participates, not by God.

I'm sorry but that seems too much like some canned generic answer you give to someone that asks a question you don't have the answer to. If man can do it, why can't god? Unless he's not omnipotent or benevolent


We are learning here to discover who we are and grow spirituality. We live in a world of possibilities, it is up to us to explore, discovery, and use the beneficial, while ignoring those with no benefits.

All information that god could have created us with at birth.

It is true there are flaws in how God is commonly understood. A lot of flaws, brought about by mistakes in interpretation of the sacred texts. Interpretations, assumptions, conclusions, and theories will never lead us to truth, only an open mind, and a humble heart can do that.

Can you truly say that your interpretation is not flawed? That is the message I seem to be getting from you, that only you, and people who believe the same as you, have "true" knowledge that isn't flawed. That is a weighty burden to assume, and without any proof of that either. What's to say my understanding of god isn't correct? Obviously, he's supposed to be benevolent and omnipotent, yet you and many others seems to want to attribute weaknesses in his power to justify the existence of suffering.

[begbert2]

POE is certainly a problem for an omni* God but I don't think it is quite a proof. It doesn't address the 'God works in mysterious ways" defence for example.Actually it *does* defeat the "mysterious ways" defense - mixing omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence completely eliminates any way for non-minimized suffering to be created. We don't need to know anything about the ways themselves; the contradiction can be shown by results alone.

However, as the POE does still fail to address the "shoot the nonbeliever in the head" defense, so it still lacks something as proofs go.

[Voyager]

Right. Is suffering the big issue in doubting God or is it inanity? :)

But does God have to give us the free will to engage in pointless prime discussions?

(My adviser in grad school had the world's largest prime number for years, so I consider myself to be above this discussion. :) )

[lekatt]

I'm sorry but that seems too much like some canned generic answer you give to someone that asks a question you don't have the answer to. If man can do it, why can't god? Unless he's not omnipotent or benevolent



All information that god could have created us with at birth.



Can you truly say that your interpretation is not flawed? That is the message I seem to be getting from you, that only you, and people who believe the same as you, have "true" knowledge that isn't flawed. That is a weighty burden to assume, and without any proof of that either. What's to say my understanding of god isn't correct? Obviously, he's supposed to be benevolent and omnipotent, yet you and many others seems to want to attribute weaknesses in his power to justify the existence of suffering.


I can tell you this is what I experienced during my near death experience. It is difficult to explain what I experienced in the ambivalent words of the English language. I am not alone in my observations, most experiencers explain what they saw as I do, use different words, but arrive at the same observations.

God is not male nor female, in spirit form neither are we. God is a concept, a goal, nothing like you have learned from the religious teachings. I will provide another link that may explain it better if you can lay aside your preconceived ideas about what God is or should be. There are no religions in the spirit world.

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=1073

[begbert2]

I can tell you this is what I experienced during my near death experience. It is difficult to explain what I experienced in the ambivalent words of the English language. I am not alone in my observations, most experiencers explain what they saw as I do, use different words, but arrive at the same observations.

God is not male nor female, in spirit form neither are we. God is a concept, a goal, nothing like you have learned from the religious teachings. I will provide another link that may explain it better if you can lay aside your preconceived ideas about what God is or should be. There are no religions in the spirit world.

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=1073Putting aside everything else, you should not use the term "God" to describe something that is "a concept, a goal, nothing like you have learned from the religious teachings". Doing so adds nothing to understanding, nothing to truth, and nothing to people's experiences.

If you avoided this sort of confusing word-overloading you might find that the words of the English language are not so ambivalent after all.

[lekatt]

Putting aside everything else, you should not use the term "God" to describe something that is "a concept, a goal, nothing like you have learned from the religious teachings". Doing so adds nothing to understanding, nothing to truth, and nothing to people's experiences.

If you avoided this sort of confusing word-overloading you might find that the words of the English language are not so ambivalent after all.


Has not God always been a concept, explained in multiple ways by multiple religions? Has not God always been something to attain? etc.

[begbert2]

Has not God always been a concept, explained in multiple ways by multiple religions? Has not God always been something to attain? etc.Frankly, no. God and gods have always been sentient entities with distinct existence and identity exhibiting sentience, personality, and the ability and tendency to converse with individuals in real-time and effect the events occurring in reality. When you start calling it a "goal" and/or using the term "God is love" as anything other than metaphor, you are no longer using the word the same as everyone else.

[Trans Fat Og]

You are talking about temporary, transitive forms of suffering. Everybody who has gone through those forms of suffering either will, or has, seen a permanent end to it. Anybody would choose this over an eternal torment. Anybody. :rolleyes:

A meaningless posit, since there is no eternal torment to choose against.

It was invented... when the Jewish leaders and scribes were angry enough.

Straggler, please show me your much-cherished eternal torment in Genesis. Or Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy.

Well?

Meanwhile, I'll be here humming the "Jeopardy" tune... for no partticular length of time.

[lekatt]

Frankly, no. God and gods have always been sentient entities with distinct existence and identity exhibiting sentience, personality, and the ability and tendency to converse with individuals in real-time and effect the events occurring in reality. When you start calling it a "goal" and/or using the term "God is love" as anything other than metaphor, you are no longer using the word the same as everyone else.


So you believe this God actually existed? That He actually talked and walked among men. To be like God was always a goal as long as I can remember.

[begbert2]

After posting in this thread a few times, I feel compelled for some reason to actually answer the post of the OP.

Anybody who protests that the badness of worldly suffering isn't the baddest possible badness ever is missing two critical things - the first being the point of mentioning suffering in the first place, and secondly, the fact that you cannot rely upon your assumptions about your opponent's assumptions about suffering and Hell.

