God, Suffering, and Special Pleading

[Tumah]

Why would we need to recognize that we were having the greatest possible pleasure ?

For the same reason that working hard heightens our sense of pleasure. Knowledge can apparently affect our sense of pleasure.

Why would it have to be true ?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect G-d to create a baseless lie. I'd go so far as to say that perhaps it's not even possible.

 

[Koldo]

For the same reason that working hard heightens our sense of pleasure. Knowledge can apparently affect our sense of pleasure.

But how would we know that we are, in fact, experiencing the greatest possible pleasure ?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect G-d to create a baseless lie. I'd go so far as to say that perhaps it's not even possible.

Why not? Please elaborate on that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I would say suffering only exists in order to inform one of changes needing made to improve one's situation. I don't know that it has anything to do with "spirituality."

If God exists, I insist that He has left the universe on "auto-pilot." Which means it currently makes no difference whether He exists or not.

 

[Jumi]

If you are a nontheist, why do you ask such questions or even ponder them? I mean, if you are convinced no deity exists then evil exists because at least some people are evil.

I think a non-theist can believe the world to have evils in it, like disasters and disease.

 

[DavidFirth]

I think a non-theist can believe the world to have evils in it, like disasters and disease.

Well, if no deity or spiritual being exists humans must be the cause of evil in the world. What else could it be?

 

[corynski]

From the beginning of the 'Holy' book God seems to have no problem in allowing or causing suffering. And three times in the book He states that He is responsible for everything good and bad, so it's a no-brainer for me. No god exists.

 

[DavidFirth]

From the beginning of the 'Holy' book God seems to have no problem in allowing or causing suffering. And three times in the book He states that He is responsible for everything good and bad, so it's a no-brainer for me. No god exists.

Strange faith, but okay.

 

[DavidFirth]

Well, if no deity or spiritual being exists humans Why? Suffering comes from natural disasters or living too long, as well as other humans, doesn't it? And I don't know anything about 'evil', whatever that means.

Okay. If you really want to believe people aren't evil, okay.

As for the definition of evil, Merriam Webster says:
Definition of EVIL

 

[Milton Platt]

Why does suffering exist? Most are probably at least familiar with the Problem of Evil:



That discussion's been had a thousand times (usually not satisfactorily, though). Answers come in the form of theodicies which try to explain away evil or defenses which try to demonstrate that evil doesn't contradict God's properties to exist in the first place. However, the point of this post is to talk about the special pleading I so often encounter in these discussions.

I provide the PoE by talking about it in terms of suffering and malevolence: given that God is omnipotent (capable of actualizing any logically possible states of affairs), omniscient (at least the state of knowing which of all states of affairs are logically possible for the sake of this), and omnibenevolent (at least never malevolent for the sake of this), then we shouldn't find any suffering in the world because a world where physical suffering doesn't happen but in which free will exists is possible (we're granting free will is meaningful for this one).

When asked, "Why would God create this world which does contain physical suffering and not one of the possible worlds where there isn't any," the response is usually a theodicy -- readily dismissable -- or, ultimately, special pleading.

By that I mean some variation of, "well it's possible that God has some reason to create the world with suffering that's really good, but is unknowable to you; but despite the apparent contradiction, it was good of God to do so."

And here I get to the meat of what this post is for: this is an unacceptable response -- fallacies are fallacies for a reason. I present an analogy to make the point.

Say that you die and are taken to the afterlife and presented for judgment (or whatever), expecting to reach paradise. Yet instead of receiving judgment, God sets a tiger on you or something. "It's okay," you might think -- "this is God, a benevolent being, so there must be some good reason I just can't understand for this. God is still benevolent despite this, I just can't understand why." Well, 10 years go by and you're still being mauled. 100 years go by -- still being mauled by the tiger. 1,000 years. 1,000,000. Every time you might say, "God has a reason for this that I just don't know, God is benevolent." As it turns out, if special pleading is allowed, God can literally do anything (even the most malevolent, monstrous, demonic sort of thing) and still be "benevolent," somehow, in some "unknowable way." And that's exactly why this sort of special pleading is fallacious and isn't a valid response to the Problem of Evil when contexts have been well-defined.

Bottom line is that if there is an omniscient, omnipotent god, then he has both the ability and foresight to accomplish his goals without any suffering involved. If he consciously chooses to include suffering in his plan, knowing that he does not have to, then he is a malevolent being.

 

[blü 2]

Why does suffering exist? Most are probably at least familiar with the Problem of Evil:

The world behaves exactly as if gods exist only in the imagination of individuals.

The claim of a god who is benevolent and personal and able and happy to help people in distress is refuted countless times every hour.

 

[corynski]

Okay. If you really want to believe people aren't evil, okay.

As for the definition of evil, Merriam Webster says:
Definition of EVIL

Okay. If you really want to believe people aren't evil, okay.

As for the definition of evil, Merriam Webster says:
Definition of EVIL

Yes, I think that there are bad people, and worse people, I just have trouble with the word evil. No matter......... that's another discussion.

 

[Meow Mix]

Free will.

