Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?

[Nakosis]

If it ever performed any action ( even think ) it would use logic.

Do you ever have a dream where in upon awakening you realize the dream made absolutely no sense? There is an analytical portion of your brain that "disengages" when you sleep and is one of the last things to re-engage when you wake. Without this you are not capable of rational/logical thinking. You'd experience things without discernment or judgement.

Let me put it this way: Imagine you have full control over how you feel. You can not choose to suffer and to feel joy at the same time, because not only they aren't same thing, they are contradictory.

Which is what I've been talking about. Being able to choose how you feel about something.

If truth is only what we accept as truth, then doesn't this also mean that God only exist if we consider it to?

For you yes. However there is no we. It's just you and what you accept or reject as existing. What you accept as truth only affects your personal view of things.

The attribute of existing in itself.

Which entails what. What is the reality of existing. To accept the existence of something, what do you need from it?

No. I am saying that if nothing exists to be aware of, then nothing exists.
NOT that if no one exists to be aware of anything, then nothing exists.

But your are still using awareness to define existence. What does awareness mean if there is no one around to be aware?

Why is it available?
This is the central point.

It exists because you are aware of it.

This IS a debate. Check the section this topic is posted in. Actually, just check the topic name...
I am not asking all my questions simply out of curiosity, rather i ask them to understand the position you defend in this debate.

My position is this is the reality of my experience, which isn't up for debate.
For example someone might want to debate the existence of Hawaii. I've been there. Maybe you want to continue to debate about it's existence, Whereas I saying go there and find out. If you do that, then the debate is over.

You said he can not remain transcendent while taking action. If he is, at this moment, transcendent, doesn't this mean he is inactive?

There's no action in any immanent material sense.

How did you determine it was God?

Best guess. It seems to fit experiences as described by others.

Then i am afraid i don't understand why you posted in a debate.

People have questions which I can answer from my experience.

So it is also impossible to provide evidence that it is real.

There is a lot of testimony available. However what is evidence to you except what you see for yourself?

Do you mean to say our dreams are akin to what God experiences?

What I'm saying is from what I experienced is it's best understood as being similar to a human dreaming.

If you were able to fully control your dreams, while dreaming, what would be impossible for you?

 

[Koldo]

Do you ever have a dream where in upon awakening you realize the dream made absolutely no sense? There is an analytical portion of your brain that "disengages" when you sleep and is one of the last things to re-engage when you wake. Without this you are not capable of rational/logical thinking. You'd experience things without discernment or judgement.

Something that doesn't make sense isn't necessarily illogical.
Our common sense is based on some contigent truths. When we suspend these as in our dreams, we start thinking differently. Nothing meaningful arises from the illogical.

Which is what I've been talking about. Being able to choose how you feel about something.

You missed the point completely.
I didn't grant that it is possible to control how you feel about something, i asked you to imagine it just so you wouldn't get lost in this part of the argument. The point was to show how wrong it was when you said : "For me joy and suffering are the same thing.".

For you yes. However there is no we. It's just you and what you accept or reject as existing. What you accept as truth only affects your personal view of things.

You are doing the same thing again. Talking about something unrelated.
You were talking about what is truth, then when asked further on the subject you start talking about the importance of truth to an individual.

Which entails what. What is the reality of existing. To accept the existence of something, what do you need from it?

The acceptance that something/anything exists is unimportant to my argument. As is any metaphysical conversation on this subject.

But your are still using awareness to define existence. What does awareness mean if there is no one around to be aware?

Where did you get this idea from?

It exists because you are aware of it.

Why am I aware of it?

My position is this is the reality of my experience, which isn't up for debate.
For example someone might want to debate the existence of Hawaii. I've been there. Maybe you want to continue to debate about it's existence, Whereas I saying go there and find out. If you do that, then the debate is over.

If it is not up to debate then it should NOT be brought into a debate.
You can give evidence for the existence of Hawaii. In fact, multiple evidences.

There's no action in any immanent material sense.

At which point did it become transcendent?
What was the last time it performed an action?

Best guess. It seems to fit experiences as described by others.

Everything based on a random guess.
Not a compelling argument.

People have questions which I can answer from my experience.

In a debate?

There is a lot of testimony available. However what is evidence to you except what you see for yourself?

Testimony? The testimony available tends to be faulty. And it usually attributes events to causes that had already been estabilished through bias.

What I'm saying is from what I experienced is it's best understood as being similar to a human dreaming.

