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

other-wise:

No one claims that physical pain is the sine qua non of suffering. If I die of a painless disease, or am killed instantly by a murderer, that’s still “suffering.”

The existence of suffering by natural causes is the most obvious and easiest argument against theodicy, and therefore the one that proponents must take special care to refute.

There is a more interesting refutation than has been posted here, but I’m not going to do my honorable opponents’ work for them. :wink:

Oescha:

Mystical understanding is certainly impossible. Rational, metaphysical understanding does not depend on mystical experience.

For the purposes of this thread, I’m assuming the existence of God, and rationally examining a set of metaphysical propositions relating to His nature.

Atheism in general does not depend on the disproof of God, but rather the lack of proof for God’s existence.

Another argument for mysticism. Nothing wrong with mysticism, but the SDMB exists for the purpose of rational inquiry. If you don’t like it, don’t read the thread.


If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.

Singledad -

Well… I don’t recall anyone in this thread saying physical suffering is just peachy with them. My point is, what would cause emotional suffering in one person would not necessarily cause it in someone else, but everybodythinks root canals suck. Everyone thinks suffering feels really bad… they just disagree on whether or not there is a reason for it - one that, were it knowable, they might approve of or at least understand.

How do you figure? If you’re killed instantly I don’t see how you’d have time to suffer, and dying of a painless disease… well, sooner or later you have to die ofsomething. What criteria are you using (i.e. what kind of death wouldn’t be suffering)? You shooting for Immortality?

(Now you’ve got me wondering about that “more interesting refutation” you mentioned - didya have to post that at 1:30 in the morning? I was hoping to get some sleep soon! :p)

There’s lot’s of evidence for the existence of God, but there is also proof. In fact, anything can function as proof for God’s existence. EVEN A SHOE CAN PROVIDE ABSOLUTE PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.


Look at a shoe (stuff)

I see a shoe/stuff

now;Either: I. Stuff is an illusion OR II. Stuff exists now;

If (I), then you wouldn’t mind if I threw an illusion at you, would you?

If (II), then either: A. Stuff has NOT always existed OR B. Stuff HAS always existed

[Witness: expanding universe and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics–I think today we HAVE to acknowledge that the universe has not ALWAYS existed (A). Still the eternal universe (B) was a possibility Thomas Aquinas had to grantback in the 1200s];

If (A), stuff exists now, but has not ALWAYS existed, then either:

i. Stuff created itself (a logically impossible option) OR ii. Stuff was created by something greater than all the stuff and independent of stuff, what theologians call God.;

Thus we have only 4 options:

  1. Stuff is an illusion, so I can throw the shoe at you an it won’t hurt.
  2. Stuff created itself.
  3. Stuff was created by God.
  4. Stuff is eternal.;"

Think about It.

There are only four options, given the fact that you see a shoe (or anything else in the large category of “stuff”). Considering the options leaves one no alternative but to conclude that God, in fact, must exist.


Option 1: The universe as an illusion

But what if other people from different cultures all see the shoe? You see the shoe. Smell it. Listen to it and feel it. Taste it, if you dare. Run a battery of tests on the shoe?it can be demonstrated to exist. Or if you want to suggest that the shoe is an illusion, we’ll see if you flinch when I throw it at you. Or try something bigger than a shoe, like a ready-mix cement truck. If you see such a truck barreling down the road at you, do you sit back and say, “I see an illusion of a truck?” If you get out of the way on a consistent basis, then (like it or not) you trust your own sense data. You base your life on the assumption that the material world does actually exist.

Option 2: The self-created universe, a.k.a. “The universe was created by chance”

This is the most impossible of all the options, even though it seems to be the most popular among skeptics. The universe could not have created itself; that’s absurd. The problem is that the universe would have had to exist before it existed. The universe would have had to been in existence first in order to exercise the power of creation on itself. It would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. This is a flagrant violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Other people re-phrase this option by saying that “chance” created the universe. But (to borrow an argument from R.C. Sproul) chance is not a thing. Chance is nothing. Chance has never caused anything to happen. Flip a coin. Is it heads or is it tails? Let’s say it’s heads. What force did chance exercise upon that coin to cause it to come up heads? None at all. The force of the toss, the vector at which it was flipped, the gravity of the earth, wind currents, landing point, and whether you turned it over or not at the end?all of these factors exerted an influence. Chance is just a term we use to describe mathematical probability. Chance is not a thing and therefore cannot “create” anything. Chance doesn’t exist. It is not a thing. It is nothing.

