Should God have created a world without suffering?

[rational experiences]

Thinker has a question already owned an answer. Is researching. Their answer God has to own world's.

Consciousness says an atom is one gods world. A photon another world.

We live as bio life inside a world of water mass oxygenation. Not reactive.

Theist says God owns a special world just where sacrifice is. For humans and animals.

If I own it by a science thesis I can use it against my family. Advised.

Please tell me community what you believe.

Human memory says animals own sex. Owns life here today. Via baby animals. Humans own sex babies living today. Not any world is a physical bio choice.

Not any world of God.

Sex by science definition is not theistic science. So we don't use it in a science thesis as it already proved the theist wrong.

Sex before the two adult humans die is life yet the babies grow and die too.

Answer our atmosphere supports life death the answer so you don't change it by chosen experiments that burn us.

Yet you do everyday change our life support atmosphere its hosts gases.....whatever a small group chooses for everyone else to endure.

Human reality small group as a chosen human living standard living in their fake world. A conscious condition. Belief extracted from everyday base human status world

Was always just in your own head belief.

 

[F1fan]

I have several questions:

First of all we are assuming a God exists and created the world according to various religious dogmas. So this is all speculative.

1. Should God have created a world without suffering? If so, why? If not, why not?

As a competitive cyclist I can affirm that suffering is part of the sport. Its part of most all sports.

Plus suffering is not necessarily bad. Heartbreak sucks, but we feel and learn. Some write songs. We can stub our toe. It hurts. Its not devastating. Bone cancer? Whole other thing. People have no choice when they are diagnosed. So some degree of suffering is OK, and especially when a person subjects themselves to what they can handle. But cancer?

2. How could God have created humans with physical bodies without engendering suffering?

Well no nervous system, and no limbic system so we would be more like a Vulcan. There would have to be other design tweaks. God could do it.

3. How could God have created a material world without engendering suffering?

Making humans Vulcan.

4. If God prevented suffering should God prevent all suffering or just some suffering?

Just some. As noted above. We endurance athletes enjoy suffering when we know our competitors are hurting worse.

5. If God prevented some suffering should God allow some people to suffer more than other people?

I think it would be just for mean people to suffer the brunt of their aggression and hate. Like if an abusive husband hit his wife he would suffer a blow. Instant karma. But, our world is survival of the fittest, and humans do not have a consistent population with sound mental health. If a God exists and it created the world, it is accountable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because I was being sarcastic.

I know, but you still have not explained why you answered yes. Why should God have created a world without suffering?

You would have us believe that your God does.

I would not have you believe that, you believe that. I don't believe that.

Yes. I thought that was obvious.

If you are comparing God to a human being that is that fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human being, thus God cannot be expected to act like a human being.

Indeed. And even moreso for a deity who's infinitely more capable of addressing the problem than a human parent.

Why is God more capable of providing the vitamins? Do you think that God is like Superman who can come on down to earth and go to the store and buy vitamins? Why should God do what the parents are responsible to do?

 

[rational experiences]

I know, but you still have not explained why you answered yes. Why should God have created a world without suffering?

I would not have you believe that, you believe that. I don't believe that.

If you are comparing God to a human being that is that fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human being, thus God cannot be expected to act like a human being.

Why is God more capable of providing the vitamins? Do you think that God is like Superman who can come on down to earth and go to the store and buy vitamins? Why should God do what the parents are responsible to do?

One human is everyone.

Think for yourself and not the group.

One human owning consciousness human one.

Says no theory. Lives survives dies.

One. Holy one.

Liar groups said humans own vitamins within human.life body. Gets sick. I don't want to live alone. Human life continues by two. What do you need other self. Vitamins he says foods.

Eat properly and your life body is supported by everything else.

Does that make your advice creative or advised?

Advised is the answer.

No man is God the other liar theist answer. You didn't create creation by your thoughts or by your human words liars.

Egotism. A human liar.

 

[F1fan]

I heartily disagree because that is as much as blaming people because they are suffering by saying they could avoid suffering if only....

So if the humans aren't themselves to blame for their suffering it is what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know, but you still have not explained why you answered yes. Why should God have created a world without suffering?

Empathy.

I would not have you believe that, you believe that. I don't believe that.

Its the logical conclusion of what you're arguing.

If you are comparing God to a human being that is that fallacy of false equivalence because God is not a human being, thus God cannot be expected to act like a human being.

Sure, but what's the relevant difference between God and humans that excuses God from acting with empathy toward other sentient beings?

Why is God more capable of providing the vitamins?

Any god worth its salt is immensely more capable than a human in anything a human might do... no?

Do you think that God is like Superman who can come on down to earth and go to the store and buy vitamins?

Sure, that would work. He could also magically poof vitamins into the bloodstream of the affected child.

... or he could send one of those "Messengers" you like to go on about and have him deliver vitamins.

