Suffering and evil

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are not God so you are not All-Knowing or All-Wise, and as such do not know what suffering is uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.

Sure we do. It's easy to identify suffering that serves no constructive purpose. You don't allow yourself to think like that, which is common in the Abrahamic religions. You are taught that that is blasphemy, arrogance, but I see it as using my mind in its natural capacity. This is what minds can do - analyze, imagine, speculate, contemplate. But doing so isn't good for the religions. Freethinking is anathema to dogma.

All you have is an ego-based personal opinion about the way the world should be if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

Yes, although I word it as what kind of deity I would be with these same values and those powers omniscience and omnipotence. You seem to think egos are a bad thing the way use use the word. I disagree. That attitude serves those who would have you sacrifice your ego to theirs. If you've been convinced that the meek are blessed, this would be why.

if God rescued everyone like Superman that would not be benevolent because it would negate the entire purpose of this life.

I don't think you know what benevolent means. How do you treat your cats, more like Superman who protects them from danger, or more like the indolent god who sits by watching expecting you to believe that that is somehow loving. You make excuses for a god that is indistinguishable from nonexistence, and instead of noting that it does nothing, you praise that fact, call it benevolence anyway, and object to others thinking otherwise.

Only in your personal opinion, so I would exercise caution when stating it as a fact. Facts are known and provable, personal opinions aren't.

The tri-omni god doesn't exist just as married bachelors don't exist, and for the same reason. If this universe has a god, it is not involved in our lives and can't be called benevolent. There are no indifferent benevolent gods

Your own writing suggests that you understand that, as you try to redefine benevolence to resemble the non-acts of a non-god. And when explained what benevolence actually looks like, you bristle. How dare I think like that, right? That's when I hear about my ego.

Well, I do dare and have since I left religion. The kind of caution you recommend is for those who have been cowed into believing that some angry, vengeful deity is watching them, and who don't trust their own minds to decide when they are being lied to. My advice to you is the opposite - to be more bold.

I don't see the world like you do. My world contains no gods or supernaturalism. The list of do's and don't, and rights and wrongs that follow from that are very different from those that follow from accepting that bit about thinking being hubris as we see here. It's why I can say what a benevolent god might do, and you would shush me.

The deity is involved in our universe or and the deity is fully aware that we exist and the deity has all power to help us. The deity is not indifferent to our needs and desires to prevent suffering. The deity gives us exactly what we need to prevent our own suffering.

No, it's not. The evidence to the contrary falsifies that claim.

You seem to expect as little from this god as I do, but where I call its non-behavior compatible with its nonexistence, you describe it in glowing terms as you just did. Living as if it doesn't exist has made my life better.

You might know that I consider premarital sex essential to deciding compatibility in a relationship if there will be a sexual relationship. You probably don't know that my first marriage had no premarital sex. Our first was after we were married. Big mistake. Huge mistake. And it's not just sex. We were both in the Army and living in barracks, so I knew nothing about what living with her would be like. Another huge mistake. Those rules are irrational and harmful. That marriage didn't last long after we started living together. Fortunately, I gave up thinking by faith and returned to reason. I tried it again - marriage, that is. We did it all before marriage including living together, and the experience was the opposite of the first marriage. We were happy from the start, and still are 32 years later. I didn't buy a pig in a poke that time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think you know what benevolent means. How do you treat your cats, more like Superman who protects them from danger..

Oh, come on .. when one loves their cats, they might have to apply an ointment that stings, causing suffering for the greater good .. or force them to swallow a pill against their will causing mental distress etc.

Naturally, you will reply with examples that are apparently needless suffering .. because of course, you claim that you could be a superior deity than God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when one loves their cats, they might have to apply an ointment that stings, causing suffering for the greater good .. or force them to swallow a pill against their will causing mental distress etc.

That's not gratuitous suffering, and isn't relevant to the theodicy problem. We understand why a good god would permit such things because so would we. The problem is explaining how a god sitting idly by watching a young girl being raped, tortured, and murdered is consistent with knowing about that, having the power to prevent or remedy it, doing nothing, and then called benevolent and loving.

Naturally, you will reply with examples that are apparently needless suffering .. because of course, you claim that you could be a superior deity than God.

Yes, and so would you be a superior god to a nonexistent one or one that perfectly imitates its own nonexistence, just as you would be a better parent than one who neglects his children.

And I can judge which suffering is necessary and even helpful, and which is neither, and believe that you could as well if you allow yourself to think about such things. One of the costs of this religious mindset is that one may simply be unable to think in terms of gratuitous suffering, because the concept is inconsistent with the tri-omni deity's existence, and so, one is forced to assume that the suffering is deserved and maybe even helpful.

