We can certainly have less suffering.
There is some evidence from human skeletons, skulls specifically, suggesting that we have evolved, over the past three thousand years, to have thinner, more delicate skulls – because we aren’t getting hit on the head as often! We are evolving (to a relatively small degree) to this (very small) reduction in the overall amount (or likelihood) of human pain.
Let us continue the trend!
POE never struck me as an especially devastating argument, given that the Bible’s claims of omnipotence, omniscience et al have a decidedly metaphorical feel. If Something is 10x the power of any imaginable ancient Jewish king, then calling Him all-powerful doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch in casual or poetic speech. As for omni-benevolence, read Job.
POE is interesting in the same way that Fermi’s Paradox or Drake’s Equation is interesting. They don’t settle anything: rather they put some loose constraints on the possible framework of the world.
You seem to be missing JS Mill’s point. What you say might apply to politics- abortion, SSM, etc. But it would not apply to stealing, murder or other recognizable crimes. You could reasonably expect believers to do less of that. Whether this hypothesis holds is an empirical matter though.
I dunno, John Paul of the Vatican didn’t have a problem pushing for Christian-Jewish reconciliation.
Those who believe in G-d’s essential mysteriousness won’t conceive of matters in this way.
True.
This is a better line of attack. My take is that the Diety isn’t much of a worldly interventionist: He doesn’t do special effects. He may lend strength from time to time. He doesn’t divulge secrets: otherwise the germ theory of disease would be etched on ancient tablets somewhere.
Why is this? Doing so may screw up the simulation. Or frankly, the entity doesn’t have that sort of capability: He operates via inspiration more than anything else. One standard explanation is that worldly suffering isn’t a big deal compared with eternal salvation (or damnation, presumably): this view is rejected in Job. Or rather, it’s rejected from the appropriate perspective of humans: the story is clear: the proper role of humanity is to rail and fight against suffering and injustice where it occurs, even if it’s of divine origin. Maybe especially.
I figure the Big Guy has a lot on His mind.
The Great Flood?, Sodom and Gomorrah?.. definitely not worldly intervention? just lent strength?..
It was one human (John) who has decided God was Love. That too is a matter of belief not fact. I would think a Supreme being would want people he created to search for and use the truth above all else, that is was is, and doesn’t take faith.
The word IF itself no matter how it is used means uncertainty. LIke IF it doesn’t rain, I will go somewhere etc, IF shows you are not sure.
There are many such faiths, mostly in the category of spirituality, where God is primarily defined as Love.
The most basic emotion, is the most basic desire of the human heart, to find Love, God’s Word and promise is seek me and you will find me. In other words my take is our hearts are programmed to at some point seek Love and the promise is we will find God.
Not sure exactly why you feel God wants us to seek the truth, and I’m pretty sure that’s wrong because God will reveal the truth to us, so again it’s seek Love and all things will be provided including truth. Why reinvent the wheel, we have access to all truth already. To me it doesn’t make sense that God would require this of us as He is the one to supply it.
Of course IMHO
No, IF is a conditional statement. Certainly in your example.
If it rains then we will go to the museum, if it is dry then we will go to the zoo.
This doesn’t mean you are unsure where you are going, it depends on the condition. It’s an “IF – THEN”
in “if God exists” you don’t express uncertainty whether he exists, it’s about the THEN that follows.
Oh but we do allow a huge amount of suffering that we have the means to deal with. We just don’t deal with it. Which was the point IMO.
Ya know I can handle “that’s just idle speculation with no evidence to support it” because that’s true. Then again, any thread anout God has a load of idle speculation. However, when you respond with the claim to know something that you can’t possibly know, with reasoning that doesn’t make sense, it’s just annoying.
We could get off on a tangent about people with amnesia or people who sincerely believe they are someone else , and the limits of our knowledge about human consciousness, but I’d rather not.
Oooooo right on the edge there ain’t ya 
Well done.