The first point has been covered adequetely: the fact that people get colds is more than sufficient to completely and utterly debunk the Omnimax god. That's all it takes! Any unnecessary suffering at all does it. If the person admits that unnecessary suffering of any kind exists in the real world, then the discussion is over and all that remains is to sort out which attributes the beleiver is willing to strip from their god to make it consistent with a universe in which unnecessary suffering occurs. (In my observation it's usually omnipotence.)

The second point is relevent because, aside from failing to comprehend the full implications of omnipotence, the best ways to argue against the POE are to either blow off the suffering, to to blame it on free will. Colds might be addressed with the former tactic - a person might claim that they're not a big enough problem to merit "fixing". This is why a person might try to choose the most horrific examples of suffering possible as their examples of suffering*.

Hell, on the other hand, is very tricky as an example of *anything*. Some people argue that Hell is something that you deliberately choose yourself - that it's basically self-inflicted, and thus it doesn't qualify. Other people argue - I'm not kidding here - argue that it's actually not all that bad. (See the mormon beliefs about the afterlife.) And of course there's also that set of theists who don't believe in it at all (possibly due to it being *obviously* incompatible with a just or benevolent God).

To the person making the POE argument, you can never tell what sort of theist you're talking to, making arguing from Hell problematic at best - if you do argue from Hell you restrict the set of people to whom your argument will seem significant. Horrific suffering against innocents on earth, on the other hand, is not a matter of belief. Most of the potential dodges from the POE fail when faced with them, much more than when you try to flash the believer-specific hell card. This is a simple explanation for why earthy suffering is often focused on rather than possibly-imagined and not-universally-accepted afterlife suffering when making POE arguments.


* An interesting variant dodge of the "that's not real suffering" type are the ones where it's asserted that all earthy suffering is ephemeral and insignificant, as in completely insignificant, because we're really all just immortal spirits who will shrug off the experiences of life good or bad anyway. This is interesting because if you think about it, it's actually an argument against omnibenevolence. In this, God doesn't actually love *us* - he may love the spirits that animate us, but since they don't share our experiences or cares, they're not the same people as we are. And thus it's actually a concession of the POE, not a victory over it, because it "wins" by conceding the omnimax factor. (And of course by also justifying every possibly form of heinous brutality man can commit.)

God in this scenario sees us as ants, or perhaps more accurately, video game characters. Something to be crushed and killed willy-nilly with not a fleeting care for its welfare, and even perhaps for the sheer amusement of it. One supposes that in its own context this God-ting might not consider itself evil, but in our context, of course, it's a horrific monster to be feared and loathed without end.

[begbert2]

So you believe this God actually existed? That He actually talked and walked among men. To be like God was always a goal as long as I can remember.No, I believe that God never existed, and that it is just an idea developed as a result of men wishing to find order and hope and safety where there was none, that has subsequently been warped beyond recognition by politics and human use of it as a tool to control.

But what I believe about that dark fantasy is of little relevence to the word's meaning. In english, the word formed of the letters g-o-d in sequence consistently refers to an entity with discrete existence, sentience, personality, some nifty powers, and the ability to interact with the material world and its inhabitants. The *specific* god referred to when people capitalize it, the Christian god "God", is no different in that respect. And either way, the term certainly does not refer to an abstract concept.

And when you change from "God is [...] a goal" to "To be like God was always a goal" (emphasis mine), well now, that's rather a large goalpost shift, isn't it? In the latter, God is an entity, a person. In the former, it's not. If you're bothered by ambiguity in the english language, it would behoove you not to mix your phrasing up like this, wouldn't it?

(And I recall that there are lots of conceptions of God, not to mention of gods, where being like it is not a goal in the slightest. Putting aside teh greek gods of a moment, many people don't aspire to be the judgemental King of heaven, after all - they just want its approval. Or at least, to avoid its punishment.)

[Bryan Ekers]

So you believe this God actually existed? That He actually talked and walked among men.

The Christians sure seem to think so, even ~2000 years later.


Anyway, they're absolutely free to do so - I just wish some of them weren't using their beliefs to justify active interference in worldly things that have a good track record at relieving suffering. Whether or not Hell is real is and waiting for some of us, I figure stem-cell research, like medecine generally, could do a lot of good if artificial limits weren't imposed on it. Related, I object to stifle children's early interest in science by replacing a significant chunk of it with the Book of Genesis. They can yak about the next life all they want - just please don't screw up this one for the rest of us.

[Der Trihs]

God in this scenario sees us as ants, or perhaps more accurately, video game characters. Something to be crushed and killed willy-nilly with not a fleeting care for its welfare, and even perhaps for the sheer amusement of it. One supposes that in its own context this God-ting might not consider itself evil, but in our context, of course, it's a horrific monster to be feared and loathed without end.And I've heard the "we are just like video game characters to him" analogy brought up in this forum - as a defense of God.

[begbert2]

And I've heard the "we are just like video game characters to him" analogy brought up in this forum - as a defense of God.Well, in defense of that defense, the God in that scenario at least has the property of not being a horrific asshole. He's just a pleasant fellow who likes to invite his buddies over to play a multi-millenia-long game of D&D now and then - and you can be sure they all groan loudly in quite pleasant amused sympathy when Benny rolls snake-eyes on the 'resist muscular distrophy' stat again.

Now, obviously this setup is not exactly ideal for the rust monsters and iranian citizen player avatars and NPCs who suffer horribly and die gruesomely over the course of the friendly gameplay, but as they're not really real who cares about them anyway?


(As a related side-note, I have thought that most characters in books and movies would have good justification to bitterly hate their authors, for putting them through trials for no better reason than the amusement of others.)

