# It makes no sense to point to the suffering in this world to argue against "God" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537 "2009-07-19T17:31:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/321 "2009-07-27T16:16:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So God desires me to be an atheist then? Quite the mindfuck, no? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/322 "2009-07-27T18:28:19Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > Hamster King, did you read the part where I said God only does good, and **ensuring rewards get earned** is good? Since when? Seriously, I think you’re getting bizarrely hung up on the definition of the word “reward”. A “reward” is just an “earned good thing”. So, take away the earning, and it’s just a good thing. So, what you’re saying when you say “ensuring rewards get earned” is good, is that “doing good things for no reason” is _bad_. Putting aside the fact that that is mind-bogglingly nonsensical, what it is basically saying is that God is _not_ benevolent - it’s that he’s rigidly _just_. He’s the karma god - all scales must be balanced, all good deeds rewarded and all bad deeds punished and not a single unearned second in heaven granted ever. The thing to note about this is, it _still_ doesn’t justify suffering, because the reward earned is necessarily _not_ better than the “reward” of not undergoing the suffering in the first place. (If it were, the ‘extra’ rewards would be unearned, and break your bizarre anti-benevolence rule.) So, the suffering is still pointless and unjustified, despite the standard POE argument not applying due to the god being non-benevolent. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/323 "2009-07-27T18:33:40Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t believe that they are solely social constructs. > > We have instincts that make us feel emotional about certain actions that other people take. Being cheated for example. And numerous experiments have shown that people of wildly differing cultures have very similar emotional responses to such things. I agree. Morality is a social construct built on top of an instinctual substrate that sets limits on what we _as human beings_ will tolerate as a definition of good and evil. What I was trying to emphasize was that morality requires societal consensus for its existence. You can’t unilaterally decide on your own idiosyncratic definition of right and wrong, any more than you can unilaterally decide on your own idiosyncratic definition of various words. Glory. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/324 "2009-07-27T19:00:33Z")
**straggler** , perhaps you missed my earlier question, so I’ll repeat it. Please tell me why I should believe in that the Lord of Hosts rather than Wotan. ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/325 "2009-07-27T19:47:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So God desires me to be an atheist then? I don’t know what God desires for you. ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/326 "2009-07-27T19:49:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Please explain why we should care about some “ultimate reward” when no evidence for such exists? Whether there is “evidence” of an ultimate reward is a separate discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/327 "2009-07-27T19:51:12Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > I don’t know what God desires for you. Do you have an answer for my question, **straggler**? Why is the deity you worship–the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom I referred to as the Lord of Hosts earlier–any more likely to exist, or worthy of reverence, than Wotan, Mithra, or Anu? ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/328 "2009-07-27T19:51:50Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Are you saying that being killed by lightening is a good thing? What if being killed by lightening or any way for that matter meant you just become part of the universe? your body decays and you once again just become atoms etc. that make up what you are now,. If we are made of star stuff as sience proves then, all the chemicals etc. just change as we die. Like any plant or animal. Then.. that’s what happens? Not sure what answer you’re looking for, here. > [@](#): > > People want there to be an after life, so it is comforting to think there is, but why a God would still have to judge them, when he knew they were going to suffer for all eternity is not a very loving thing to do, better to not create them to begin with. I would not purposely have achild I knew before conception that would have a life of suffering (even the short suffering it would have now). Why should the body suffer for the soul, or soul for the body? This earthly life is a test. A short test. Incredibly short, actually. If you use an infinite time scale, your 90 year existence (if you’re lucky) won’t even register as a blip. > [@](#): > > God created an imperfect being then punishes it for being imperfect when He could just have not created it. It makes such a God seem rather cruel to do so. Yes, it does seem strange. ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/329 "2009-07-27T19:55:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Since when? > > Seriously, I think you’re getting bizarrely hung up on the definition of the word “reward”. A “reward” is just an “earned good thing”. So, take away the earning, and it’s just a good thing. > > So, what you’re saying when you say “ensuring rewards get earned” is good, is that “doing good things for no reason” is _bad_. I’m not saying that, and I can’t even see how you’ve drawn that conclusion. > [@](#): > > Putting aside the fact that that is mind-bogglingly nonsensical, what it is basically saying is that God is _not_ benevolent - it’s that he’s rigidly _just_. He’s the karma god - all scales must be balanced, all good deeds rewarded and all bad deeds punished and not a single unearned second in heaven granted ever. Being rigidly just is incompatible with being benevolent? > [@](#): > > The thing to note about this is, it _still_ doesn’t justify suffering, because the reward earned is necessarily _not_ better than the “reward” of not undergoing the suffering in the first place. (If it were, the ‘extra’ rewards would be unearned, and break your bizarre anti-benevolence rule.) So, the suffering is still pointless and unjustified, despite the standard POE argument not applying due to the god being non-benevolent. You’re confusing rewards given in this life with the Ultimate Reward. Not every good deed gets a reward in this life, and not ever bad deed gets punished in this life. This is part of the test. Ultimate Justice awaits on Judgement Day. ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/330 "2009-07-27T19:56:36Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > **straggler** , perhaps you missed my earlier question, so I’ll repeat it. > > Please tell me why I should believe in that the Lord of Hosts rather than Wotan. Believe whatever you like! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/331 "2009-07-27T20:17:09Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > I don’t know what God desires for you. But you know that it’s impossible for me to be, do or think anything he _doesn’t_ desire. ---
**Author:** ![straggler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@straggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straggler)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/332 "2009-07-27T20:21:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But you know that it’s impossible for me to be, do or think anything he _doesn’t_ desire. For clarity, replace the word _desire_ with _will_, and the answer is yes. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/333 "2009-07-27T20:29:49Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > I’m not saying that, and I can’t even see how you’ve drawn that conclusion. It’s the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from saying that rewards must be earned. Look at the inverse - what does it mean if rewards are _not_ earned? If rewards are just given, for no reason at all? Why, that’s what’s called a “gift” - a benevolent handout. To state that rewards must be earned is _exactly synoymous_ to saying that unearned gifts are verboten. If it wasn’t, God could give us all the “Ultimate Reward” as a gift, without putting anybody through even a single trial. > [@straggler](#): > > Being rigidly just is incompatible with being benevolent? By the usual definition of justice, and the usual definition of benevolence, yes. Justice is what happens when you get what you deserve, and _only_ what you deserve. It’s not just a matter of making sure that people get punished enough - letting somebody off the hook when they _have_ committed a crime is _also_ a travesty of justice. So, justice is what happens when everybody gets _exactly_ what they deserve. No worse - and no better. (Notably, under this rule it’s impossible to merit heaven, because there are no good deeds meritous enough to earn it.) Benevolence, on the other hand, particularly \*omni-\*benevolence, is all about doing what’s best for people - whether they deserve it or not. It’s unjudgemental. It’s merciful. And mercy is _specifically_ a thwarting of justice. So yes. An omni-benevolent god would forgive a man all of his sins (Jesus or no Jesus). A rigidly just god would require that a man pay for all of his own sins (Jesus or no Jesus). There is no middle ground\*. - and no, Jesus is not a middle ground - the jesus sacrifice requires a _transferrence_ of punishment, which is a travesty of justice, and an unjust and unmerited blood sacrifice by Jesus which no benevolent god could stand. The only sort of God that _could_ accept a Jesus-style scapegoat sacrifice would be a bloodthirsty rage-god, whose general rage could be sated by the one blood sacrifice (allowing everyone else to escape his rage-driven punishment). That is, the God of Jesus is the one that makes you throw virgins into volcanos to stave off their eruption. Justice and benevolence literally cannot have anything to do with it. > [@straggler](#): > > You’re confusing rewards given in this life with the Ultimate Reward. Not every good deed gets a reward in this life, and not ever bad deed gets punished in this life. This is part of the test. Ultimate Justice awaits on Judgement Day. Slapping “Ultimate” in front of words doesn’t change the fact that the reward of heaven cannot ever be earned, and thus would be a travesty of justice no matter how Ultimate that justice might be. (And whether the rewards are in this life or not are irrelevent - the just god doesn’t mind waiting, as long as the reward/punishment is proportional to the good deed/crime, and the omnibenevolent god of course cannot stand the “test” at all, and cannot choose to have it happen if there is any alternative.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/334 "2009-07-27T20:36:32Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > For clarity, replace the word _desire_ with _will_, and the answer is yes. Then God wills all evil. God willed the holocaust, God wills child rape and God wills Rob Schneider movies. How can an omnimax God will evil? ETA if everything I do is God’s will, then how can I possibly fail the test? I can drink the blood of infants and still pass with flying colors. There’s no way to NOT do God’s will. I’m in like Flynn inisde those pearly gates. I do have one question – about those 72 virgins…can I have sluts instead? They should also be bisexual. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/335 "2009-07-27T20:41:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > God wills Rob Schneider movies. That _bastard_. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/336 "2009-07-27T20:42:54Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > This earthly life is a test. A short test. Incredibly short, actually. If you use an infinite time scale, your 90 year existence (if you’re lucky) won’t even register as a blip. Garbage. 90 years is 90 years, and is a long time regardless of how much or how little future there is. Your argument is a twisted one that justifies any evil one may want to commit; after all, murdering one person is nothing compared to killing billions, so that murder is trivial, right ? Which is exactly the attitude arguments like yours are designed to create. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/337 "2009-07-27T21:09:08Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > Believe whatever you like! Are you saying that it matters not whether I believe in the Lord of Hosts, Wotan, Mithra, Athena, and so forth? If that is so,w hat is the point of this thread? If that is not so, why are you not admonishing me to believe in your God? Do you wish me to go to Hell for an eternity of suffering? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/338 "2009-07-28T02:35:30Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Good and evil are social constructs like language or money. They exist through consensus. You can’t decide unilaterally that killing is good any more than you can decide unilaterally to pay for your latte with a crumpled gum wrapper, or that “goo-goo-goo” means “I am a materialist”. > > Now if you can convince enough people that killing and hurting others is good, then it will become good within that community. And if you can convince the entire world you will have redefined what it means to be a good person. I’m not sure how this relates to the conversation at hand. > [@](#): > > We’re bound to the rules of any game only to the extent that we accept their dominion. If suffering really is completely inconsequential and life is merely a game, then there is no \*obligation \*to follow the rules. These discussions are always tricky. This type of discussion begins with "If God is then {topic for discussion} The train of thought and argument has to be consistent with that supposition. So, with that in mind, I didn’t say suffering was completely inconsequential. If we are supposing something like the Christian God then he made the game and is in charge of how it plays out, so yeah, we would be under some obligation to follow his rules. It seems to me it’s basically the same with or without God. We choose based on perceived consequences. Not to be sidetracked from my original point, which is, the argument that suffering and/or the POE means God cannot be Omnimax, I reject it as illogical for the reasons I already explained. It certainly appears that way from a human perspective but lacking omniscience how are we to judge the possibility for God. The question seems to be, “Why would a benevolent God allow so much suffering when omnipotence means he could prevent it all?” or “What is the purpose of creation and the perception of duality and choice?” {rather than bliss and no suffering whatsoever} We don’t know. So we lack some crucial knowledge to lay claim to a logical conclusion about what suffering means about God. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/339 "2009-07-28T03:31:51Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Ultimately? Why does that matter more than here and now? It’s ok to torture someone as long as it might stop later? This just a big what if. Unless you can show that it is relevant, then current suffering is much more important than anything else. I’d start by showing that there is an afterlife, or that we are actually spiritual beings. I’ll start here. Let’s have one discussion. This thread is a "If God is then {topic of discussion} kind of thread. We have the discussion by supposing something like the Christian God exists and what appears to be logical or not from that supposition. So, no I’m not going to spend any time showing there is an afterlife or that we are spiritual beings. I haven’t made that argument. I’m discussing points of logic **if** we suppose that’s true. To continue we have to stay consistent with that supposition. > [@](#): > > We don’t need to be any of the three to judge suffering. We can observe needless suffering quite easily. We can watch as a parent who loves their child does whatever they can to save that child from needless suffering. We can also watch as god does absolutely nothing to save anyone from needless suffering. Incorrect. How do we, not being omniscient, argue what is needless in comparison to a being that is omniscient? We can accurately say, “I don’t see any purpose in this suffering” and that’s all. We can’t logically claim God can’t possibly have one. > [@](#): > > The whole ‘well we don’t/can’t understand god’ thing is just a cop out. It only seems to come out when a question that can’t be answered shows up. Up until then, it’s all ‘god wants this’ and god hates that’. But as soon as you point out something that doesn’t have an easy answer it’s ‘well we can’t understand god or his motives or plans’. If you have evidence that god is ‘unknowable’ or whatever, then lets see it. Once again let’s have one conversation. Evidence has nothing to do with this one. If we’re supposing a creator and master of the universe God then granting him qualities such as omniscience, and omnipotence, makes him pretty unknowable. > [@](#): > > Why would an omnibenevolent being do that to someone? Not being omniscient I couldn’t say. You seem to be assuming that it’s not voluntary and God makes spiritual beings experience the torture of being human against their protests. Their’s no reason to assume that. Why do humans want to simulate being gangsters or bloody wars that they wouldn’t want to be “real”? Here’s where the mixing of perspectives makes these conversations derail. I asked before, if your kid wants to experience something and you know they can’t really be hurt {since they are spiritual beings not physical ones} and the perfectly safe experience will teach them something about perspective, in what way would it violate the principle of omnibenevolence? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537/340 "2009-07-28T12:02:37Z")
> [@straggler](#): > > Then.. that’s what happens? Not sure what answer you’re looking for, here. > This earthly life is a test. A short test. Incredibly short, actually. If you use an infinite time scale, your 90 year existence (if you’re lucky) won’t even register as a blip. > Yes, it does seem strange. Why do a test when you know the results ahead of time? According to Genesis the punishment for sin was death, not an eternity of suffering. That idea came later I wonder if it came about when people could see good people suffering and bad people prospering and thought maybe they would be punished in an other life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-makes-no-sense-to-point-to-the-suffering-in-this-world-to-argue-against-god/503537.md?page=18)