George’s {Jehovah} follow up was to note that he had given us the ingrediants for a much better world, with a lot less suffering, and we had mucked it up.
Clearly we could be doing a a whole lot more to deal with the suffering in the world.
Well, if you can’t question them, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be claiming to know exactly what he wants.
IMO, a common mistake is to consider these things in a linear way. as in, there is a goal and we take steps to acheive it. But if God is timeless, then our linear perspective is just that. Our perspective. What if the experience , the temporary concept of choice, good , evil, joy, sorrow, etc, is the whole point?
It seems I’m once again stuck arguing for a God I don’t believe in anyway, but the thing is, the ‘argument from evil’, logically speaking, is a pretty weak one for atheism (and is generally recognized as such by most philosophers working on the issue), and I like a bad argument for my position even less than a good argument for the others’…
But I’ll probably not work up the zeal for many more rounds of this back and forth. With that said:
I’m not redefining anything. Whatever you would consider evil, I’ll happily consider as evil as well.
Again, I’m not talking about the laws of physics, morality, or whatever else; just logic. It may be the case that any action God could take logically leads to greater suffering. It’s like tying a piece of string between two endpoints: you can find the shortest distance, but you can’t make it shorter than that; not even God could do so. So it may be the case that God can create the world with the least possible evil, but not one with none.
I know that the counter-argument will be that God obviously could have prevented some puppy dying or Hitler being born or whatever, but that misses the point: it is entirely possible that each of these actions would only have led to worlds that are worse off in the end. Take again the string length analogy, but picture a highly curved geometry: yes, such and such a section of the string could have been made more straight and thus shortened, but on the whole, the length of the string would necessarily increase. It’s just the fact that you don’t see the whole geometry that makes you think that.
You are missing the point that if that were so, God would not be omnipotent.
The POE is not an argument for atheism per se, as well as a the needle that pops the balloon of the postulation of a tri-omni God.
That depends on your definition of omnipotence. Does it include the ability to do things that are logically impossible or nonsensical, like creating a four-sided triangle?
The argument of Half Man and many others is that it may not be inherently logically possible to create a world with less suffering. Or at least, there certainly could be a world with less suffering, if for example it didn’t have any living beings in it at all, but that wouldn’t be a better world than the one we actually have.
:dubious: Of course I know that I don’t have any memories of an existence before this one.
It’s a silly argument, given that we have reduced the amount of suffering in the world. It amounts to effectively claiming that God is either less powerful or less moral than we are.
And an omnipotent god could simply prevent suffering from happening at all. There’s nothing about suffering that would prevent such a being from reaching out and stopping it directly. What; if an omnipotent god tries to stop a child from stepping on broken glass, the child’s foot will suddenly attain omnipotence and force its way past the god’s infinite power to stab itself? And if God can’t stop suffering, then how can we do it when he can’t?
There’s simply a huge number of ways that an omnipotent or even a “really powerful” god could drastically reduce or eliminate the suffering in the world. This “it’s logically impossible” argument only makes sense if you are going for the version of God that just started the universe off and either cannot or does not significantly intervene with it afterwards; but that is not the tri-omni god that the Problem of Evil applies to.
No, that’s just silly. Nor does a definition of omnipotence include heavy rocks or burritos.
There is however nothing inherently illogic about a world with a good deal less suffering.
Why those that claim that the suffering we go through in life is the price we pay for it don’t see the abject unfairness of that concept totally baffles me. Either we are all equal and should all pay the same price, or we are all unequal and God is giving discounts to a not-particularly-rightious select few.
Hey that’s just what an amnesia victim says. Does that mean they never had the other life they can’t remember?
To a degree. To the extent they have forgotten “their” old life, they are a new person; and I was born an essentially mindless baby, I retain neither skills nor memories from any previous life. If I have a “soul” from before this life, the personality of that soul was someone else, who is either unconscious or dead. It isn’t me.
Many cultures have a flood myth. That said, Noah’s ark didn’t exist in any meaningful way. I’m not aware of any archeological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah.