If god is omnipotent, why does he let you suffer?

Great Debates
61

In response to Gaudere:

“but why not disallow child abuse at least!”

This is the essence of the problem isn’t it? The question of where to draw the line becomes more exacerbated when we include the opinions of 4.5 billion earthly inhabitants. What do they think is the minimum acceptable level? I know that’s not really an answer to the question but my point is that its arbitrary. God made a choice. The imposed physical limitations may not be a choice people can readily understand or accept.

In response to Manda JO:

“Two problems with this: One, disease does not equal death. Many diseases are merely crippling, chronic, and painful. Leperosy dosen’t end any test.”

I did not say that all diseases cause death (although Leprosy complications surely can). What I do say is that suffering does give an opportunity for kindness, compassion, forgiveness and a multitude of other actions which are deemed “Good”.

“Secondly, there is no reason why all people who will ever live could not all exisit simutaniously together until the big “game over” sign in the sky appears, at which point everone lines up, single file, for judgement. Or some such system. Cancer is not needed for for God to put a beginning and an end on things. “

In the scenario you describe no one has the opportunity to raise children (some might call parenthood a unique form of suffering … heh) with all of its accompanying opportunities for good and evil. Some have used Occam’s razor in attempts to disprove doctrines of a religious nature. I won’t doubt that certain doctrines seem farfetched. However in many ways Occam’s razor is equally applicable to God. Wouldn’t it be infinitely simpler to create a system which tests the qualities of good and evil through natural processes then to fabricate a system with a “big game over” sign at the end? Wouldn’t that make it pretty patently obvious there was a test of sorts in progress?

“It dosen’t matter what we can think of. If God is truly all powerful and all knowing than he can create a world without these problems. The fact that he did not must be regarded as a choice. “

This is a type of argument I have refrained from making because it is pointless rhetoric. To illustrate, I can respond by saying “If God is truly all powerful and all knowing and perfect then he created this world for a specific purpose we can’t understand”.

“This only works if we hold God to our logical constraints. If God is truly eternal (all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good) he would be able to create a world with different logic behind it, where the excersise of free will by one person against another did not cause pain to the being who was acted upon. In matters of free will, it is the choice to act, not the act itself, that is sin.”

In response to this I will repeat what I have posted earlier. Summarized as: “If I do not experience pain I have no opportunity to forgive, I have no opportunity rise above the situation, etc. etc.”. Being good is more than just not being evil. Back to the free will thing.

Grim Beaker

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

62

Grim_Beaker wrote:

No, it isn’t pointless rhetoric, though dismissing it as such is. The many conundrums that arise from the conception of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent are very serious philosophical problems with the very idea of God from which the Free Will Argument arises.

Furthermore, the Ineffability Argument weakens the idea of God no less, because an omnipotent God can create a world with a specific purpose that we can understand, and an omnibenevolent God would not choose other than to do so, since not knowing why one suffers is another kind of pain.

And I shall repeat what I said earlier:

The Free Will argument only holds if God is constrained by the Principle of Non-Contradiction and therefore not omnipotent. This is fine if you find it acceptable to place limits on God, except that if you do you don’t need the Free Will Argument in the first place. Thus, the Free Will argument assumes what it is intended to disprove.

63

Johnny,

“The many conundrums that arise from the conception of God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent are very serious philosophical problems with the very idea of God from which the Free Will Argument arises.”

True. Perhaps I miscommunicated my opinion. Let me rephrase and elucidate. In my opinion God is perfect in addition to being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. I believe perfection is inherent to the definition of God. As I expressed earlier perfection requires perfect choice and by default perfect design. If you ask why it can’t be different if he’s all powerful that’s perfectly logical. It is not logical however to ask why it can’t be different if he’s also perfect. If God is all powerful he can create whatever he likes but if he is also perfect then he is limited to a single choice. What I’m saying is that you can’t logically argue from the position of:

  • Lets assume God is perfect
  • Now lets assume that the way things are is not according to a perfect design… or…
  • If God is perfect why can’t he do it this other way?