[Der Trihs]

(As a related side-note, I have thought that most characters in books and movies would have good justification to bitterly hate their authors, for putting them through trials for no better reason than the amusement of others.)
True. And while in the occasional story where people can enter fictional worlds it's often portrayed as really cool, in reality it would be really depressing. It would mean that we could never read (much less write ) a really interesting story ever again without feeling guilty. Or at least I couldn't. Or depressed; which one would depend if the author is creating those fictional worlds ( guilty ) or somehow sensing preexisting worlds ( depressed ). Consider all the dystopias, the tragedies, the wars in fiction and think about them all being real. What kind of legacy would it be for Orwell if it turned out that by writing 1984, he had actually created a real Oceania with real people really suffering ?

[begbert2]

True. And while in the occasional story where people can enter fictional worlds it's often portrayed as really cool, in reality it would be really depressing. It would mean that we could never read (much less write ) a really interesting story ever again without feeling guilty. Or at least I couldn't. Or depressed; which one would depend if the author is creating those fictional worlds ( guilty ) or somehow sensing preexisting worlds ( depressed ). Consider all the dystopias, the tragedies, the wars in fiction and think about them all being real. What kind of legacy would it be for Orwell if it turned out that by writing 1984, he had actually created a real Oceania with real people really suffering ?Depends on whether you thought the stories were real once whatever magic was used to send the person into them ended - it could quite easily be the case that the textual world does not really exist when its visitor isn't there.

It just crossed my mind that a non-omniscient God might be unaware that his creations were alive in a real sense, and instead actually believe they were as mindless as those demons I blow away when playing Doom. (Uh, those demons are mindless, aren't they?) Such a God might be technically omnibenevolent, as he stalked the earth raining death and destruction around him, happily crushing the skills of infants beneath his boots as the masses ran in screaming terror!

[lekatt]

No, I believe that God never existed, and that it is just an idea developed as a result of men wishing to find order and hope and safety where there was none, that has subsequently been warped beyond recognition by politics and human use of it as a tool to control.

But what I believe about that dark fantasy is of little relevence to the word's meaning. In english, the word formed of the letters g-o-d in sequence consistently refers to an entity with discrete existence, sentience, personality, some nifty powers, and the ability to interact with the material world and its inhabitants. The *specific* god referred to when people capitalize it, the Christian god "God", is no different in that respect. And either way, the term certainly does not refer to an abstract concept.

And when you change from "God is [...] a goal" to "To be like God was always a goal" (emphasis mine), well now, that's rather a large goalpost shift, isn't it? In the latter, God is an entity, a person. In the former, it's not. If you're bothered by ambiguity in the english language, it would behoove you not to mix your phrasing up like this, wouldn't it?

(And I recall that there are lots of conceptions of God, not to mention of gods, where being like it is not a goal in the slightest. Putting aside teh greek gods of a moment, many people don't aspire to be the judgemental King of heaven, after all - they just want its approval. Or at least, to avoid its punishment.)

You are just defending something you don't believe in, I wonder why? I told you at the beginning in order to understand it would be necessary to forget the older teachings of what God is supposed to be. I see no reason for your arguments. What is shown in the near death experience does not follow religion or science. It is totally different, requiring a new approach to life. That is why experiencers struggle with integrating back into the physical. It took me a little over three years to do it.

[begbert2]

You are just defending something you don't believe in, I wonder why? I told you at the beginning in order to understand it would be necessary to forget the older teachings of what God is supposed to be. I see no reason for your arguments. What is shown in the near death experience does not follow religion or science. It is totally different, requiring a new approach to life. That is why experiencers struggle with integrating back into the physical. It took me a little over three years to do it.I'm defending the use of a word - fighting misuse of a word. And I believe that words should be used properly. It's nothing personal - I'm annoyed by any gross appropriation and redefinition of a word for deceptive or propaganda purposes. ("Patriot Act", my ass!!)

[Czarcasm]

I can tell you this is what I experienced during my near death experience.You didn't have an NDE-you had a bad dream.It is difficult to explain what I experienced in the ambivalent words of the English language.Let me give it a try: Bad Dream. Nope, not difficult at all.

[lekatt]

I'm defending the use of a word - fighting misuse of a word. And I believe that words should be used properly. It's nothing personal - I'm annoyed by any gross appropriation and redefinition of a word for deceptive or propaganda purposes. ("Patriot Act", my ass!!)


A word is a symbol, nothing more. It can stand for anything or everything. I have better things to do.

[The Hamster King]

A word is a symbol, nothing more. It can stand for anything or everything.But for communication to occur, there needs to be a consensus among the participants about what a word stands for.

If you define God as "the goal of achieving universal love" and everyone else defines God as "a powerful being who created and sustains the universe" then meaningful conversation is impossible. You might as well be typing in Greek.

[Voyager]

Depends on whether you thought the stories were real once whatever magic was used to send the person into them ended - it could quite easily be the case that the textual world does not really exist when its visitor isn't there.


Which leads me to recommend the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde, starting with The Eyre Affair, set on a parallel earth and in the Book World.

L. Ron Hubbard had a great story (pre-Dianetics) called Typewriter in the Sky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter_in_the_Sky) set in an author's plot. It ends with the vision of God in a dirty bathrobe.

[begbert2]

But for communication to occur, there needs to be a consensus among the participants about what a word stands for.

If you define God as "the goal of achieving universal love" and everyone else defines God as "a powerful being who created and sustains the universe" then meaningful conversation is impossible. You might as well be typing in Greek.Greek would be better - then we'd know we didn't know what he's talking about. Recycling words just sows confusion. (Because it is impossible not to notice this fact, I always assume confusing and misleading is the deliberate goal when I see this done.)