But I know better. I'm a retired physician, and was a hospice medical director for over a decade. Hospice is about relieving such suffering. The suffering accomplished zero, and we mitigated it with zero ill effect. You simply can't make me believe that somehow, that suffering was just or beneficial. Relieving it was. Have you seen what faith in a good god does to people? These are things a devout hospice medical director said about that suffering:

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." Also, "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." - Mother Teresa

That's perverse to this humanist former hospice medical director. That's what faith can do. It can make one come to such perverse conclusions. Incidentally, Teresa let them suffer and diverted the money donated to relieve that suffering to the Vatican treasury. Some might call that fraud, sin even. Faith can make people do that, too.

The following is excerpted from a transcript of the call-in talk show called The Atheist Experience. This is a nice illustration of how the humanistic and Abrahamic mindsets differ, and what effect each has on its possessor.

Tracie (humanist): "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you.' If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."

Shane (Christian caller): "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."

Notice that the believer Shane is forced to come to yet another perverse conclusion, because if his god is a good god, that rape must have been deserved. It's the theme of the Old Testament - suffering is always at the hand of a good god punishing man. Why is life so difficult in a universe where a god could have given us a paradisical existence. The kids disobeyed, and now everybody has to die after living a hard life. Now, woman must suffer in childbirth (talk about gratuitous suffering if it was added as a punishment), and man must scour the earth or till the fields for his food rather than just pick it off of trees. Bad humans! Why do we all speak different languages? Because of the hubris of trying to build a tower to heaven. Sack that down and confuse these people with multiple languages. Bad humans! Why was the word flooded and nearly all terrestrial life drowned? Bad humans! Sinners. They deserve this.

I find all of that perverse as well, and not surprisingly, don't value the moral judgments of those who don't, of those who won't take a stand for what is clearly right if this tri-omni deity doesn't exist. The humanist assumes the role of making such judgments in his own life, which offends many believers. The objections can be strenuous, and the judgments of those willing to think for themselves harsh and demeaning. You know the drill. He's rebellious. He wants to be his own god. He's arrogant. Who does he think he is contradicting what the faithful have been taught to believe?

These are the things that can happen when one escapes such religious beliefs. The believer is offended and horrified by it, but the unbeliever experiences it as liberation from a suffocating worldview. This is from atheist firebrand Pat Condell:

"It must be quite galling for religious people to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self-loathing, and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind, and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment. I have to admit if I was religious, I'd probably think to myself: "How come I've got all this weight on my shoulders while these bums are getting a free ride?"

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's not gratuitous suffering, and isn't relevant to the theodicy problem. We understand why a good god would permit such things because so would we. The problem is explaining how a god sitting idly by watching a young girl being raped, tortured, and murdered is consistent with knowing about that, having the power to prevent or remedy it, doing nothing, and then called benevolent and loving..

Again, all you are effectively saying, is that Almighty God should not have created a universe in which evil exists.

..a universe in which human beings can choose their own path in life.
If you suggest that God should intervene in every case of evil, then mankind is NOT free to make his own destiny.

Who are you to say that there is no wisdom behind God giving us sovereignty over ourselves?

The flesh expires, and is transient .. this universe is transient.
I think, why people cannot see that God is not "wrong" in doing this, is because you cannot see that this life is only a small part of the picture .. one makes it all about this life, as if it is somehow all that matters.

I'm a retired physician, and was a hospice medical director for over a decade. Hospice is about relieving such suffering..

That's good .. we all get rewarded for helping others..

Why is life so difficult in a universe where a god could have given us a paradisical existence..

This life can never be "a paradise", while there are people around who take pride in evil towards others .. having been in a medical environment, I'm sure that you have seen the result of drunken behaviour and so on..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all you are effectively saying, is that Almighty God should not have created a universe in which evil exists.

What I am saying is that a god who permits gratuitous suffering that it could have prevented cannot be said to be benevolent or loving. I'm also saying that either of us could have made a better world than this one if we had the omniscience and omnipotence of a god, because we are more benevolent than nature, which, like this god, is indifferent to our needs and desires. I also find that a healthier outlook than calling gratuitous suffering the will of a good god.

If you suggest that God should intervene in every case of evil, then mankind is NOT free to make his own destiny.

So this god gave man free will knowing that it would lead to his suffering and demise, did it? There is nothing good about free will if it is simply a release from necessarily being a good person and the ability to do harm. I'll bet that you believe that there will be no free will in heaven. Imagine what that place would be like if every soul weren't transformed upon admission by having that free will stripped from it.

I see this attitude among the religious a lot - the assumption that there is something good about having the ability and desire to be malicious or to make unforced errors. There isn't. It's the consequence of living in a godless universe and carrying the survival instincts and impulses from our pre-human ancestors into the present, where the human neocortex gives man the ability to see further and do better than was possible without symbolic reasoning and conscience. It's a second will, and having two of those isn't as good as having just the higher one.