What I’m also saying is that so far it seems as though most of the posts in this topic are debating from the “God is omnipotent, omniprescient, omnibenevolent” platform without including the “God is also perfect” view. Perfection supersedes the aforementioned other qualities. If a being has perfect understanding then choices will be made with eternal consequences in mind. Therefore a being with omnibenevolence would behave with our perfect eternal interests in mind not temporal ones.

“Furthermore, the Ineffability Argument weakens the idea of God no less, because an omnipotent God can create a world with a specific purpose that we can understand, and an omnibenevolent God would not choose other than to do so, since not knowing why one suffers is another kind of pain.”

This relates to my above argument. It is true that omnipotent beings can create worlds with specific purposes we can understand. It is not necessarily true that an omnibenevolent God would do so. From an eternal perspective it may not be the correct omnibenevolent choice. As an aside which really deserves its own attention: I feel that allowing us to know for a fact of the existence of God and an eternal plan would negate one of God’s primary directives. Faith. He couldn’t provide proof and then command us to have faith now could he?

Last question which I hope will provide food for thought. What kind of mortals knows the mind/intent of God best?

Grim Beaker

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

64

This question is the nut of my agnosticism. Never have I seen it fail to drive a christian into a state of wafflemania.
"Of course God loves us, but…
Peace,
mangeorge

65

Grim Beaker:

[quote}Wouldn’t it be infinitely simpler to create a system which tests the qualities of good and evil through natural processes then to fabricate a system with a “big game over” sign at the end? [/quote]

If you believe in a creator, then this world is a fabricated system with an unbelievably complex set of rules and laws. It is hard to imagine that any other system could be more complex.

Grim Beaker:

A perfect God could arrange things so that it wasn’t. If he couldn’t do that, then he wouldn’t be omnipotent.

You certainly can say this. In fact, as I ended my last post, I think this is the only legitimate answer to the problem of evil.

Grim Beaker:

Do you know how evil people can be? Let me give you an example: About three years ago in Dallas a 15 year old girl was murdered. She was murdered by three or four friends of her older half brothers (her brothers were 26-27) They (the brothers) had stolen 5-6 thousand dollars during a drug deal, and the friends decided to get even. The girl had no knowledge or part in any of this. The guys kidnaped her, drove her across the border to Arkansas, and held her in a hotel room where they took turns raping and beating her for three days. When that got boring, they drove her to a state park, hit her over the head a few times with a shovel until she was unconcious or semi-unconcious. Then they buried her alive.

Why did God allow this to happen?

Some would say that it taught the brothers a valuble lesson (“Don’t deal drugs”, or possibly, “Deal drugs honestly”). Or you could say it allowed the murderers a chance to exercise free will and damn themselves to hell, or you could say it gave the girl’s mother something to “rise above”, or the girl a chance to “grow”. But I don’t buy it. I don’t see how an all powerful and all good god could let such a thing happen to an innocent, or hell, to anybody.

This also brings up a second point: the vast majority of people (at least, the vast majority of people in developed nations) will never know that kind of pain. Is God denying us a chance to be as “good” as these people? Is he damning us to hell by not causing enough pain, and only saving those that have truly suffered? Because if that is true, than it is also not omnibenevolent. So either the girl abovee did not need that pain to be good, or I do, and am not getting it. In either case, God is letting someone down.

66

Grim_Beaker wrote:

You have dramatically missed the point. The three Omni’s are not side issues to God’s perfection, they are three criteria for perfection. God’s perfection is precisely what’s at issue when we discuss omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. If any of these criteria fail, then God is not perfect.

There is no inconsistency in assuming God is imperfect. But logical problems arise from assuming he is.

Actually, you can. It’s called reductio ad absurdum. If absurd consequences follow from given premises, then the premises are false.

You might want to check out William James’ Soul Maker Argument. I don’t know what book it’s in, since I read it from a photocopy, but it’s a very good formulation of the line of thinking you’re after here. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t solve the problem we’ve been discussing.