[Der Trihs]

A word is a symbol, nothing more. It can stand for anything or everything. I have better things to do.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'I think the thread just went down the rabbit hole . . .

[Roadfood]

You are just defending something you don't believe in, I wonder why? I told you at the beginning in order to understand it would be necessary to forget the older teachings of what God is supposed to be. I see no reason for your arguments. What is shown in the near death experience does not follow religion or science. It is totally different, requiring a new approach to life. That is why experiencers struggle with integrating back into the physical. It took me a little over three years to do it.I had an NDE in which I saw Cat. Purple and billowy. Not male or female, not animal or vegetable. A concept, a goal, to be sought and attained, strived for. Cat is like nothing you've ever experienced or been exposed to in Earthly science or religion. Cat is totally different, requiring a new approach to life. The concept of Cat is not explainable in the pitiful English words I have at my disposal.

What's that? You're saying that "cat" is a word that, in English, refers to a corporeal feline commonly kept by humans as pets? Nonsense, a word is a symbol, nothing more. It can stand for anything or everything. And I say that "Cat" stands for what I saw in my NDE. Remember, purple and billowy. How much more "Cat" can it get? A concept, a goal . . .

Ok, wait. I suppose I could refer to what I saw in my NDE as, oh, say, "The purple billowy NDE concept". That could, maybe, be somewhat less confusing for those who are constrained to only English words, and didn't actually receive the benefit of contact with Cat, er sorry, "The purple billowy NDE concept". But it really was Cat . . .

[Bryan Ekers]

There was an amazing truly God-touched moment in my twenties when I traveled to India on a spiritual quest and as I slipped into a transcendent state his soothing voice told me to picture a container of woven reeds, holding snakes that represented all the problems of my life and to charm them, and as I approached the moment when my inner eye opened and all was made clear, he jokingly tapped me on the forehead and my concentration, and the insight, was lost.



I shall never forget that day: a yogi stole my epiphanic basket.

[Voyager]

There was an amazing truly God-touched moment in my twenties when I traveled to India on a spiritual quest and as I slipped into a transcendent state his soothing voice told me to picture a container of woven reeds, holding snakes that represented all the problems of my life and to charm them, and as I approached the moment when my inner eye opened and all was made clear, he jokingly tapped me on the forehead and my concentration, and the insight, was lost.



I shall never forget that day: a yogi stole my epiphanic basket.

IIRC, tbe yogi was near naked, so
a yogi, bare, stole my epiphanic basket.

[cosmosdan]

There was an amazing truly God-touched moment in my twenties when I traveled to India on a spiritual quest and as I slipped into a transcendent state his soothing voice told me to picture a container of woven reeds, holding snakes that represented all the problems of my life and to charm them, and as I approached the moment when my inner eye opened and all was made clear, he jokingly tapped me on the forehead and my concentration, and the insight, was lost.



I shall never forget that day: a yogi stole my epiphanic basket.

He didn't mean to. It was a boo boo. :D

[cosmosdan]

I never made it to India but I did study with an American named Louis who had been there for years and established an ashram in southern Maine. There were large beautiful gardens and we would meditate while working in them. One day when several chores needed doing and we were deciding who would do which chore I remember a blissful smile on his face when I turned and said

"I'll do the thinnin' around here Baba Louie"





okay Bryan's was much better but I had to play

[monavis]

Back to the OP's; "It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against God". It may not prove or dis- prove a God, but it does show He is not an all knowing ,loving father,nor does it show he knows more than a human father.

If a human father treated his children in the same way, he would be locked up for child abuse. As an example: If I know my child is going to use a gun and kill him or her self, or harm another and I do not stop it, then I would be to blame.

A good father doesn't make his children beg for their daily bread. If a human father would know it's child's needs and could read their minds he would not allow a child to do anything that would bring it harm, nor hold back anything that was for the child's good.

[cosmosdan]

Back to the OP's; "It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against God". It may not prove or dis- prove a God, but it does show He is not an all knowing ,loving father,nor does it show he knows more than a human father.

If a human father treated his children in the same way, he would be locked up for child abuse. As an example: If I know my child is going to use a gun and kill him or her self, or harm another and I do not stop it, then I would be to blame.

A good father doesn't make his children beg for their daily bread. If a human father would know it's child's needs and could read their minds he would not allow a child to do anything that would bring it harm, nor hold back anything that was for the child's good.

Once again, you forgot to add "So there!"

[Mijin]

If a human father treated his children in the same way, he would be locked up for child abuse. As an example: If I know my child is going to use a gun and kill him or her self, or harm another and I do not stop it, then I would be to blame.


This is normally where a theist would play the "free will" card, but consider free will from the father analogy.

A parent will tend to limit a child's free will, because the parent knows that some options will cause the child harm. As the child gets to an age of understanding the consequences of their actions, they are progressively allowed to act more freely.

God (aka father of the year), on the other hand, will happily watch his children drink drain cleaner. Both metaphorically and literally (since there have obviously been real events of children drinking drain cleaner).

[cosmosdan]

This is normally where a theist would play the "free will" card, but consider free will from the father analogy.

A parent will tend to limit a child's free will, because the parent knows that some options will cause the child harm. As the child gets to an age of understanding the consequences of their actions, they are progressively allowed to act more freely.

God (aka father of the year), on the other hand, will happily watch his children drink drain cleaner. Both metaphorically and literally (since there have obviously been real events of children drinking drain cleaner).

IMO this whole line of reasoning is flawed. It seems illogical to take a supposed eternal being of a spiritual nature and use earthly standards of suffering to judge such a being.

If we are spirits who live beyond our earthly bodies then physical death shouldn't even be part of the equation. I think that's the kind of thing the OP is alluding to.