The humanist can understand and accept our lot in terms of evolution, but to call that state of affairs desirable is the consequence of the belief that if a tri-omni god made things this way, and the assumption that it must be better than the alternative - a perfect mind, one never in conflict with itself, one that never experiences jealousy or a taste for revenge, one that always pursues harmony and communal well-being.

But the apologist must reconcile that with his belief in this tri-omni god's existence. Why are things like they are if they could have been otherwise? He believes that it is the will of a good god, and so, is better than that alternative - a conclusion one would never arrive at by any other route. Good luck with that.

Who are you to say that there is no wisdom behind God giving us sovereignty over ourselves?

I'm all for sovereignty over self. It's an attitude that many theists object to. I submit to no gods.

But that's not your question. You want to know why giving man two conflicting minds is less wise than what I suggest instead. Because of the consequences of that decision for man. It begins in the garden with the kids being conflicted by contradictory impulses, one says obey and the other says to taste the apple.

Who am I? I'm the guy that hasn't submitted to this other way of thinking that would cripple intellectual and moral judgment and leave me trying to justify how this is the best of all possible worlds. I know a bit about wisdom by now. The choice to leave that way of thinking was a wise one. But then, our definitions of wisdom are likely very different. For me, wisdom is knowing what to pursue to maximize personal and communal well-being.

For me, that is freedom from physical and spiritual pain. It involves three different things. Hedonic wellbeing is freedom from cold, hunger, pain, etc. Eudaemonic wellbeing is freedom for shame, remorse, self-loathing, loneliness, etc. - a sense of having lived life relatively well, of being liked and respected, of having made a difference, of becoming self-actualization. We seek rich psychological experiences such as purpose and novelty. We experience and satisfy curiosity and partake in the richness of life such that when it is ending, we can say that we have few or no regrets. If you can end up in that bed, you have been both lucky and wise.

I think, why people cannot see that God is not "wrong" in doing this, is because you cannot see that this life is only a small part of the picture .. one makes it all about this life, as if it is somehow all that matters.

There is nobody at all that can tell us anything about any big picture, nor how we should live our lives. People everywhere want things of us for their own benefit, and do and say what they can to control our thinking and behavior. They will tell you things they can't possibly know as fact, and many will simply believe them. You talk about this big picture, but isn't that what these religions do to control people - the threats and promises of an afterlife? Isn't that why Constantine chose Christianity to be his state religion?

The Sermon on the Mount is perfect for this big picture bait and switch. If all we have is our lives, then we have a right and duty to seek whatever this world has to offer us, but if there is an afterlife, not so fast. If you go for the prize now, no pie in the sky for you later. Be meek now so that you can experience the big picture later. Be longsuffering and turn the other cheek for your slice of pie. Napoleon asked, "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." Yep. Just tell them about the big picture, and they'll stand down now for pie later.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I am saying is that a god who permits gratuitous suffering that it could have prevented cannot be said to be benevolent or loving..

That's false.
That is like saying that if you set up a company, and leave others in charge of it, you are at fault if you do not constantly intervene.
I don't think so.
The people who are in charge of it, need to learn how to look after it by themselves, if they are to become responsible.
That is not "unloving" .. it is just that you think simplisticly.

I'm also saying that either of us could have made a better world than this one..

Not me .. I can't create a universe.
You go ahead and do a better job, go on..

..we are more benevolent than nature..

Oh dear .. why is mankind in such a mess, if they are all so smart?

So this god gave man free will knowing that it would lead to his suffering and demise, did it?

Yes .. but the sequel is for those who ward off evil.

I'll bet that you believe that there will be no free will in heaven..

On the contrary, I believe that we journey on from plane to plane. Evil will be separated from righteousness .. it does not mean that we lose our independence.

But the apologist must reconcile that with his belief in this tri-omni god's existence. Why are things like they are if they could have been otherwise? He believes that it is the will of a good god, and so, is better than that alternative - a conclusion one would never arrive at by any other route. Good luck with that.

We are all human .. and that includes you and I.

There is nobody at all that can tell us anything about any big picture, nor how we should live our lives..

That is your belief..

People everywhere want things of us for their own benefit, and do and say what they can to control our thinking and behavior..

They may try, but Almighty God is able to guide us aright, if He so wills.

You talk about this big picture, but isn't that what these religions do to control people - the threats and promises of an afterlife? Isn't that why Constantine chose Christianity to be his state religion?

It's not easy to hold high office .. I believe that Constantine was baptised on his deathbed by an "Arian" priest. His choice.

..If you go for the prize now, no pie in the sky for you later. Be meek now so that you can experience the big picture later..

..and that all depends on what you think that "the prize" actually is .. hint: it is not abundant wealth

If one makes their life all about pleasing God, and concern for the life hereafter, one gets the reward of this life also.