Suffering is a side effect of free will. In order to have free will we pay the price of pain and suffering. You can rid yourself of pain and suffering by giving up your free will. But then you no longer can do whatever you like.

One of the initial premises is that it's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world in which free will is possible but physical suffering is not. For instance, there is a possible world where there aren't tornadoes or diseases and in which people are physically incapable of physically hurting one another (such as if cheat codes have been turned on in a video game: aptly named "god mode"). Such a world would still have free agents but wouldn't have suffering. So why create a world where suffering is possible?

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't really understand what you're saying. You've given an example of where "special pleading" doesn't remove the inherent unpleasant-ness of the suffering. That is not a proof that it's wrong. That just means that the answer doesn't resolve the suffering, it only explains it.

I don't really understand why this returns the PoE either. If G-d is omnibenevolent, then G-d literally can't do anything malevolent, monstrous, demonic, sort of thing. That is what I understood "omnibenevolent" is meant to say: that every occurrence that happens is beneficial. So if something appears presently malevolent, than it must ultimately be beneficial.
In theory, I guess that would mean that there would never be a case where someone is mauled for eternity. I would expect some end where the result proves the means were beneficial.

At what point does it cease being reasonable to believe there is a good reason for it? 1,000,000 years? 1,000,000,000,000,000 years? A google plus years? 10^google plus years? The point is that if special pleading is allowed, there is no length of time where a person couldn't ignore an apparent contradiction because they believe there's an unknowable explanation for the apparent contradiction: it isn't reasonable.

 

[Meow Mix]

Damn, that was painfully wordy and underwhelming!

But, yes, defining evil as unknowable good is silly. Thanks.

To be fair I'm on an underwhelming amount of sleep lately, so finding the right amount of words to convey something may be more difficult? I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the post; but glad you agree.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is part of the reason I'm agnostic. Even if one accepts the basic premise that "there is a God," all of the rest just amounts to so much guessing over this and that. We don't even know if "God" exists, let alone whether "He" is benevolent.

I've heard some religious people say that we were born to suffer, that it's a process we go through which will eventually end up as something better - a heavenly afterlife in paradise, presumably. It may be based on the notion of "no pain, no gain" - just like weightlifters and other athletes go through. I suppose if one really believes this, then a few years of temporal suffering would seem like nothing compared to an eternity of heavenly bliss.

Of course, that still leaves us with the question of "Why?" What's the point of having to go through all this? Why bother doing anything at all? If all of this is a result of "God's will," then any kind of special pleading might be ineffective. If there is some "divine plan" at work, then we would be nothing more than pawns being subtly manipulated towards the realization of that plan. What "we" want, our "freewill," would be meaningless in that context.

I know what you mean. That's the theodicy side of responses to the PoE. There's a great satire on the various theodicies somewhere on the internet called The Tale of the Twelve Officers by Mark Vuletic. Give it a google, I haven't re-read the forum rules yet to determine if it's alright to link to it or not. (It's very short and readable; and in my opinion, required reading for people encountering theodicies).

 

[Meow Mix]

Suffering exists so God can experience it. God did not create the universe solely to experience suffering. He created it to have many varied personality experiences.

Do you not consider it malevolent for a being to subject other sapient beings to suffering in order to further that being's own ends? Usually that's straight up defined as malevolent.

The amount of suffering on the earth is exceptional in the universe because the Lucifer Rebellion caused the angels to abandon their mission. They would have been able to remove the extremely selfish genes and disease causing genes from humanity so suffering would have been much less.

It's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to actualize a reality in which the very physics of the universe don't allow physical suffering to occur, though: angels and demons don't excuse that a world was created where it's possible in the first place.

God is omnipotent? Sort of. God cannot do anything. In the beginning He could do anything but once certain laws are established they control your further actions. God does not make a law and then violate it.

Usually that is the accepted definition of omnipotence -- not the capacity to do anything, but the capacity to do anything that's *logically possible.* So I don't think this statement is controversial.

God is omniscient? Sort of. God knows everything that He knows. He does not know what He doesn't yet know.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as omniscient or not. Omniscience is a difficult concept to define, anyway; but it's definable enough for the PoE: does God at least know all the types of worlds possible to create?

God is omnibenevolent? Not really. It's not about you getting what you want or feel you deserve. It's about having many different personalities who can teach the soul how to become a mature universal being. God in heaven is considered to be love by the beings in heaven but their meaning has more to do with the idea that God "supplies that which is needed for life in all the universe."

God will not set a tiger upon you but that does not mean you should walk into the jungle.

This implies that God simply isn't omnibenevolent -- if it's defined as being "at least never malevolent." Taking such a view does escape the Problem of Evil, but it has other implications some might find unsavory.

 

[Enoch07]

One of the initial premises is that it's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world in which free will is possible but physical suffering is not. For instance, there is a possible world where there aren't tornadoes or diseases and in which people are physically incapable of physically hurting one another (such as if cheat codes have been turned on in a video game: aptly named "god mode"). Such a world would still have free agents but wouldn't have suffering. So why create a world where suffering is possible?