[lekatt]

This is normally where a theist would play the "free will" card, but consider free will from the father analogy.

A parent will tend to limit a child's free will, because the parent knows that some options will cause the child harm. As the child gets to an age of understanding the consequences of their actions, they are progressively allowed to act more freely.

God (aka father of the year), on the other hand, will happily watch his children drink drain cleaner. Both metaphorically and literally (since there have obviously been real events of children drinking drain cleaner).

Is it not the earthly father's job to put the drain cleaner up where Junior can't get it. People blame God and then say they don't believe in God and that's supposed to make sense.

Why blame God if you are a materialist. Doesn't make any sense at all. Then there is the large picture of reality that materialists miss, or don't know about, or don't want to know about. If you want to solve problems you need to get logical and sensible.

[The Hamster King]

If we are spirits who live beyond our earthly bodies then physical death shouldn't even be part of the equation.So if physical death isn't part of the equation, then why is murder wrong?

If, in the grand scheme of things, death is just the transition of an eternal spirit from one mode of being to another, why should we punish someone who killed someone else?

[Czarcasm]

Is it not the earthly father's job to put the drain cleaner up where Junior can't get it. People blame God and then say they don't believe in God and that's supposed to make sense.

Why blame God if you are a materialist. Doesn't make any sense at all. Then there is the large picture of reality that materialists miss, or don't know about, or don't want to know about. If you want to solve problems you need to get logical and sensible.I don't "blame God" any more than I blame Lex Luthor. I just find it astounding that anyone would use either fictional character as an example to look up to and emulate.

[Czarcasm]

So if physical death isn't part of the equation, then why is murder wrong?

If, in the grand scheme of things, death is just the transition of an eternal spirit from one mode of being to another, why should we punish someone who killed someone else?Supposedly because we have no choice as to when we get to "transition from this world to the next". God gets to give innocent children cancer, destroy life-sustaining crops with droughts, and kill almost every creature on this earth(not just all those sinful men, women and children, but the animals too) in a flood. We are his toys, those are his rules, and you damn well better be joyful about it.

[Mijin]

IMO this whole line of reasoning is flawed. It seems illogical to take a supposed eternal being of a spiritual nature and use earthly standards of suffering to judge such a being.


And yet theists have no problem describing god in human terms and anthropomorphising "him" whenever it suits them.
When something good happens against all the odds, it's god demonstrating his love for his children. But when confronted with the POE, "don't judge spiritual beings by earthly standards".


If we are spirits who live beyond our earthly bodies then physical death shouldn't even be part of the equation.

I didn't mention death. I was simply talking about suffering and giving an argument for why I don't think the "free will defence" holds any muster.


Is it not the earthly father's job to put the drain cleaner up where Junior can't get it.


I was following the analogy of god the father through.
By analogy to a real parent leaving his child alone with an open bottle of drain cleaner, god has left us alone, say, with the malaria parasite, and didn't even bother to leave any instructions about how to protect against or cure the disease. This is not a loving parent.


People blame God and then say they don't believe in God and that's supposed to make sense.
Why blame God if you are a materialist. Doesn't make any sense at all.


Erm, I was of course arguing from absurdity.
Evidently you read what I wrote, found nothing absurd about a loving parent watching as their child drinks drain cleaner, and then completely missed the point I was making.


Then there is the large picture of reality that materialists miss, or don't know about, or don't want to know about. If you want to solve problems you need to get logical and sensible.


I'm not a materialist, though I am an atheist.
I find it ironic that we're often depicted as being closed-minded. Many of the atheists on this board bend over backwards to follow theists' arguments through and be well-versed in scripture and such.
I suspect if theists took as much time to understand the atheist position, there wouldn't be any theists. Not omnimax theists anyway.

[gonzomax]

In the need to make god the awesome creature religions need for a fearing mass of worshipers, they say he is omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows all things and can do all things, he is also omni-responsible. Human suffering must be a sport . He has the power to stop it and chooses not to. What would you do if you had those powers? This is a sick and demented god if he creates children with illnesses and does not stop wars.

[lekatt]

In the need to make god the awesome creature religions need for a fearing mass of worshipers, they say he is omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows all things and can do all things, he is also omni-responsible. Human suffering must be a sport . He has the power to stop it and chooses not to. What would you do if you had those powers? This is a sick and demented god if he creates children with illnesses and does not stop wars.

But what if He isn't all-knowing, all-seeing, etc., what then?

[gonzomax]

Then he is not a god. He does not exist. I am glad we can agree there is no god.

[Der Trihs]

IMO this whole line of reasoning is flawed. It seems illogical to take a supposed eternal being of a spiritual nature and use earthly standards of suffering to judge such a being. As has been pointed out again and again, wrong. Suffering is suffering regardless of what happens after. And an omnipotent omniscient who doesn't prevent ALL suffering, before and after death isn't omnibenevolent, as has again been repeatedly pointed out.

If we are spirits who live beyond our earthly bodies then physical death shouldn't even be part of the equation.True, which is part of what makes religion so evil and destructive, since most believe in an afterlife. Anyone who actually takes his or her religion seriously is going to be a danger to themselves and everyone around them for just this reason. Anyone who takes this principle seriously will kill limitless numbers of people for the most trivial of reasons, because in his or her eyes their lives just don't matter. "Kill them all, God will sort them out."

But what if He isn't all-knowing, all-seeing, etc., what then?
Then he isn't the God this thread is about.

[cosmosdan]

So if physical death isn't part of the equation, then why is murder wrong?

If, in the grand scheme of things, death is just the transition of an eternal spirit from one mode of being to another, why should we punish someone who killed someone else?