67

In response to Manda JO:

“If you believe in a creator, then this world is a fabricated system with an unbelievably complex set of rules and laws. It is hard to imagine that any other system could be more complex.”

You seem to be implying that I ascribe to all the tenets of creationism. I do not. It is entirely plausible that the laws of nature as we understand them were not necessarily created by God but were merely utilized by him as the easiest way to achieve an end.

“A perfect God could arrange things so that it wasn’t. If he couldn’t do that, then he wouldn’t be omnipotent.”

Of course you are correct. If a being is omnipotent he could arrange things any way he likes. Thats not the same thing as saying if God is perfect he could arrange things in a variety of different ways and achieve his purpose. By definition perfection requires a single correct choice. Since perfection requires only a single correct choice even though he has the ability to take a different course of action he would always adhere to the only correct course.
Regarding your question of why God allowed a tragic event to occur. We can debate endlessly regarding why things are allowed to happen so let me ask you a question that might enable us to attack this issue from a different angle. Let us assume that we are in the shoes of the evil halfbrother you mentioned before he was born. God says to us prior to being born: “I’ve decided not to give you life since I already know you’re a sadist and will rape and torture your half sister. Since this is going to happen I’m going to send you straight to hell without the chance to prove otherwise”. Would we believe him? Would we think it was fair?

“This also brings up a second point: the vast majority of people (at least, the vast majority of people in developed nations) will never know that kind of pain. Is God denying us a chance to be as “good” as these people? Is he damning us to hell by not causing enough pain, and only saving those that have truly suffered? Because if that is true, than it is also not omnibenevolent. So either the girl abovee did not need that pain to be good, or I do, and am not getting it. In either case, God is letting someone down.”

Not necessarily. Life is a personalized test. It’s not one size fits all. I don’t think that one must suffer adversity in all of its forms in order for you to take advantage of the good in a situation.

In response to Johnny:

"You have dramatically missed the point. The three Omni’s are not side issues to God’s perfection, they are three criteria for perfection. God’s perfection is precisely what’s at issue when we discuss omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. If any of these criteria fail, then God is not perfect. "

I’ve been told that I’m famous for my drama <grin>. I think I understand what you’re getting at here and I feel like I myself am not entirely being clear. What I hear you saying is that the 3 omni’s are inherent to the God perfection question. If you invalidate any of the 3 omni’s you prove God to be imperfect, therefore nonexistent. What I’m saying is that you can’t prove or disprove any of the 3 omni’s using what we know if we also assume God is perfect. Perfection assumes an understanding much higher above the crude omni-puzzles used in attempts to prove or disprove Gods existence.
Regarding "reductio ad absurdum. If absurd consequences follow from given premises, then the premises are false. "
I’m saying that if you make the premise that God is perfect his plan by extension must be perfect. I’m saying that it’s not a consequence, that it’s inherently part of the premise. I think its like saying "Lets assume we have a round wheel… now lets say the wheel isn’t round… ". That may be a flawed analogy but I think you get the gist.
Thanks for the recommendation about the Soul Maker Argument. I’ll see if I can’t dig it up somewhere.

“Unfortunately, it still doesn’t solve the problem we’ve been discussing.”

Yep. Don’t really think it will ever be solved.

Grim Beaker

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

68

GrimBeaker:

Then this whole arguement is moot. It only applies if you are talking about a perfect god. Perfection is usually understood to mean “lacking nothing.” One quality God cannot lack is eternal existance. If God has always exisited, then he existed before the universe. If he existed before the universe and was omnipotent, than the creation of the universe was by his choice. (This applies even if he did not “will” it to happen. For an omnipotent, omnicient being, failing to stop something is equivelant to willing it to happen). You cannot have a perfect god who is not a creator.

On a side note, it occured to me that Occam’s Razor cannot be applied to a perfect being. If God’s ability to handle complexity is infinite, than all finite tasks are infinitly below his capabilities and effectivly equal.