It was initially or atleast in part. Eden was a small pocket of the wolrd, free of suffering and free will at the same time. No need for clothes, weather always perfect. No need to hunt, food plentiful. They also had free will with a single command to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Which they used their free will to defy. You know the rest I am sure.

What is little known is that God created other men that existed outside of Eden for thousands or tens of thousands of years while the events inside Eden took place at the same time in only 20 yearsish? This is the people of the Land of Nod. They had free will the entire time but they also had the suffering.

So you see free will leads us to the same place regardless if we live in a world of suffering or paradise. The only way to avoid paying the price of pain and suffering for free will would have been to never chose to use it to begin with. Which unfortunately is thousands of years hindsight and too late to do anything about. We must play the hand we have dealt to ourselves. And use our free will this time to prove we can obey God with free will.

 

[Meow Mix]

Many even in this time have times of great happiness regardless of past adversity, and past adversity is partly the reason for present states which are good -and which could not have existed without past adversity.

Evil is basically corruption of a perfect system.
When inexperienced beings are introduced to a perfect system, they inevitably corrupt it until they master that system -and themselves as part of that system.
As they are part of that system -and all are subject to the attitudes and actions of themselves and others, they suffer and cause suffering.

Natural disasters are different, but they do teach the necessity of considering and mastering one's environment.
We are not only subject to our own actions, but the "bondage to decay" of the environment.

The plan outlined in the bible -which few really take the time to study in depth -makes clear that present experiences and states will eventually no longer even be remembered -but that the intended future state could not come to pass without the present experiences and states.

It also makes provision for eternal life and mastery of environment.
The creation -the universe -is to be set free from the bondage to decay by the children of God -but the children of God must be perfected first -so they can be given great creative power and access to the universe without any possibility of corruption. They must first learn the basics of existence and reality -and to obey necessary law and government -which will allow for freedom and creativity without conflict.

There is nothing we can destroy which cannot be repaired -no harm or imperfection that cannot be healed -no unpleasant memory which cannot be erased -and there are none that have died who cannot be resurrected.

Even the present works on earth will be burnt up -the elements will melt with a fervent heat -and the surface of the earth will be changed to allow for access to more and better materials -the nature of animals will be changed -but that is only the beginning.

We are to be given bodies similar to the "glorious body" of the Word who became Christ, which allowed for the creation of all things in the first place -and for al things to be made subject to him.

Essentially, we are to be given power over cosmic forces -and create throughout "the heavens" which "were formed to be inhabited".

So.... 120 years or so of human experience -which will eventually no longer come to mind, anyway -will be well worth it. It needed to happen so that it never need happen again.

(That is all in the bible, but people tend to frown upon a lot of cutting and pasting of scripture.)

However, a great deal of this post seems to have an underlying axiom that "some suffering is good because it prepares us for a future." I don't disagree with this notion in this world: after all, resting your hand on a hot stove surely teaches you not to do the same again. However, that's because we live in a world where these bad things are possible in the first place. In a world where fire doesn't burn you, there is no need to get burned to avoid a future fire. The question still arises why we live in a world where suffering is possible in the first place when one of the premises is there is a possible world where physical suffering is not possible yet where free will still exists.

 

[Meow Mix]

If you are a nontheist, why do you ask such questions or even ponder them? I mean, if you are convinced no deity exists then evil exists because at least some people are evil.

I entertain and ponder about ideas I don't agree with because that's how people grow and challenge themselves; surely you debate ideas that you don't personally hold as well?

 

[Meow Mix]

In addition, God would not be benevolent if all things did not work toward a pleasant and acceptable end -but he is, and they do.

Until it has come to pass, however, things can appear to be incessantly unpleasant and futile.
If man is not perfected, given permanence of life and relative invulnerability -if the earth remains subject to successive generations of people who make generally the same mistakes while increased knowledge and ability coupled with that ignorance threatens to bring about self-destruction -then man will become extinct, and all of human history would have been a worthless mess which might as well never have happened.

Though some suffering is not specifically necessary, human suffering is generally necessary as evidence of that which is lacking -which by that experience will be made acceptable.

Human history has allowed for many individuals to experience a crash-course in reality -using recycled materials in a generally-closed system -limiting the adverse effects man could have on the environment to Earth and the general vicinity.
Just when a person gets the general idea, they die.
Meanwhile, human history (or man's path toward self-destruction) as a whole will demonstrate the necessity for just, capable and powerful universal government, permanence, invulnerability, power over environment, etc. -which will be satisfied once we are prepared to receive it.

After freely offering such and being continually rejected, God allowed experience to do the talking -creating a vacuum for -and understanding of a lack of -what he freely offered.
Experience will cause a desire for it -and that desire will be satisfied.

Though God does not do things to us which might be considered demonic -he did allow us to do such things to each other -even literally allowing demons to affect man -and for man to act in ways which could be considered demonic.

However, it is a temporary situation -the adverse effects of which will be corrected.

Is unnecessary suffering corrected because it's temporary?

If I were to mercilessly beat a baby, but then to pay for the child's college education, I'm at least somewhat malevolent, aren't I?