Why we punish someone is not the thread subject is it? If your question is "Why does God command us to not murder?" I'd say it's because that judgement is not ours to make , just like we wouldn't likely appoint a 4 year old to be a judge.

[The Hamster King]

If your question is "Why does God command us to not murder?" I'd say it's because that judgement is not ours to make , just like we wouldn't likely appoint a 4 year old to be a judge.True. It's possible that God perceives a necessity to evil that is invisible to us mere mortals, much in the same way that an adult may see the value of a vaccination while a four-year-old only perceives the pain of the injection.

However, if the existence of evil is a necessity for God, then God is clearly not omnipotent. For if he were omnipotent he could accomplish the same goal without subjecting humans to so much suffering. If a doctor had the power to prevent whooping cough WITHOUT sticking kids with needles, but he still kept sticking kids with needles, what would that say about the doctor?

"God works in mysterious ways" does not save the omnimax God from the problem of evil.

[cosmosdan]

As has been pointed out again and again, wrong. Suffering is suffering regardless of what happens after. And an omnipotent omniscient who doesn't prevent ALL suffering, before and after death isn't omnibenevolent, as has again been repeatedly pointed out.

Yes but haven't I pointed out over and over again that mere repetition doesn't make an argument correct?

True, which is part of what makes religion so evil and destructive, since most believe in an afterlife. Anyone who actually takes his or her religion seriously is going to be a danger to themselves and everyone around them for just this reason. Anyone who takes this principle seriously will kill limitless numbers of people for the most trivial of reasons, because in his or her eyes their lives just don't matter. "Kill them all, God will sort them out."

This is an excellent example of the principle I just mentioned.

[Der Trihs]

Yes but haven't I pointed out over and over again that mere repetition doesn't make an argument correct? It's being repeated over and over because it IS correct.

This is an excellent example of the principle I just mentioned.
No, it's an example of me pointing out an inconvenient truth you have no good argument against, so you pretend that it being said more than once makes it wrong.

[cosmosdan]

True. It's possible that God perceives a necessity to evil that is invisible to us mere mortals, much in the same way that an adult may see the value of a vaccination while a four-year-old only perceives the pain of the injection.

However, if the existence of evil is a necessity for God, then God is clearly not omnipotent. For if he were omnipotent he could accomplish the same goal without subjecting humans to so much suffering. If a doctor had the power to prevent whooping cough WITHOUT sticking kids with needles, but he still kept sticking kids with needles, what would that say about the doctor?

"God works in mysterious ways" does not save the omnimax God from the problem of evil.

Which is why I never use that except in jest.


I'm not claiming the existence of evil is a necessity. IMO it's a question of purpose.
What is the purpose of creation and/or this world of duality we live in where we perceive things as good and bad positive or negative with a concept of free will? That question is just as unanswerable as "Does God exist?" Until we can answer that then speculation about the POE is just that. Speculation and nothing more.

If the experience itself and at least the temporary illusion of choice, good and evil, positive and negative, is part of the purpose, then none of what happens here is really evil in any lasting sense.

For an overly simple analogy that's been discussed here before, if someone wanted to play some simulation game where they got to simulate all the possible good and bad of a world of duality, and Dad said, "Go ahead and play, you might learn something and you can't really be hurt" would Dad be benevolent by allowing the experience or would he not?

[cosmosdan]

It's being repeated over and over because it IS correct. Here's where cut and paste comes in very handy.


Yes but haven't I pointed out over and over again that mere repetition doesn't make an argument correct?

No, it's an example of me pointing out an inconvenient truth you have no good argument against, so you pretend that it being said more than once makes it wrong.

Um no. I'm not saying it's wrong because it's been said more than once. It was just as wrong the first time.

[gonzomax]

the catholic church mastered psychology long before we understood its implications. The father .the son and the holy ghost ,coupled with the Virgin Mary covers so many needs The all powerful god, the son who was a human for awhile, the mysterious ghosts and angels ,and then toss in a mother figure and you are well covered to meet almost every psychological yearning. I have to hand it to them. Then they tossed in a fiery hell, that evolved over generations to something nastier and nastier. But that does not make any of it true. It is effective at scaring the hell out of kids and then promising salvation. Nice trick if you can get away with it. If you accept the training they can, but it is such a flimsy creation that it can not withstand scrutiny. I feel sad and weak for buying that crap so badly when I was a kid.

[Mijin]

What is the purpose of creation and/or this world of duality we live in where we perceive things as good and bad positive or negative with a concept of free will? That question is just as unanswerable as "Does God exist?" Until we can answer that then speculation about the POE is just that. Speculation and nothing more.


The POE is a problem reconciling an omnibenevolent god with earthly suffering.
One doesn't need to claim absolute understanding (or belief) in the supernatural to point out the contradiction.

Just as, I don't claim to understand Invisible Pink Unicorns. But if most IPU believers claimed that the number of IPUs in existence is a prime number, and that this number is also a multiple of 4, I could say: "That makes no sense".

[Der Trihs]

Here's where cut and paste comes in very handy.


Yes but haven't I pointed out over and over again that mere repetition doesn't make an argument correct?Nor does it make it wrong. True arguments tend to get repeated a lot, and like it or not "an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would end all suffering" is a true one.

Um no. I'm not saying it's wrong because it's been said more than once. It was just as wrong the first time.But of course you refuse to say why. You aren't really arguing your position; you are just coming up with reasons why you shouldn't have to argue it. The old "God has mysterious ways" claim and your ( ironically ) repeated "repeating an argument doesn't mean it's true" are just you trying to wriggle away from trying to defend the indefensible.

[Kobal2]

Just as, I don't claim to understand Invisible Pink Unicorns. But if most IPU believers claimed that the number of IPUs in existence is a prime number, and that this number is also a multiple of 4, I could say: "That makes no sense".

