Because He’s purportedly omnipotent and purportedly omnibenevolent. There is no mysterious way that unnecessary suffering comports with that.
There is no, “Aha” moment that’ll be had after God explains that all those people gurgling their last agonal breaths after unspeakable suffering was totes necessary because, “x”.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Whether he said it or not, most people can empathize with the sentiment.
It’s not ignorance or immaturity to know that unnecessary suffering is incompatible with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.
If anything I’d suggest that demanding that they are in fact compatible because of mysterious reasons that defy logic, is the ignorant part here.
ETA: I mean, your position is, “It only seems like it’s not logically compatible, it is, but we don’t know how.”
Well, I don’t find that persuasive. And neither should you.
Hardly the worst one, when you consider the flood where God drowns the babies, not just kills them. And all because he screwed up the design and then had to type rm .
I wish the children’s Bibles people seem to get most of their theology from didn’t just show the ark with the giraffes sticking out, ready to sail away, but showed a family with the waters closing in and the bodies floating down the street. Might make a few more people question the benevolence of their deity.
Parents who don’t try to minimize the sometimes necessary pain their kids go through are monsters. Even if there is some reason a child has to die due to god’s plan, if god makes that child die in pain and not painlessly, god is a monster too. Even more so, being omnipotent.
Just as it could be possible to screw up, but not be possible to enjoy inflicting pain on others.
The same thing as killing a fruit tree for not bearing fruit out of season, I suppose.
True. It’s not compatible with benevolence, though.
That applies to grieving because your cat, or your parent, died of old age. It possibly works if they died of an earthquake, or the activity of some microorganism that was itself just trying to stay alive. It doesn’t work if they were tortured to death because somebody was so constructed that they though it was funny.
If we are created by such a being, then we already have our thoughts and actions partially controlled by that being; which has made us incapable of flying with only the aid of our own bodies, which has made us incapable of seeing in ultraviolet without special aids only recently invented, which has made us incapable of changing sexes without surgery and hormones, which has made us, or nearly all of us, incapable of growing coats of fur all over our bodies; which has made nearly all of us incapable of total recall; which has made nearly all of us think of food when we’re hungry; which has made most of us interested in having sex; which has made nearly all of us crave contact of some sort with other humans – I could go on for a year and not run out of things that constrain our actions and thoughts because of the ways that we’re made.
Hate to tell them this, but if that’s what Christians mean it didn’t work. People are suffering all over the place.
For which desire, according to the Eden story, they are to be punished and all of their descendents are also to be punished.
After they were made such as to have that desire.
(Presuming that they had it at all. The story implies that they didn’t know what either death or knowledge were, until it was too late. Certainly they didn’t know what cancer is; let alone that some of their descendents would take to committing torture for the fun of it.)
What if that’s nothing?
What if it’s hell?
Then why pile physical pain on top of it?
If God’s that far beyond our understanding, then God is also beyond our being able to understand whether God is malevolent or benevolent.
You can’t derive the benevolence of God from human inability to understand such a being.
Yup. But, if when you were fourteen, your father had knowingly given you to somebody who chopped your arms off in little bits because he thought it was funny to listen to you begging him to stop, I hope nobody would be claiming that when you were older you’d think he was a great dad.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “omnibenevolent” is in the Bible. I’m not a believer, but I think, based off what I have seen in the Bible, that god is capable of benevolence and evil. One would have to be, otherwise they could not be omnipotent, which IS in the bible. Even a person that is generally described as benevolent is not benevolent all the time. In the case of a hypothetical “made up” god, I would argue that omnibenevolency and omnipotency are not compatible.
I wasn’t talking about children who have terrible diseases. I concede that it’s a difficult subject. Please consider this less emotionally charged issue: bedtime
It is my opinion that far too many adults have forgotten how desperately their kids want to stay up past bedtime.
On the one hand, I wish more parents would be more sympathetic to their children’s desires. But the parent knows how important a proper bedtime is and has to enforce it. Many parents start out doing this in a very sympathetic way, but then they learn how futile that is, because the kids simply don’t “get it”. So many parents end up with a tough-guy approach, and a reputation not much different than God’s.
IF someone can follow along this far, then MAYBE they can apply the metaphor to diseases. But for now, I’ll be satisfied if people would accept this (that there is reasoning we just can’t “get”) for why we can’t always get what we want.
Depends on which part of the bible. Judges 1:19, King James version:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Maybe He’s a woodland elf and iron burns Him.
Now, some versions put a “they” in between “but” and “could not”, some versions leave it ambiguous like above, and some put “he” there (“but he could not”). However you translate it, pretty lame to have a God on your side and still be unable to win that battle.
Ignoring the difficult issues is not a good way out of the problem.
Speaking of which: I note that everyone trying to defend benevolent omnipotence in this thread is carefully ignoring the issue that some humans have been made in such a fashion that they like committing torture.