No, it dosen’t, actually. This is where we are not understanding each other. Perfect means “lacking nothing”. If a being has all qualities, he is not limited to a “right” choice. He can make any choice “right” because all varibles are under his complete understanding and control. There is no right outside of the will of a perfect God. You seem to want to use the idea of “perfection” as a way to limit god–this is 180 degrees from the typical understanding of the term. Go back to Johnny Angel’s post on 3/21, 7:06. Pay attention to the arguement by Liebnitz. This may be what you are trying to say–I admit I am confused. If it is, Johnny Angel has already pointed out the problem with that line of thinking.

Were I convenced that God were omnicient, I would have no problem with this at all. Why would it be unfair? This is more or less the Puritain doctrine of predestination. (Except that the Puritains did not think that works had anything to do with it–all were equally corrupt compared to the infinite goodness of God). Just for the record, I always kinda liked the Puritans–they believed God should be worshipped just out of gratitude, not out of any hope for personal salvation.

But then why must some suffer so much? Why are babies born with horribly painful diseases, only to die hours later, while others slip from life peacefully? I can’t imagine that two new born infants could be so different that one would need to experience great pain to become good, while the other would be able to attain “goodness” without any pain at all.

69

It seems to me that many of you have missed the point entirely. Not only that, many have also skipped the question of my original post, or, in the case of Libertarian, simply analyzed the question and not thought on the answer.
Now, to see that we all understand this, I will restate the O.P. in much easier dialect.

I was actually knocking christianity, saying that "if you have a omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, loving “FATHER” (implying father further implies a father is caring), why does he hurt you by letting Evil and Suffering exist (he created everything, so, yes, he lets them exist?

70

Grim_Beaker - thank you for sharing your view in this discussion.

I couldn’t begin to add anything of more value than you or Lib have already offered. But, I need to say something to some of the others.

[On soapbox]

Never once, in any moment upon learning of my grandson’s malignant brain tumor, have I asked God, “Why?” He was diagnosed at 7 mos and is now almost 11 mos old. I have lived with this heartbreak for 4 months now and have had time to absorb it.

Do you what? It doesn’t matter whether I know why or not. You see, my perspective has changed as to what is really important here, and it is to enjoy the blessing of his life and the special gift of love and joy that spills onto others from him. Dawson has touched the heart of everyone who has met him, even those who have not but know of him, and is loved by all of them.

Perhaps until someone is enlightened, they are incapable of anything beyond the whinning I see in this thread.

[Off soapbox]

71

In response to Manda JO:

"One quality God cannot lack is eternal existance. If God has always exisited, then he existed before the universe. If he existed before the universe and was omnipotent, than the creation of the universe was by his choice. (This applies even if he did not “will” it to happen. For an omnipotent, omnicient being, failing to stop something is equivelant to willing it to happen). You cannot have a perfect god who is not a creator. "

A good point which provokes some thoughts.

Question 1: Is it possible to gauge the age of the universe?

Question 2: Was there a time when the universe did not exist in any form?

Question 3: If the universe always existed in some form could it be as ageless as God?

"No, it dosen’t, actually. This is where we are not understanding each other. Perfect means “lacking nothing”. If a being has all qualities, he is not limited to a “right” choice. He can make any choice “right” because all varibles are under his complete understanding and control. There is no right outside of the will of a perfect God. You seem to want to use the idea of “perfection” as a way to limit god–this is 180 degrees from the typical understanding of the term. Go back to Johnny Angel’s post on 3/21, 7:06. Pay attention to the arguement by Liebnitz. This may be what you are trying to say–I admit I am confused. If it is, Johnny Angel has already pointed out the problem with that line of thinking. "

I think I’ll have to disagree with you on the definition of Perfection in this context. Further I submit that this is probably the focus of the issue. The definition expressed as “lacking nothing” seems to imply that God is not just infinitely good, but also infinitely evil and infinitely everything in between. For this reason I do not accept that definition of perfection in this context. I believe that God holds to a higher moral standard, an unchanging infinitely good standard if you will. If we accept that God bases his actions on a fixed standard of morality which is inherent to his being then he is required to follow the course which most exemplifies it. To follow a course which is in any way less then the utmost adherence to the standard would be to abandon the correct (read perfect) choice.