If you were able to fully control your dreams, while dreaming, what would be impossible for you?

Do you mean you experienced God as if it was a 'thing'?

 

[Nakosis]

Something that doesn't make sense isn't necessarily illogical.
Our common sense is based on some contigent truths. When we suspend these as in our dreams, we start thinking differently. Nothing meaningful arises from the illogical.

Fair enough in that your accepting the possibility of the illogical.

You missed the point completely.
I didn't grant that it is possible to control how you feel about something, i asked you to imagine it just so you wouldn't get lost in this part of the argument. The point was to show how wrong it was when you said : "For me joy and suffering are the same thing.".

And I was trying to explain why my statement was not wrong. You want me to acknowledge being wrong when I'm not. That's not missing the point, sorry.

You are doing the same thing again. Talking about something unrelated.
You were talking about what is truth, then when asked further on the subject you start talking about the importance of truth to an individual.

Actually your asking unrelated questions because there is a lot you don't understand here. You are trying to fit the discussion to your concepts of how things are. I'm trying to help you zero in on some of it but you are pretty stubborn in your thinking.

The acceptance that something/anything exists is unimportant to my argument. As is any metaphysical conversation on this subject.

Actually it's very important if you want to understand any of this.

Where did you get this idea from?

From your own words.

Why am I aware of it?

Someone taught you about it. Shouldn't you be able to answer that? When did you first become aware of suffering?

If it is not up to debate then it should NOT be brought into a debate.

Ok, don't debate it.

You can give evidence for the existence of Hawaii. In fact, multiple evidences.

Such as?

At which point did it become transcendent?

As far as I know it has always been transcendent. We just can't or don't know how to perceive it as such.

What was the last time it performed an action?

Sorry, I don't keep times. However I suspect time would be meaningless to such a being any way.

Everything based on a random guess.
Not a compelling argument.

Especially since that's not what I said.

In a debate?

Why not? Your not allow to use a resource of information in a debate?

Testimony? The testimony available tends to be faulty. And it usually attributes events to causes that had already been estabilished through bias.

Yes, I know. But at some point, without relying on personal experience, one is left to rely on someone else's testimony. I just wanted to know what you would otherwise think of as evidence.

Do you mean you experienced God as if it was a 'thing'?

As a reality. As real as any other experience you accept as real.

And here's the problem. I can't tell you how to get there. However in my experience, the way is made clear when you are ready for it.

For example, should we debate about whether of not the sun exists? I suspect not since there really is nothing to debate as I suspect you've experienced the sun for yourself.

However I think you are right, This is really getting off track. IMO because of your questions. But, water under the bridge....

So to the question why does God allow suffering?

So we are accepting the existence of God. For the sake of this debate.

Answer, God doesn't allow suffering. Man suffers because of his own choices.

Now if you want to get into the metaphysics of that, don't blame me.

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough in that your accepting the possibility of the illogical.

What is the point you are trying to make with this?

And I was trying to explain why my statement was not wrong. You want me to acknowledge being wrong when I'm not. That's not missing the point, sorry.

You were not explaining your point. That is why you missed the mark. You simply made a comment about a part of the quote.

Actually your asking unrelated questions because there is a lot you don't understand here. You are trying to fit the discussion to your concepts of how things are. I'm trying to help you zero in on some of it but you are pretty stubborn in your thinking.

These questions are all related. They are my scouts to verify in what grounds you stand. It would be funny to think i would have to understand your rather unusual concept of God right from the start.

Plus, you just avoided the matter at hand.

Actually it's very important if you want to understand any of this.

Not important at all. It just matters that if something exists, it possesses the attribute of existence. What is the nature of this attribute is unnecessary to this debate, as we are not even talking about whether God exists.

From your own words.

You are mistaken. Arrange your conclusion from my words using a logical form, and i will show you where you got things wrong.

Someone taught you about it. Shouldn't you be able to answer that? When did you first become aware of suffering?

So, i am aware of it because someone taught me about it. Should i understand it that if nobody taught me about it i would never become aware of it?

Who was the first one to teach about suffering? I don't mean the word, i mean the concept behind the word.

Such as?

Photos, videos, satellite images, and so on.

As far as I know it has always been transcendent. We just can't or don't know how to perceive it as such.

If it has ever been transcendent, and it can not do anything while remaining transcendent, what did it ever do?

Especially since that's not what I said.

That is my conclusion from what you said.