I personally have no problem with admitting as much.
The religious powers-that-be seem to posses slightly less humility though.
As the OP, that is precisely what I asked to talk about. So we can consider much weaker arguments, but unless they lead to an answer to that specific question, they are a diversion.
This thread is a bit all over the place. The defenses seem to be:
For 1, I would say that, since free will doesn’t exist in heaven, we don’t need it here on Earth – we spend just under 100% of our existence in heaven (or hell, I guess). Plus, all free will gets us is a chance to screw things up and get sent to hell. Seems like a bad defense to me. Also, there are Christian sects who don’t believe in free will anyway (the Calvinists, for example), so this seems like something that’s not even agreed to within the religion itself.
For 2, once again the tiny sliver of existence before heaven or hell, literally an insignificant amount., hardly seems worth the bother – why create the soul that becomes the infant who is born in pain and dies in pain hours later? Why not whisk that soul directly to heaven?
For 3, well, that negates getting any moral or spiritual guidance from God. If we’re too stupid or immature to understand Him, how dare we say that abortion is wrong or gay marriage is wrong, or supporting the TV evangelical pastor is right? What hubris do we have to try and tease out meaning from the words, when the ultimate question (why is there pain and suffering) is fundamentally unanswerable?
For 4, that’s clearly wrong. Humans have already made the so-called best possible world better by eliminating smallpox and, nearly, polio. Indoor plumbing made a better world than the one without indoor plumbing. The very peaceful last 70 years or so is a much better place than the blood-soaked previous 20 centuries. I could go on.
Not only that, but if God is so powerful why can’t He make us understand?
And let’s remember God is the one who set the standard in the Bible. God is love and we are commanded to love one another and there are plenty of examples of what God’s love supposedly looks like. God is not love by His own definition.
IMHO, when faced with an uncomfortable argument that undercuts what you want to believe, the proper thing to do isn’t to ignore it and argue against a trivial tangent.
Maybe you should explore why you want to believe that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent when you can’t reconcile those assertions with horrific suffering.
If I knew I would grow up and be able to understand why God does apparently cruel things, I would wait. How would I know? I would talk to one of the thousands of adults in my community who would all assure me they did not understand at my age, but now the mystery is clear.
But no such adult exists. Even the wisest people can’t say they understand God.
The only reason I have to believe I will someday “grow up” and understand is because there are myths and stories that after you die, that happens.
Sorry, that is not a reason that would be acceptable in any sphere of society except religion.
If you can provide credible evidence that people eventually understand, please provide it.
If it is simply an article of faith for you, I will not try to change your mind. But please do not pretend that it is actually evidence that should suffice to convince me.
Or maybe, whether this is the best of all possible worlds depends on its purpose. If we can’t say what the purpose of this world is, how can we say whether it is the best world for that purpose?
It appears there is free will in heaven angels themselves can rebel, so 1 is shot down. There is free will in heaven.
Perhaps but hell is not eternal. Even the unpardonable sin, supposedly the worst thing one can do is explicitly not eternal, but only for ages of ages. The scriptures state that Jesus will reconcile all things to Himself.
How do we know what that soul is experiencing. Look at the stoning of Stephen in Acts. The people stoning him see him suffer and die, however that’s not what Stephan’s words indicate, but Stephan sees the Lord come for him. This is in line with Paul’s description of those who die, while some ‘fall asleep’ (which sounds peaceful), others are taken up to the Lord.
@Thudlow_Boink, that’s just a restatement of 3, then.
OK, then free will shouldn’t lead to pain and suffering, since there’s no such thing in heaven.
OK, but then you get to heaven for eternity? If so, your time on Earth and in hell is less than a rounding error, so why bother.
Of course, we have no idea, even if it exists. Assuming for a moment that a baby is born and dies in pain, the soul is doing just fine, and then whisked up to heaven. Why have that baby be born at all? All it did was cost the parents pain and suffering (and, probably thousands of dollars).
You’re avoiding the painful part of the subject. I know all about bed times. Making a kid go to bed doesn’t damage the kid. Making the kid get a shot doesn’t damage the kid. Making a kid eat his vegetables doesn’t damage the kid (if done right.)
God setting up a world where we have to work to eat doesn’t damage us, unless he set it up so there wasn’t enough food to go around.
But what’s the good in a tsunami? What’s the good of the plague, unless you are looking at things from the bacteria’s point of view.
I grant believers the free will defense for human evil - though we don’t have the free will to fly and I at least don’t think I have free will that would allow me to shoot a baby. Natural evil comes directly from god.
It is easy to deal with for an atheist. The world is the way it is and cares nothing for the vermin infesting it. No moral issues there at all.
I know it is much easier to think of the animals and Noah and his family on the ark, and not the drowned animals and people. But until you do, you are avoiding the issue.