Per your suggestion I have reviewed Johnny Angels original post of the argument by Liebnitz. I reproduce it here for convenience:

  1. In order to create the best of all possible worlds, God would have to have the knowledge, the power and the desire.

  2. If God is omniscient, then he would know how to create TBOAPW.

  3. If God is omnipotent, then he would have the power to create TBOAPW.

  4. If God is omnibenevolent, then he would not choose other than to create TBOAPW.

  5. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

  6. Therefore, this is The Best of All Possible Worlds

The only thing I’ll add to this is a modification to item 6. I would reword it to say “Therefore, this is The Best of All Possible Worlds which meet the needs of a design which adheres to Gods plan.”

“On a side note, it occured to me that Occam’s Razor cannot be applied to a perfect being. If God’s ability to handle complexity is infinite, than all finite tasks are infinitly below his capabilities and effectivly equal.”

Regarding Occam’s Razor. I seem to have been in error to use Occam’s Razor for this example. I humbly capitulate on this point. :slight_smile: You do however bring up an interesting point with the assumption that all finite tasks are infinitely below his capabilities. If this is the case the complexity or lack thereof of the world is in no way a barrier to the creation of any world which meets a perfect (my definition of perfection anyway…) design. Hmm… I’ll have to think about this one a bit more.

"But then why must some suffer so much? Why are babies born with horribly painful diseases, only to die hours later, while others slip from life peacefully? I can’t imagine that two new born infants could be so different that one would need to experience great pain to become good, while the other would be able to attain “goodness” without any pain at all. "

I’m not saying that you need to experience great pain to become good, nor am I saying that pain makes one good. I am saying that adversity gives one the opportunity to grow and obtain something good from the experience. It also gives the opportunity for someone to regress and obtain something negative from the experience. Why some have more adversity then others I’m sure I don’t know.

Grim Beaker

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

72

Edlyn,

I’m sorry to hear about your Grandson. I’m not especially adept at words of comfort so I’ll limit myself to a note of gratitude for your thoughts on the matter and a heartfelt wish of good fortune.

Sincerely,

Grim Beaker

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

73

CalifBoomer posted 03-22-2000 12:28 AM

If it were capable of forming it, yes. What’s your point?

Well, it may convince you, but it doesn’t answer the OP.

PDmach posted 03-22-2000 05:18 PM

ARe you saying I can choose not to suffer?

Well, I can’t choose to believe otherwise, so how can I have this work?

I think you’re, at the very least, exagerrating. God would not be “removing” free will; at the most It would be reducing free will. Is the father’s freedom to hit his daughter with the stick really more important than the daughter’s freedom to avoid being hit with a stick? Does the answer depend on whether it is a human preventing him from hitting his daughter rather than God? That is, if I as a human see this going on, should i refrain from interfering because to do so would reduce his free will?

And haven’t all of those entities been created by God?

So actually, it’s not just the child beater that’s at fault; everyone in the world shares his guilt? And “beating kids with sticks” was “the only possible outcome”? Doesn’t that contradict free will?

Grim_Beaker posted 03-22-2000 05:44 PM

Do you really think it’s arbitrary whether or not people beating kids with sticks is, overall (including free will effects), a bad thing?

But does the goodness of those responses really exceed the badness of the illness

How so? Pointing out contradictions is pointless?

What’s so great about faith? What kind of being is so concerned about what people think of It that It would purposelessly keep people in the dark just so that It would have the ego boost of knowing that people believe in It even without proof?

Grim_Beaker posted 03-22-2000 02:48 PM

Are perfect choices unique? Given any particular situation, is there only one perfect choice?