Before the universe existed, nothing existed (apart from God, given he exists). Nothing really means no thing. Nothing is not just a big black void; you can imagine a black void. A black void is something. But nothing is nothing. There would have been nothing in existence before everything came into existence, and nothing cannot do something. Nothing especially can’t create the universe. The classic Latin phrase is ex nihilo nihil fit. Nothing can do nothing.

Option 4: The eternal universe

The second law of thermodynamics leaves little doubt that this is an impossible option. This principle, known as entropy, observes that the universe in which we live moves constantly from order to disorder. Everything naturally gets less organized as time goes on. The fact that we’re not now at a point of maximum disorder proves that there must have been a beginning, a point at which the move to disorder began. (If the universe has existed infinitely (always), the universe would have reached a point of infinite disorder?but we’re far from that degree of disorder.) Similarly, the fact of an expanding universe (and the consequent big bang theory, for what it’s worth) leaves the option of an eternal universe with few modern supporters.

But before modern astronomy came to our aid on this point, Christians had to argue against this notion of an eternal universe. The medieval Christian thinker Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274AD) pointed out that, even if the universe were eternal (and we now know it isn’t), God must still exist. Thomas pointed to the fact of intelligence within the world. The basic elements of our universe cannot organize themselves intelligently. To put it more philosophically, matter does not contain within itself an organizing principle.

If you broke the whole universe down into its basic elements (the periodic table… or even more basically, the materials comprising the tiniest particles), you will see that matter does not possess intelligence in itself. Yet the universe shows signs of intelligence at every level, great and small. Chameleons change colors, protons revolve around nuclei, plants bend toward sunlight, and people design shoes. Matter has been acted upon intelligently, so a God with intelligence greater than all the intelligence in the universe must actually exist to account for it. There must be something with intelligence (and therefore personal) outside of the world of matter to account for the intelligence in matter.

Option 3: The universe as created by God

The material world (stuff, including the elements that make up the shoe) was created by a being greater than all the power in the universe and containing intelligence greater than all the intelligence in the universe. This is the only option left. God created the universe. Like it or not, the shoe provides absolute proof for the existence of God.

It comes as no surprise then that the apostle Paul can write in the first chapter of Romans (1:18-20):

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities?his eternal power and divine nature?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

God’s power, eternity and deity are clearly seen, understood, and plain to humanity, seen in the created world, Paul says, so that no one can claim ignorance on Judgment Day.

Most of your argument OESCHA involves time,so for instance,

If (II), then either: A. Stuff has NOT always existed OR B. Stuff HAS always existed

The possibility of existance outside of time invalidates all this.
We have theories that use time as a component part of gravity/space.
If God is truly omnipresent he must exist in all time and in all dimensions,so stuff could also exist in the same way and so be eternal
Extremely complex patterns can be derived from very simple rules such as say the behaviour of 3weights linked by springs where the position of each at a certain frequency of oscillation is so diffcult to determine as to be random but you would not be inclined to put it down to a universal intelligence.

Other people re-phrase this option by saying that “chance” created the universe. But (to borrow an argument from R.C. Sproul) chance is not a thing. Chance is nothing. Chance has never caused anything to happen. Flip a coin. Is it heads or is it tails? Let’s say it’s heads. What force did chance exercise upon that coin to cause it to come up heads? None at all. The force of the toss, the vector at which it was flipped, the gravity of the earth, wind currents, landing point, and whether you turned it over or not at the end?all of these factors exerted an influence. Chance is just a term we use to describe mathematical probability. Chance is not a thing and therefore cannot “create” anything. Chance doesn’t exist. It is not a thing. It is nothing

Chance is a concept, so what, so is love so are numbers so are many things.
Given any steady state conditions there is always a statistical chance of change so instead of saying chance created everything we could say "A steady state existed until one day,by chance…"but this would neither prove nor disprove your case.

Very well thought out debate Oescha, but you’re forgetting a tiny point.

Saying that “God” created the universe is the same as saying that “burble” created the universe. Unless you have empirical evidence for assigning some qualities to God, you’ve just named your ignorance, not deduced knowlege. To be fair, those who claim a “scientific” explanation of the origin of the universe (and I’m talking about before the big bang) show the same quality.

The truth of the matter is that we have no evidence for drawing conclusions about the circumstances of the creation of the universe. As an atheist and empiricist, I do not deny my ignorance.

Regardless, we shouldn’t discuss this matter here. We are hijacking the OP, which is the theological matter of theodicy, not the existence of God. I would be happy to continue this discussion in another thread.


If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.

I guess thats so, but sometimes he’s got a funny way of showing it . I mean with all the fire and brimstone and the mighty smoting of his enemies and all.