Why not? Your not allow to use a resource of information in a debate?

Do you really want me to consider yourself as a resource of information in a debate?

Yes, I know. But at some point, without relying on personal experience, one is left to rely on someone else's testimony. I just wanted to know what you would otherwise think of as evidence.

There are various degrees of evidence. One of the least reliable ones is personal testimony, even more when there is only a single person that experienced an event. Material evidence is much better.

As a reality. As real as any other experience you accept as real.

And here's the problem. I can't tell you how to get there. However in my experience, the way is made clear when you are ready for it.

For example, should we debate about whether of not the sun exists? I suspect not since there really is nothing to debate as I suspect you've experienced the sun for yourself.

God as a reality? I am afraid you may be using the word 'God' for something completely unrelated to what is usually understood by 'God'. You may do so, but i don't see much use in bringing it into a debate.

We have multiple evidences for the existence of the sun.
On the other hand, all the evidence you can provide for this case is your biased testimony.

However I think you are right, This is really getting off track. IMO because of your questions. But, water under the bridge....

My questions are all related to the matter at hand.
It is important to understand what is this God you have been talking about to reply.

So to the question why does God allow suffering?

So we are accepting the existence of God. For the sake of this debate.

Answer, God doesn't allow suffering. Man suffers because of his own choices.

Now if you want to get into the metaphysics of that, don't blame me.

My position is rather simple. For the sake of the debate i consider God to exist, and from there that God set the initial conditions that allow for humans to suffer. It would be impossible for humans to suffer if God didn't allow such. It presents a clear contradiction to his power.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Mainly because it is contradictory to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

So you are assuming that suffering is wrong. Why?

 

[Koldo]

So you are assuming that suffering is wrong. Why?

It remains in opposition to a state of happiness, joy or pleasure.

 

[Nakosis]

What is the point you are trying to make with this?

That not everything is logical.

You were not explaining your point. That is why you missed the mark. You simply made a comment about a part of the quote.

I disagree. However I'm not sure at this point if I can explain it in terms you'd understand.

These questions are all related. They are my scouts to verify in what grounds you stand. It would be funny to think i would have to understand your rather unusual concept of God right from the start.

It's not that unusual. God being both immanent and transcendent it a fairly common view. Immanent is fairly easy to understand. Transcendent, not so much.

Plus, you just avoided the matter at hand.

I believed your questions avoided the matter at hand.

Not important at all. It just matters that if something exists, it possesses the attribute of existence. What is the nature of this attribute is unnecessary to this debate, as we are not even talking about whether God exists.

Right, so there's no need for me to discuss my experiences.

You are mistaken. Arrange your conclusion from my words using a logical form, and i will show you where you got things wrong.

This is what you said.

No. I am saying that if nothing exists to be aware of, then nothing exists.
NOT that if no one exists to be aware of anything, then nothing exists.

Are you not using the word aware in both statements?

So, i am aware of it because someone taught me about it. Should i understand it that if nobody taught me about it i would never become aware of it?

Our thinking is conditioned by our fellow man. You are taught what to perceive as suffering.

Who was the first one to teach about suffering? I don't mean the word, i mean the concept behind the word.

I believe it developed over time from our experiences with materialism. Suffering is loss, stress, mental anguish. It's a result of our becoming attached to impermanent things. From the anguish we cause for ourselves we developed the concept of suffering. Man continues to propagate that perception. Teach it, and we accept the truth of it.

 

[Nakosis]

Photos, videos, satellite images, and so on.

Ok, here's a picture of God...

Geothermal Energy | Tomorrow is greener

Ok, actually it's Hawaii but do you understand you are relying on my testimony as to what it is? Unless of course you've actually been to this beach for yourself and recognize it.

If it has ever been transcendent, and it can not do anything while remaining transcendent, what did it ever do?

Will the universe into being.
Going back to the dreamer. Lets say you dreamed of a world and imagined being in that world running along a beach. Did you have an actual presence in that would that was actually doing something?

That is my conclusion from what you said.

I understand, however I said nothing about random guesses.

Do you really want me to consider yourself as a resource of information in a debate?

I don't want anything from you. You're asking questions. I'm letting you know why I consider my testimony reliable.

There are various degrees of evidence. One of the least reliable ones is personal testimony, even more when there is only a single person that experienced an event. Material evidence is much better.