You don’t seem to have a very firm grasp of logic. If two statements, say A and B are contracditory, there is no way to make them not contradict each other simply by adding a third statement C into the mix.

I assume that what you’re really asking is “If you assume that God exists and is perfect, then isn’t claiming that one of his actions (or a group thereof) is imperfect contradictory?” The answer is yes, it is contradictory, and that’s the whole point: you assume something is true, you realize that you reach a contradiction because of it, and you therefore realize that your assumption is in error. As Johnny Angel pointed out, it’s called reductio ad absurdum. Other names for it include: indirect reasoning, proof through contradiction, etc.
“In other words if you declare the constant that God is perfect then…” Ah, but we’re not declaring it; you are. We’re assuming it for purposes of contradiction.

That doesn’t answer anything. If the only way God can test us is by causing suffering in us, and It loves us, then wouldn’t It forego testing us? If I had a child, and I loved my child, I wouldn’t hold my child underwater for twenty minutes just so I could see if he could survive; that would be cruel.

But would those problems be greater than the suffereing we already experience? And would God be powerless to get rid of those problems?

But hhow does that do anything about the problem of free will? If God promises to keep Israel safe against invaders, doesn’t that interfere with Babylon’s free will in deciding to invade I

74

I think for the sake of expediency that I’'m going to have to skip all of the quotes and opinions mentioned where I feel that I have indicated my position clearly. For clarification:

“Do you really think it’s arbitrary whether or not people beating kids with sticks is, overall (including free will effects), a bad thing?”

I’m saying where people will draw the line as to what impinges free will is arbitrary. It’s impossible to get a roomful of people to agree on matters of morality let alone an entire world.

“But does the goodness of those responses really exceed the badness of the illness”

Who I am to say? I’m merely submitting an opinion. I’m stating beliefs, not facts. Facts are indifferent to the opinions of people.

“What’s so great about faith? What kind of being is so concerned about what people think of It that It would purposelessly keep people in the dark just so that It would have the ego boost of knowing that people believe in It even without proof?”

Some people find faith enlightening. Apparently you don’t. I don’t have a problem with that, you can believe what you wish. In any case I think it is contentious to suggest a negative reasoning for faith and that this statement doesn’t serve a practical purpose.

“Are perfect choices unique? Given any particular situation, is there only one perfect choice?”

That is my stated opinion.

“For the purposes of thi sthread, I believe that good definition would be “Actions by one person that unfairly inflict suffering on another person”.”

This is a limited definition. You should refine it. By this definition you could sadistically torture animals and not have those actions considered evil. You also mentioned that it was only unfairly inflicted suffering. Who decides what is unfair? If it’s a personal decision about whats unfair then your definition of evil applies only to you.

“However if I am prevented by divine intervention from making a specific choice do I truly have free will?
Yes.”

You don’t explain how.

“Reaally? I’d say you need to find some pastimes other than torturing your fellow humans. I personally have found a plethora of things to do that don’t involve hurting other people.”

Your statement here is pulled out of context. I think it is unkind to characterize me as a person whose hobbies include torturing people. I simply used an example posted by another debater.

“Essentially all words coming out of my mouth and all actions must be monitored or I must be isolated from all human contact (this is assuming that hurtful words, body language and actual physical violence among other things all fall under the category of harm).
Except in extreme cases, I would not consider speech to be evil, in and of itself.”

Speech isn’t evil when it degrades and hurts? I think most racism, elitism and prejudice is today conducted via the medium of speech. If you’re saying that speech in and of itself isn’t evil then the statement that the ability to act in and of itself isn’t evil is true also.

"Well, yes it is. If you think that there’s a specific type of entity which Nature is not, then specify that type of entity. But “entity” is such a general term that Nature certainly is one. "

Ok, if you want to use that interpretation. I meant entity in the sense of a rational conscious being. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

“Are you saying that Nature has its own will?”

Nope.

"Well, God by definition must be conscious of everything. And how can Nature possibly inhibit God’s actions? "

I don’t know, I don’t recall ever saying that Nature inhibited Gods actions.