... or God could just have designed human beings without the flaw of rickets vulnerability in the first place.

Why should God do what the parents are responsible to do?

Empathy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ope, it's a PoE-related discussion, I had to stop by at least for a little bit.

1) If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God could create a world without physical suffering. Whether or not God should do that depends on the values of the person doing the assessment. If a person values preventing and alleviating suffering, if they value human dignity and life, then yes; they would find that God should have done so. Likewise, this applies to God itself: if God values preventing and alleviating suffering, dignity and life, and so on; then God themself would believe they should have prevented physical suffering.

2) As the creator of how physics work, God could have created a universe in which physics always prevents instances of physical suffering. There are many ways to do this, but an easily cognizable version is a universe with conditional physics; like lines of code.

That code would effectively read something like this: "If knife is cutting potato, allow. If knife is cutting living skin, disallow (set inertia to 0)." This concept can be extrapolated to prevent literally any kind of physical suffering such that physical suffering is simply not possible to occur; and that is within an omnipotent/omniscient being's power to do.

3) The answer is the same as the answer for (2). God could create physics itself in such a way that doesn't allow physical suffering to occur. God would not even have to personally intervene at all once setting this up.

4) This depends on whether God values beings with free will. If so, there are some forms of suffering God could not prevent, such as unrequited love, broken friendships, that sort of thing. God could not prevent a person from lying to their friend, and their friend being angry about that once they discover it. But God could prevent anybody from developing cancer, or being struck by lightning, or being shot or stabbed. Physical suffering is entirely preventable without removing free will.

5) This is a question about justice, I think. I do not subscribe to retributive theory of justice (that people should be made to feel pain of some kind just because they inflicted it on others).

However some valid forms of justice (by this I mean ones I agree with) are rehabilitative justice for instance, or justice that prevents more harm from being done to society. So for instance if someone is put into a prison cell to keep them from hurting other people, this isn't strictly retributive: the purpose is to protect other people and to (hopefully, if possible) rehabilitate the person; not to cause them harm for its own sake as retribution.

So that being said, it is possible that some rehabilitation might be less comfortable than others in proportion to how serious the crime or offense was. The point isn't to hurt the person justice is being done upon, but for instance it probably takes a lot more to rehabilitate a perpetual lifetime liar than it would someone that told a little white lie that one time.

Thanks for your personal opinion. In my personal opinion and according to my beliefs whatever is in the world exists for a purpose, and that includes suffering, and since God is infallible God could not have made any mistakes when He created this world. Also, I believe that God is all-knowing and all-wise, so the logical conclusion is that God has to know more than any human being about the BEST WAY to create a world, since no human being is either all-knowing or all-wise.

As such, the fact that "God could have done it differently because God is omnipotent" becomes an entirely moot point. God chose to create the world the way He chose to create it, so whenever a human questions what God has done that is akin to "playing God" because that person is saying "God made a mistake. I know more than God regarding how the world should have been created." I consider this highly arrogant. It boggles my imagination that these people don't understand what they are saying -- "I know more than God." Nobody can know more than God because God is all-knowing. And then they consider their arguments logical.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks for your personal opinion. In my personal opinion and according to my beliefs whatever is in the world, exists for a purpose, and that includes suffering, and since God is infallible God could not have made any mistakes when He created this world. Also, I believe that God is all-knowing and all-wise, so the logical conclusion is that God has to know more than any human being about the BEST WAY to create a world. As such, the fact that "God could have done it differently because God is omnipotent" becomes a moot point. God chose to create the world the way He chose to create it, so whenever a human questions what God has done that is akin to "playing God" because that person is saying "I know more than God regarding how the world should have been created." I consider this highly arrogant.

My arguments are couched less in terms of what God should have done and are more about what God would be capable of given the premises, and then asking what would be reasonable for us to conclude from that.

In the PoE threads it was all about showing how some ways of reasoning this out are epistemic traps, which is a problem. But that only matters when all the PoE premises are there.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure God knows what He's doing/what he's done (I don't know if it should be past tense or present tense; neither works for a timeless being :S). When we're asking about what God should've done, the answer is that everything's exactly as it should be.

It is as it should be, because God is not only all-powerful, but also infallible, all-knowing and all wise.

 

[Trailblazer]

My arguments are couched less in terms of what God should have done and are more about what God would be capable of given the premises, and then asking what would be reasonable for us to conclude from that.

What God could have done or what God could do now is completely moot. God could wipe out the entire universe including the earth in an instant.

The only thing what would be reasonable for us to conclude is that if God is omnipotent and omniscient God had to know that BEST WAY to create the world of all the options that were available to Him and have the power to carry that out.

 

[F1fan]

Also, I believe that God is all-knowing and all-wise, so the logical conclusion is that God has to know more than any human being about the BEST WAY to create a world, since no human being is either all-knowing or all-wise.