That is not invisible what can eternal pink be, and in strange eons even 4 may be prime.

[Mijin]

That is not invisible what can eternal pink be, and in strange eons even 4 may be prime.

Assuming I've parsed your cyptic, yoda response to my argument correctly, you've both failed to address the point that I was making and contradicted yourself.
If you're allowing that supernatural beings can somehow be a number that is both prime and a multiple of four, why can't they be invisible and pink?

Oh, I get it. No argument about god needs to make sense because he's god. And anyway, god just exists, all right? :smack:

[cosmosdan]

The POE is a problem reconciling an omnibenevolent god with earthly suffering.
One doesn't need to claim absolute understanding (or belief) in the supernatural to point out the contradiction. I realize that. I'm saying that IMO from a strictly logical perspective the argument doesn't really follow. The argument as I see is is saying from a human mortal perspective God can't be benevolent because suffering exists. The flaw in the argument is the mixing of two perspectives. It's illogical to claim God can't be benevolent because of the human perspective on suffering.


Just as, I don't claim to understand Invisible Pink Unicorns. But if most IPU believers claimed that the number of IPUs in existence is a prime number, and that this number is also a multiple of 4, I could say: "That makes no sense".

I understand that it makes no sense to a lot of people and why. I'm only pointing out that the argument isn't actually all that logical IMO.

The up side is that whether you are a believer or non believer the recourse is to try and relieve or end suffering.

[cosmosdan]

Nor does it make it wrong. True arguments tend to get repeated a lot, and like it or not "an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would end all suffering" is a true one. and false ones don't? Com'on.

But of course you refuse to say why. You aren't really arguing your position; you are just coming up with reasons why you shouldn't have to argue it. The old "God has mysterious ways" claim and your ( ironically ) repeated "repeating an argument doesn't mean it's true" are just you trying to wriggle away from trying to defend the indefensible.
I've learned it isn't time well spent to argue with fundies from either side.

this
True, which is part of what makes religion so evil and destructive, since most believe in an afterlife. Anyone who actually takes his or her religion seriously is going to be a danger to themselves and everyone around them for just this reason. Anyone who takes this principle seriously will kill limitless numbers of people for the most trivial of reasons, because in his or her eyes their lives just don't matter. "Kill them all, God will sort them out."

sort of nonsense from you shows you qualify quite nicely.

[hotflungwok]

I've learned it isn't time well spent to argue with fundies from either side.
You just dodged the argument again. This is an ad hom fallacy. Der Trihs may be a zealot, but that doesn't mean his argument is wrong. Give a good reason why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god would allow the suffering we see today.

[straggler]

As has been pointed out again and again, wrong. Suffering is suffering regardless of what happens after. And an omnipotent omniscient who doesn't prevent ALL suffering, before and after death isn't omnibenevolent, as has again been repeatedly pointed out.
Is an army drill instructor who forces his brigade to live in the woods for 7 days on meager rations and little sleep, carry heavy packs for 14 hours a day (when they aren't crawling through mud), also not benevolent in your eyes?

Or does benevolence have nothing to do with it - the drill instructor is simply trying to determine who is good enough?

[Czarcasm]

Is an army drill instructor who forces his brigade to live in the woods for 7 days on meager rations and little sleep, carry heavy packs for 14 hours a day (when they aren't crawling through mud), also not benevolent in your eyes?

Or does benevolence have nothing to do with it - the drill instructor is simply trying to determine who is good enough?Is anyone claiming an army drill instructor is omni-benevolent?

[straggler]

Is anyone claiming an army drill instructor is omni-benevolent?
No, but running with Der Trihs' line of reasoning, such an army drill instructor should be able to be disqualified from the tag, knowing only about him/her what I have written in my post.

[Czarcasm]

No, but running with Der Trihs' line of reasoning, such an army drill instructor should be able to be disqualified from the tag, knowing only about him/her what I have written in my post.I think I'll wait for Der Trihs' to explain his own line of reasoning concerning this matter. I have a feeling he just might take a different tack.

[cosmosdan]

You just dodged the argument again. This is an ad hom fallacy. Der Trihs may be a zealot, but that doesn't mean his argument is wrong. Give a good reason why an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god would allow the suffering we see today.

I'm not trying to dodge the argument. I'm dodging a particular poster and his style because I'm not interesting in sorting the valid argument from the nonsense in an endless and pointless cycle I've experienced before. You may if you like.


I'm not claiming I know the reason and I don't think I need to know it or explain it to point out what I consider to be the illogic of the argument.

My point is perspective. It's illogical to try and argue what makes senses about God from a human perspective. We can say it doesn't make sense from our perspective but just as we can't say with certainty "God doesn't exist" , since we can't possibly see the purpose of creation from God's perspective we can't adequately address the question. It's the mixing of the two perspectives in this specific argument that I find illogical.

I'm not saying I believe in God. I'm only addressing the issue of logic concerning this argument. I asked a question you are welcome to address,

if someone wanted to play some simulation game where they got to simulate all the possible good and bad of a world of duality, and Dad said, "Go ahead and play, you might learn something and you can't really be hurt" would Dad be benevolent by allowing the experience or would he not?

iow, if the perceived experience itself of duality and choice is the point then in what way is it not benevolent?

[cosmosdan]

Is anyone claiming an army drill instructor is omni-benevolent?
You have to time it just right when they're drinking. Drunk enough but just before the crying jag.