“Why does it matter what we believe?”

Obviously, it doesn’t. Therefore why debate any longer?

“So if some of us can get away with taking only part of the test, why can’t we all?”

You seem to suggest that suffering less in life in some way equates to taking only part of the test. I didn’t say that. I did say that the test was personalized.

Ryan are you truly interested in a debate? What I perceive are subtle insults, rehashing material in which I feel I’ve already explained my position, and antagonistic remarks. Perhaps my perceptions are wrong. If so then I apologize. Regardless I think this debate has about reached its climax and in particular your post has cooled my motivation for continuing. Regards.

Grim Beaker

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

75

Grim_Beaker wrote:

That’s if you assume that God is, in the words of St. Anselm, that, greater than which, nothing else could be. But there’s no reason to assume this. It doesn’t explain anything that couldn’t be explained by positing the existence of a lesser God, or no God at all. There is no independent justification for your definition of God, and absurdities follow from it.

There’s nothing higher than omni-. Neither are these puzzles `crude’ unless you presume to speaking from the perspective of God. Further, the issue is not to disprove God; the issue is whether God is necessarily perfect.

This is what’s called begging the question – asuming what needs to be proven in order to prove it. The very premise that God is perfect is what stands to be proven, because evidence has already been given to show that he couldn’t be. You don’t prove anything by just recycling the premise.

No, it’s more like:

You say, “This is a perfectly round wheel.”
I say, “But it’s not even round, much less a wheel.”
And you say, “Oh no, a wheel is round by definition.”
And I say, “But it doesn’t roll.”
And you say, “No, by definition, a wheel rolls.”

That is, following this metaphor, because you’ve already decided it’s a wheel you refuse to believe your bicycle isn’t getting anywhere.

A coherent solution is already available. There is no God, and our suffering is meaningless.

76

When you look at it from god’s perspective, human suffering must be pretty funny. It’s kind of like crushing ants with your boot heel.

77

Grim Beaker:

Not if we are talking about the traditional concept of an infinite god (and as I pointed out, anything other than an infinite god makes this debate moot). An infinite god is not bound in time, and in fact exists independently of it. The universe, to all appearences, is part of time/contained in time. An infinite god is outside of that, and thus “predates” it (although “predates” is a bad term–a non-temporal being exisits at all points in time and space simutainously).

When descibing a perfect god as “one lacking nothing”, most philosophers treat evil as the absence of good, not a thing in itself. Thus, because God is omnibenevelont He is not at all evil. Since Man is not infinitly good, he is evil to some degree.

I see two problems with this. One, there is no reason to believe that there can only be one perfect choice. God starts out with infinitly many varibles that can be assembled infinitly many ways. There should be infinitly many “perfect” ways to arrange them and infinitly many “nonperfect” ways to arrange them.

Second, you are implying that God is limited by a standard of perfection that is independent of God. Where would such a thing come from? And if God made it up himeself, why couldn’t an infinitly capable God come up with a “perfect” system that freed us all from all evil and still allowed for us to become all good?

Edyln,

I am sorry to hear about your grandson, but I hope that you will reasses dismissing us all as a bunch of whinners. I don’t think that is what is going on here at all. The problem of evil is something that has to be grappled with. You will note that from my original post I have maintained the position that the Ineffability Arguement–“God’s ways are not my ways, it is not my lot to understand, God knows what he is doing, Glory be to God.” is not only an acceptable response, it is the only accpetable response short of athieism. I think I am trying to prove with logic what you have learned through experience–surely that is not an “unenlightened” thing to do?

78

Theodicy is a branch of metaphysics: We examine certain axioms to see if they lead to a contradiction; if they do so, we must abandon, extend or alter them. Since it’s metaphysics and not science, we don’t have to have any evidence for the axioms themselves; however, if the axioms directly or indirectly make a claim against objective reality, we can certainly test that claim empirically; if it fails then we can say the axioms fail in the same way as in the case of contradiction.