The irony is that you're a fallible human making this judgment who is prone to error. You could be mistaken given the lack of evidence for any of this.

I wonder if humans caught in this paradox suffer the reality of this paradox, or find a way to avoid the reality.

 

[F1fan]

It is as it should be, because God is not only all-powerful, but also infallible, all-knowing and all wise.

Infallible, unlike those who think God exists and is infallible: fallible humans.

 

[SigurdReginson]

1. Should God have created a world without suffering? If so, why? If not, why not?

I like the world we have now, good and bad. Would I make it different if it were up to me? Sure, but I would still include conflict or challenge in some way. I don't think I would include needless suffering like we have now, though.

2. How could God have created humans with physical bodies without engendering suffering?

By changing the way pain receptors work, for one. Changing the way people process mental trauma could be another. Changing the way people's minds cave to temptation (such as chemical addiction) could be another.

3. How could God have created a material world without engendering suffering?

By changing the rules of life into something different than what we have now. It'd be a drastic difference compared to what we have currently, but if someone can write the rules into anything they want, then they could change it into anything if they wanted to.

4. If God prevented suffering should God prevent all suffering or just some suffering?

He could at least prevent the worst kinds of suffering - that would be a good start.

5. If God prevented some suffering should God allow some people to suffer more than other people?

Depends on what the end goal would be. Life has to contain some kind of challenge, or what's the point?

 

[F1fan]

What God could have done or what God could do now is completely moot. God could wipe out the entire universe including the earth in an instant.

Or cure children with cancers.

The only thing what would be reasonable for us to conclude is that if God is omnipotent and omniscient God had to know that BEST WAY to create the world of all the options that were available to Him and have the power to carry that out.

Right, a world that includes cancers. Too bad no one can figure out why including cancers is a BEST WAY to create the world.

 

[rational experiences]

Thanks for your personal opinion. In my personal opinion and according to my beliefs whatever is in the world exists for a purpose, and that includes suffering, and since God is infallible God could not have made any mistakes when He created this world. Also, I believe that God is all-knowing and all-wise, so the logical conclusion is that God has to know more than any human being about the BEST WAY to create a world, since no human being is either all-knowing or all-wise.

As such, the fact that "God could have done it differently because God is omnipotent" becomes an entirely moot point. God chose to create the world the way He chose to create it, so whenever a human questions what God has done that is akin to "playing God" because that person is saying "God made a mistake. I know more than God regarding how the world should have been created." I consider this highly arrogant. It boggles my imagination that these people don't understand what they are saying -- "I know more than God." Nobody can know more than God because God is all-knowing. And then they consider their arguments logical.

A healthy human knows their bio body can get hurt by choices. A human lives safely healthily suffers no ailments.

Baby innocent child adult gets old suffers aging.

Painful.

Is it gods fault or science fault?

Did humans claim sex is God?

No.

Sex is life continuance.

We age yet we live innocently a baby. Bodies of the baby ..does it know what is to become of it?

No.

Conscious advice self human memory. I am innocent of how God treats my body in life.

Men. In science said God is all things. God or gods support life then destroy life as life is an experience.

No experience no story.

If men look for the type of God that hurts sacrifices life their consciousness says it is a different aspect. In gods conditions non supportive. A weapon to wield.

Why Satanists in science search for it.

We were warned about the human destroyer mentality as we experienced it.

 

[Trailblazer]

If a God exists and it created the world, it is accountable.

An omnipotent God is not accountable to anyone because He is at the top of the totem pole.

Whatever humans do get from God is only by His mercy and grace. God does not need humans for anything since God is fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining so God could wipe us all out in a heartbeat if He did not love us.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings, p. 148

 

[Meow Mix]

What God could have done or what God could do now is completely moot. God could wipe out the entire universe including the earth in an instant.

The only thing what would be reasonable for us to conclude is that if God is omnipotent and omniscient God had to know that BEST WAY to create the world of all the options that were available to Him and have the power to carry that out.

Sure, but that doesn't answer the question of whether that is benevolent; and that's been the point. It's special pleading if we insist it must have been.

 

[F1fan]

An omnipotent God is not accountable to anyone because He is at the top of the totem pole.

That is where accountability ends, the top.
You just helped my point.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if the humans aren't themselves to blame for their suffering it is what?

Nobody is to blame. Why does somebody have to be to blame?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have several questions:

1. Should God have created a world without suffering? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. How could God have created humans with physical bodies without engendering suffering?

3. How could God have created a material world without engendering suffering?

4. If God prevented suffering should God prevent all suffering or just some suffering?

5. If God prevented some suffering should God allow some people to suffer more than other people?

Thanks, Trailblazer.

No suffering is needed for humans to realize their shortcomings. If there was no suffering why would someone want to change them self toward something better ( as described in spiritual teachings)