[The Hamster King]

For an overly simple analogy that's been discussed here before, if someone wanted to play some simulation game where they got to simulate all the possible good and bad of a world of duality, and Dad said, "Go ahead and play, you might learn something and you can't really be hurt" would Dad be benevolent by allowing the experience or would he not?So now we're back to "Well, evil really isn't evil." :rolleyes:

If this is all just a simulation that we've all entering willingly, then NOTHING I do to another human being, no matter how heinous, can be considered evil. For example, I've "killed" thousands of "people" in multiplayer computer games over the years and it means nothing, because I know it's not real. They're still alive and happy because our actions in the simulation were just pretend. So if we're really all timeless eternal souls and this life we're experiencing is just a passing teaching exercise, it doesn't really matter if kill or hurt my fellow participants. It's all just part of the game. We're just playing pretend.

Look, either evil really exists, in which case the omnimax God is a logical impossibility. Or evil doesn't really exist and there's nothing wrong with murder and torture. Do you really want to construct a theology that justifies committing evil acts?

[Strinka]

Is an army drill instructor who forces his brigade to live in the woods for 7 days on meager rations and little sleep, carry heavy packs for 14 hours a day (when they aren't crawling through mud), also not benevolent in your eyes?

Or does benevolence have nothing to do with it - the drill instructor is simply trying to determine who is good enough?Does the drill instructor have the capability to train his troops and assess their skills without doing all that stuff? If he does, then he's not benevolent. If he doesn't, then he's not omnipotent.

An omnipotent god should never have to resort to a "lesser of two evils" decision.

[straggler]

Does the drill instructor have the capability to train his troops and assess their skills without doing all that stuff? If he does, then he's not benevolent. If he doesn't, then he's not omnipotent.
Unless the troops regard passing as (at least partially) a reward for their efforts. Rewards have to be earned. The hard way.

[The Hamster King]

Rewards have to be earned. The hard way.Not if the drill instructor is omnipotent.

[Mijin]

Unless the troops regard passing as (at least partially) a reward for their efforts. Rewards have to be earned. The hard way.

It rather depends on if they had any choice in the matter.

Let's say I brutally assualt someone, then offer to buy them a car. Even if the victim considers that I've made amends, they would still consider my earlier action to be evil. I can't justify it by giving a reward.

If we choose suffering then the work-reward analogy might work. But alas, it doesn't.

[straggler]

Not if the drill instructor is omnipotent.
Nope, regardless if the drill instructor is omnipotent.

If it's not earned, it's not a reward.

[straggler]

It rather depends on if they had any choice in the matter.

Let's say I brutally assualt someone, then offer to buy them a car. Even if the victim considers that I've made amends, they would still consider my earlier action to be evil. I can't justify it by giving a reward.

If we choose suffering then the work-reward analogy might work. But alas, it doesn't.
We did choose this life, at least according to Muslims* (not sure about the other religions). What's your Islamic-based defence?

* cite (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zMuipwd5MTEC&lpg=PA43&ots=MVr2j2LR85&pg=PA43) (3rd and 4th paragraphs).

[Mijin]

We did choose this life, at least according to Muslims* (not sure about the other religions). What's your Islamic-based defence?


Can you quote the exact lines, because I don't see it. The paragraphs you've referenced seem to just assert we're all aware of god, and acknowledged his god-ness before we were born.
It doesn't seem to assert that we chose this life, or the suffering therein.

In any case, I think I conceded too much ground in implying that an omnimax benevolent god would give humans a choice of suffering for a reward.
Why would he give us options that have drawbacks? Why would he be a slave to rules like "Rewards must be earned"? He makes the rules.

[Aelita Daystar]

I can tell you this is what I experienced during my near death experience. It is difficult to explain what I experienced in the ambivalent words of the English language. I am not alone in my observations, most experiencers explain what they saw as I do, use different words, but arrive at the same observations.

God is not male nor female, in spirit form neither are we. God is a concept, a goal, nothing like you have learned from the religious teachings. I will provide another link that may explain it better if you can lay aside your preconceived ideas about what God is or should be. There are no religions in the spirit world.

http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=1073

So are you trying to say that god is like Brahman or the Pleroma?

[straggler]

Can you quote the exact lines, because I don't see it. The paragraphs you've referenced seem to just assert we're all aware of god, and acknowledged his god-ness before we were born.
It doesn't seem to assert that we chose this life, or the suffering therein.
Here's a cite (http://www.missionislam.com/discover/believeitornot.htm) that states:

Allah then explained why He had all of mankind bear witness that He was their Creator and the only true God worthy of worship. He said: That was in case you (mankind) should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Surely we were unaware of all this. We had no idea that You were our God.” [Silsilah al ahadeeth as Saheehah, Narrated by ibn Abbaas, collected by Imaam Ahmad]
According to the Islamic narration, everyone (even you) said that Allah was worthy of worship. You can't worship him if you're not in existence.

In any case, I think I conceded too much ground in implying that an omnimax benevolent god would give humans a choice of suffering for a reward.
Why would he give us options that have drawbacks?
Rewards have to be earned. God only does good. Giving "rewards" that haven't been earned isn't good, as in, the righteous thing to do, is it?

Why would he be a slave to rules like "Rewards must be earned"? He makes the rules.
False premise. The correct question is:

Why does God want us to earn our rewards?

Which is, of course, much more easily answered.

[Mijin]

everyone[/I] (even you) said that Allah was worthy of worship. You can't worship him if you're not in existence.


Why not? You're saying, that in this existence-before-existence, we can make choices, so I'd expect we'd be able to worship too.
Indeed, the very sections of the Qor'an that you've linked do very clearly say that we worshipped god prior to our earthly existence.

So, no, I still don't see how this implies we chose a life including suffering.


Giving "rewards" that haven't been earned isn't good, as in, the righteous thing to do, is it?


Well, have I earned everything good that ever happened to me?

Clearly not everything good needs suffering first.

So why does anything good require suffering?