Theodicy examines the following axioms, specifically axiom 4:
[list=1][li]God exists[/li][li]God is omnipotent[/li][li]God is omniscient[/li][li]God is omnibenevolent[/li][li]God created the universe[/li][li]God’s purpose in creating the universe is rationally determinable.[/list=1][/li]
Note that merely by participating in a metaphysical examination, we must accept axiom 6 and renounce the claim that God is entirely ineffable. If we are unable to speak rationally about God’s nature, then we must automatically reject any metaphysical arguments. This is not an unreasonable position; however, if you believe so, then theodicy is irrelevant. So let’s move on.

By axiom 1 and 2, we can deduce theorem 1 that God is “omniresponsible”; we can’t argue that “it’s not His fault.” The universe is precisely the way it is because He chose it to be so.

Grim_Beaker makes the claim that we should add the axiom “God’s creation is perfect.” However, I submit that that argument fails:

If the universe is already perfect, then by definition no action can alter that perfection. There is then no basis for defining an action as “good” or “evil” because all actions have the same consequence: a perfect universe.

If you hold “perfect” to mean “the way things are,” then you rob the word of all meaning: There is no rational means of determining the difference between “perfect” and “imperfect.”

Therefore we must assume that:
[ul][li]The universe is imperfect or[/li][li]The concepts of perfection do not apply to the universe or[/li][li]We do not have free will and moral choice.[/ul][/li]
Axiom 4 makes a specific empirical claim. Benevolence has a specific meaning:

Since Axiom 4 posits omnibenevolence, we must show that each and every consequence of God’s creation shows a disposition to do good or is itself an act of kindness. However this leads to an absurd conclusion:

Syllogism 1:
God created disease (by Axiom 5)
Disease causes suffering and death (by observation)
God causes suffering and death (by theorem 1)

Syllogism 2:
Everything that God causes is good (by Axiom 4)
God causes suffering and death (by Syllogism 1)
Suffering and death are good (by identity*)

Syllogism 3:
Suffering and death are good (by Syllogism 2)
We should strive to be good (by the definition of good)
We should strive to inflict suffering and death (by identity)

*identity: the basic logical principle that two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

Note that this argument holds without regard to God’s intentions.

Therefore, you have to either accept that causing suffering and death is good (and thus you ought to canonize Hitler, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, etc.), or you have to accept that you have a logical contradiction, and you must abandon one of the axioms.

Abandon axiom 1: God does not exist.
Abandon axiom 2: God is constrained: for instance, perhaps He could not have created intelligence without also creating disease.
Abandon axiom 3: God cannot forsee all the consequences of his creation.
Abandon axiom 4: God may be generally benevolent, but some of his actions are not.
Abandon axiom 5: The universe may exist independently of God.
Abandon axiom 6: We cannot rationally determine God’s purpose for the Universe, and therefore theodicy and indeed all theological metaphysics are impossible and pointless.

79

Questions for all:

  1. Assuming that there is God is it rational to assume he has a higher understanding then we possess?

  2. If we agree he has a higher understanding does that by necessity negate discussion on all proposed rationale behind current circumstances, only some rationale, or only rationale applied to specific cases?

  3. If we do not agree he has a higher understanding does that by necessity invalidate the omniprescience assumption?

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.

80

Oops! Please disregard the earlier post… I meant that post to say…

Questions for all:

  1. Assuming that there is God is it rational to assume he has a higher understanding then we possess?

  2. If we do not agree he has a higher understanding does that by necessity invalidate the omniprescience assumption?

  3. If we agree he has a higher understanding does that by necessity cause abandonment of axiom 6?

  4. If it doesn’t cause abandonment of axiom 6 does it negate discussion on all proposed rationale behind current circumstances, only some proposed rationale, or only proposed rationale when applied to specific cases?

  5. If it doesn’t negate discussion on all proprosed rationale what effect does it have on our evaluation of hypothetical circumstances?

To the world you might be one person but to one person you might be the
world.