Yes something you can see and touch for yourself you see as more reliable. However you are still relying on someone's testimony as to what you are looking at and touching. I think your confidence in such evidence is misplace, however you judge for yourself what you find credible. So I am likely more skeptical of "evidence" then you.

God as a reality? I am afraid you may be using the word 'God' for something completely unrelated to what is usually understood by 'God'. You may do so, but i don't see much use in bringing it into a debate.

I don't think so. There is enough commonality of experience between individuals I've met to accept there is something to such experiences. However I don't see much point in debating a particular concept of God which may have nothing to do with actuality.

We have multiple evidences for the existence of the sun.
On the other hand, all the evidence you can provide for this case is your biased testimony.

So what evidence of the sun do you have that doesn't rely on either direct experience or testimony?

My questions are all related to the matter at hand.
It is important to understand what is this God you have been talking about to reply.

However this is something I don't think you are capable of without direct experience and you're unwilling to accept my testimony.

My position is rather simple. For the sake of the debate i consider God to exist, and from there that God set the initial conditions that allow for humans to suffer. It would be impossible for humans to suffer if God didn't allow such. It presents a clear contradiction to his power.

Your position results from relying on a concept of God instead of actual experience. So you are left to debate a concept which has no actuality.

 

[Koldo]

This is what you said.

Are you not using the word aware in both statements?

Yes, so?

Our thinking is conditioned by our fellow man. You are taught what to perceive as suffering.

I believe it developed over time from our experiences with materialism. Suffering is loss, stress, mental anguish. It's a result of our becoming attached to impermanent things. From the anguish we cause for ourselves we developed the concept of suffering. Man continues to propagate that perception. Teach it, and we accept the truth of it.

Do you mean to say that at some point we (humans) didn't suffer?
What about other animals? Don't they suffer as well?
Also, what about babies?

 

[Koldo]

Ok, here's a picture of God...

Geothermal Energy | Tomorrow is greener

Ok, actually it's Hawaii but do you understand you are relying on my testimony as to what it is? Unless of course you've actually been to this beach for yourself and recognize it.

So what evidence of the sun do you have that doesn't rely on either direct experience or testimony?

You are using the word 'testimony' in a broader sense than i originally intended.
The major difference between your personal testimony, in other words, your account of what happened in a particular event, and your testimony over the material evidence you present, is that even if you are not lying in the former case it is impossible to know what you objectively experienced. Multiple things can/tend to happen, you may forget important parts, overlook relevant details, add subjective interpretations, and so on.

Taking this into consideration, material evidence for the existence of Hawaii or the sun is much better because if you are not lying about their precedence i will know not only that they do exist but also what/how they are with much more objectivity than you could ever provide me in your personal account.

Will the universe into being.

How did it do it while remaining transcendent?

Going back to the dreamer. Lets say you dreamed of a world and imagined being in that world running along a beach. Did you have an actual presence in that would that was actually doing something?

My presence was as actual as the existence of that world.

Your position results from relying on a concept of God instead of actual experience. So you are left to debate a concept which has no actuality.

I never said it had any actuality.
I said i imagine it to have a debate over the subject.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, so?

You said you were going to show me how I was wrong.

Do you mean to say that at some point we (humans) didn't suffer?
What about other animals? Don't they suffer as well?
Also, what about babies?

We'll probably need to have a common understanding of suffering.

I use it as loss, mental anguish, etc... In a spiritual sense resulting to attachment. I don't know how much attachment an animal or baby develops.

I suspect you have a broader understanding in mind.

 

[zenzero]

Friend yaddoe,

Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?

When you are part of THAT which is labelled God, then when you suffer remember he too suffers. So, it is we that makes God suffer and not the other way round.

Love & rgds

 

[Koldo]

You said you were going to show me how I was wrong.

I asked you to:
"Arrange your conclusion from my words using a logical form, and i will show you where you got things wrong."

Not to state my words again. :sarcastic
Saying the word 'aware' is used in my sentence does no good to explain why you came to that conclusion.
I want to know by what means you infered it. Your reasoning behind it.

Either way, what I said is that if there is nothing that one could be possibly aware of, then nothing exists. To be 'aware' is to perceive something, and if we consider an unrestricted awareness, then it seems logical for me to conclude that if anything exists everything that exists will be perceived. If there is nothing to be perceived, then nothing exists.

We'll probably need to have a common understanding of suffering.

I use it as loss, mental anguish, etc... In a spiritual sense resulting to attachment. I don't know how much attachment an animal or baby develops.

I suspect you have a broader understanding in mind.

