Your question makes as much sense as saying you believe the earth exists, but not the universe.
If you choose to worship God, you’re choosing to exist. I can’t put it any more clearly than that.
“As well” just doesn’t cut it with me. If someone hits my car through negligence, then pays for it through her/his insurance, I’m not receiving a reward. If God allows an innocent to come to harm through negligence, then gives that person a Heavenly Scooby-Snack sometime in the future, that also is not a reward-it’s a payoff.
What’s that got to do with it? This life is a test. Sometimes this life will reward you, sometimes it won’t. You don’t face the ultimate judgment until you’ve gone through the ultimate trial.
Whose negligence? God isn’t negligent.
Humanly negligence? Then that person is being tested.
If this “God” exists, he doesn’t have an excuse, given that the no-hand information we have on this being is anywhere near correct.
Why don’t you tell me the name and phone number of this particular drill instructor is, so I can interview him and find out what motivates him, because right now I’ve got no real information to go on.
Come to think of it, I’ve got just as much information to go on when it comes to this “God”-none.
**Czarcasm: **I give her presents without making her suffer or work for them because I love her unconditionally.
**straggler: **You give her presents as a kind of reward for the pleasant way she treats you, I presume?
**Mijin: **how did we choose a life of suffering?
**straggler: **Your question makes as much sense as saying you believe the earth exists, but not the universe.
If you choose to worship God, you’re choosing to exist. I can’t put it any more clearly than that.
This thread is getting more entertaining by the minute 
When my good friend, Steven, got hit by lightning while working on the wing of a B52-D in the summer of 1978, what test did he fail?
Rewards have to be earned, do you agree?
It isn’t a reward if you didn’t earn it, do you agree?
Eternal paradise is a reward, do you agree?
See if you can figure out what the next question is.
But the only information you have on the God I am positing is that he allows suffering. To you, this is enough to take a cane to him. So, please take a cane to the drill instructor. All you need to know is, the drill instructor allows suffering.
What’s that? You won’t take a cane to the drill instructor? Oh dear - your argument has become hopelessly inconsistent.
Assuming your friend was killed:
- I’m sorry to hear that
- If the worst someone ever has to suffer is they get hit by lightning, even if it kills them, they’ll be cool with it when they find out how they’re going to be spending the next phase of their existence, which will last an eternity.
The information I(and others) have on the 'god" you posit is that he is omni-benevolent and allows suffering, an obvious self-contradiction. Since we cannot know the mind of this “god” we cannot know what motivates him. Since you cannot know the mind of this 'god", you also cannot know what motivates him, but this doesn’t seem to bother you for some reason. And again, causing harm through negligence then giving a pay-off to ease the pain is not a reward.
As far as the drill instructor is concerned, since the same claim of omni-benevolence is not being made, it has no bearing.
Would you mind if I stole your hose and cleaned out your bank account, if I promise that you will never die? All you have to do is believe me, and you will be happy with the deal for the rest of your life, guaranteed.
Oh brother :rolleyes:
Hey Czarcasm. I propose there exists a drill instructor that is omni-benevolent, but you should see what he puts his troops-in-training through! What do you reckon? Is he still omni-benevolent?
There you go, the claim is now being made.
Hmm… up the deal so that I don’t suffer in any way ever again, and that no one else in my sphere of existence is likewise suffering in any way ever again, and you betcha. It’s yours.
Why don’t you throw in Green Lantern’s ring and Santa’s sleigh while you’re at it? :rolleyes:
If you want to believe in in omni-benevolent being that doesn’t behave in an omni-benevolent manner, go right ahead. You can’t use logic to argue someone out of a position that they didn’t use logic to reach in the first place, so I’m not going to try.
Sure thing, but it’s going to happen sometime in the future, and if you quit believing in me the deal is off.
Still don’t mind if I take away all your earthly possessions and kick you in the crotch once a week, considering the great “reward” I’m offering you?
Oh, goodie. That answer is about as useless as me, at this point, stating that you already believe in God, and it’s your arrogance that won’t allow you to admit it. Unlike you, I won’t revert to such a thing, but instead try and figure out where the breakdown in communication is occurring.
Here is my take on it: You are claiming that we can know that a theoretical God is not omni-benevolent, based simply off the fact that he is, quite seemingly, allowing suffering. You challenged me to explain how God could still be considered omni-benevolent under this scenario.
Confused at why you think the allowing of suffering disqualifies you from being omni-benevolent, I ask if you could say the same thing about a drill instructor, if all you know about him is he is allowing his troops-in-training to likewise suffer.
You respond by saying that no one is positing an omni-benevolent drill instrcutor, so I fix this problem for you by positing it. You respond with a useless platitude about reasoning with unreasonable people.
So, where’s the breakdown?
As far as I see it, you need to demonstrate that the allowing of suffering disqualifies you from being omni-benevolent under any and all conditions. If that’s what you are positing, then start with the drill instructor example, please.
Kick me in the crotch once a week? I don’t get this eternal reward unconditionally?
Sorry… I’ll stick with the promises made in the Abrahamic texts. Your best examples of paradise are about as far off the mark as your best examples of suffering!
A drill instructor that was omnipotent and omni-benevolent might just save time, effort and pain by instantly making his troops ready for battle.
Then again, you’ve got that little contradiction of an omni-benevolent drill instructor creating warriors.
Why don’t you give me just one example of why an omni-benevolent and omnipotent being would need and/or want a lesser being to suffer when there is obviously a better, faster and less painful way to teach a lesson?
What is that, exactly?
Remembering that rewards have to be earned.
Benevolent is a human word.
And cosmosdan continues to dodge !
A drill instructor isn’t omnipotent, and he’s working with volunteers. If he could just snap his fingers and download whatever training they want into their heads, then making them do it the hard way instead would be pointless sadism. Especially since if he was omnipotent and omnibenevolent then what’s the point of an army ?
A reward for pointless suffering is one I’d happily pass on if I meant I could do without the suffering. Especially since it’s highly unlikely that there would BE any reward.
No, they don’t. And we aren’t volunteers, and God doesn’t have limited resources.
An omnimax god doesn’t need to test anyone; he already knows the answer. An omnimax god wouldn’t allow any suffering; he wouldn’t even construct his creations to be capable of suffering. The world does not fit an omnimax god, and your arguments fail to show otherwise. All you have done is “solve” the Problem of Evil by creating a version of God that IS evil.
Hmm, so our suffering on earth is necessary to earn our reward.
So…what about those fortunate people who live lives without much suffering?
After all, it’s all relative. Compared to many of the poorest people in the world, we in the developed world generally lead very cushy lives.
Will will be denied our heavenly rewards, even if we accept jesus as our saviour?
Apparently the answer is “yes” since suffering is necessary.
Or is having a papercut once in your life sufficient suffering to earn the eternal reward?