I will use the dictionary to explain what i mean by suffering:

sufferingpresent participle of suf·fer (Verb)

Verb:

• Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).
• Be affected by or subject to (an illness or ailment).

It is worth note, however, that this is a broad definition. And there are certain particular stances that could be understood as 'suffering' according to it that i consider unimportant to this argument.

Anyway, (some) animals and babies experience unwanted pain that is always unpleasant (unless there is a medical condition that makes unwanted pain to be pleasurable, but this would be an exception either way).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It remains in opposition to a state of happiness, joy or pleasure.

That is not a reason, merely a desire, for it to be wrong.

 

[Koldo]

That is not a reason, merely a desire, for it to be wrong.

Do you mean to say that my sentence ("It remains in opposition to a state of happiness, joy or pleasure.") is a desire and not a fact?

 

[Nakosis]

I asked you to:
"Arrange your conclusion from my words using a logical form, and i will show you where you got things wrong."

Not to state my words again. :sarcastic
Saying the word 'aware' is used in my sentence does no good to explain why you came to that conclusion.
I want to know by what means you infered it. Your reasoning behind it.

Because you used the word aware in both statement you made regarding existence.

What I'm trying to get from you is a description of existence we can work with.

Either way, what I said is that if there is nothing that one could be possibly aware of, then nothing exists. To be 'aware' is to perceive something, and if we consider an unrestricted awareness, then it seems logical for me to conclude that if anything exists everything that exists will be perceived. If there is nothing to be perceived, then nothing exists.

Ok, then lets put it this way. If something is transcendent, there is nothing to perceive or be aware of with human senses.

I will use the dictionary to explain what i mean by suffering:

sufferingpresent participle of suf·fer (Verb)

Verb:

• Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).
• Be affected by or subject to (an illness or ailment).

It is worth note, however, that this is a broad definition. And there are certain particular stances that could be understood as 'suffering' according to it that i consider unimportant to this argument.

Anyway, (some) animals and babies experience unwanted pain that is always unpleasant (unless there is a medical condition that makes unwanted pain to be pleasurable, but this would be an exception either way).

Pain is a bodies way of signaling there is something wrong. Something needs attention. It's an alarm. Animals and babies need someway to react to these physical problems since they can't make an intelligent choice.

So there is a purpose to pain. However since you judge these signals as unpleasant you've conceptualized this as suffering. You see an animal or baby reacting to these alarms, which it needs in order to react, and label it suffering.

 

[PolyHedral]

Pain is a bodies way of signaling there is something wrong. Something needs attention. It's an alarm. Animals and babies need someway to react to these physical problems since they can't make an intelligent choice.

So there is a purpose to pain. However since you judge these signals as unpleasant you've conceptualized this as suffering. You see an animal or baby reacting to these alarms, which it needs in order to react, and label it suffering.

And your explanation for chronic (i.e. unnecessary) pain is...?

 

[Koldo]

Because you used the word aware in both statement you made regarding existence.

What I'm trying to get from you is a description of existence we can work with.

I am afraid there may not exist any meaningful descriptions for 'existence' that would do much better than giving a synonym. Do you have any in mind?

Ok, then lets put it this way. If something is transcendent, there is nothing to perceive or be aware of with human senses.

Do you mean ( there is nothing to perceive or be aware of with human senses ) to the something trying to perceive something else, or for someone to perceive this transcendent something?

Pain is a bodies way of signaling there is something wrong. Something needs attention. It's an alarm. Animals and babies need someway to react to these physical problems since they can't make an intelligent choice.

So there is a purpose to pain. However since you judge these signals as unpleasant you've conceptualized this as suffering. You see an animal or baby reacting to these alarms, which it needs in order to react, and label it suffering.

It may indeed be seen as an alarm. An unpleasant alarm ( and useless in some situations ) . Do you have any reason to not consider it unpleasant? Don't you experience it yourself? Or are you being skeptical of your own perception?

Other than specific exceptions i find that pain fits the following definition:"An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder."

 

[uss_bigd]

Man has free will. Human beings causes the suffering of another Human being.

Christians remember that the Biblical GOD is a loving and just GOD and will exercise justice to whom it is due, all in his perfect time.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Man has free will. Human beings causes the suffering of another Human being.

Christians remember that the Biblical GOD is a loving and just GOD and will exercise justice to whom it is due, all in his perfect time.

Three totally separate concepts that do nothing to clarify the issue.