If one makes their life all about worldly matters, they then lose both. ie. they ruin their own souls, along with their seed

 

[dybmh]

Is this a Christian belief? I was thinking the belief is people who keep their faith go to the Christian version of heaven and within this heaven, there aren’t levels. So, how do some people get “rewarded greatly”?

No, not intentionally Christian. I don't know how each individual is rewarded. That's a good question.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is like saying that if you set up a company, and leave others in charge of it, you are at fault if you do not constantly intervene.

I don't see the analogy there at all. Maybe you could rebut my comment that, "a god who permits gratuitous suffering that it could have prevented cannot be said to be benevolent or loving." Perhaps you can tell me why you would call such a deity loving. I don't. Why? Because there are those that I love and those about whom I'm indifferent, and I treat them differently. I know what indifference looks like and what love looks like.

why is mankind in such a mess, if they are all so smart?

I don't know where that comment comes from, but I don't think that mankind is in a mess. My life and the lives of most of the people I know are pretty good. I realize that there are people for whom that isn't the case and who are not the cause of their plight, but no more than in the past. Life gets better for mankind every century.

This hell-in-a-basket trope seems to be a common one among the religious. Who else do I hear making such comments? Have I told you about my last visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses? They began with that assumption and why we needed to become Witnesses. I explained that I didn't feel like that, and they were dumbfounded. They actually walked away from me despite my being polite to them and never rejecting them.

I had a similar experience here on RF, with a JW that used to be here on RF frequently, but I haven't seen in years now. She would become indignant when I would tell her that I am happy. How could I be so selfish, she asked, when the world is falling apart. I don't see that kind of thing from anybody but the religious for whom that message has apparently been hammered in. She lives life like she's at a bus stop waiting for some cosmic bus to take her away from this dumpster fire of a world to some place better. How unfortunate. She always reminds of this verse from Dylan's Desolation Row:

Now Ophelia, she's 'neath the window. For her I feel so afraid.
On her twenty-second birthday, she already is an old maid.
To her, death is quite romantic. She wears an iron vest.
Her profession's her religion, her sin is her lifelessness.
And though her eyes are fixed upon Noah's great rainbow,
She spends her time peeking into Desolation Row​

that all depends on what you think that "the prize" actually is

The prize is a life well lived, one rich with interesting things to do and rewarding experiences, one where he is comfortable, motivated, loved, respected, and enjoys self-respect.

If one makes their life all about pleasing God, and concern for the life hereafter, one gets the reward of this life also.

One gets a religious life. I've had that. It was not rewarding - obviously, or I wouldn't have left it. The whole way of thinking was different, and not for the better. The psychology is the opposite of that of humanism, which is a constructive, upbeat worldview that finds inherent value in humanity and celebrates its achievements improving the human condition. The reward is right there. The glum believer lives under a cloud of doom.

If one makes their life all about worldly matters, they then lose both. ie. they ruin their own souls, along with their seed

I'd say that living under the cloud of doom and despair of such religions degrades life. Here's a little more from Condell on the price one pays for that:

We know that if you’re thinking troublesome thoughts, for example, your muscles will tense up without you even realizing it. And if you keep it up, pretty soon different chemicals start getting produced until, before you know it, there’s a whole different party going on in your body just because of what you’re thinking. It’s well known that optimistic people tend to recover from illness more quickly than pessimists because their minds are working for them and with them, not against them.

Religion wants you to feel that you deserve to be on your knees in penitence and submission, praying for mercy. Religion wants life to be a fate worse than death. That’s why it makes such a virtue of misery. To suffer is to be holy, right? You want to be like Jesus, don’t you? Of course you do. Otherwise, how would you be saved from all that eternal torture? Compared to that fate, a little earthly suffering is actually a good investment. It’s like money in the bank! And all it’s going to cost you is a pair of sore knees and a crippling guilt complex. What a deal.​

Talk about losing it all - first a gloomy life spent in search of happiness AFTER death, and then, oblivion. Don't forget Ophelia. What a shame for her.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, just evolution, and I'm sure most non-believers just accept this too, since it makes more sense.

I believe it is nature and nurture, because it makes sense to me.
We acquired our nature by the process of evolution.

 

[Trailblazer]

because of course, you claim that you could be a superior deity than God.

which is logically impossible since no human can ever be superior to God, although some humans think they are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why? Because there are those that I love and those about whom I'm indifferent, and I treat them differently. I know what indifference looks like and what love looks like..

You are just looking at things on an individual basis ..
..collectively, it looks different .. don't forget how many souls there have been and will be in the world.
Furthermore, as I say, you only see things from your perspective as a human living for a few years on this earth..

I don't know where that comment comes from, but I don't think that mankind is in a mess..

I suppose it all depends where you are "sitting"
Clearly, you live in a different environment to me.

Life gets better for mankind every century..

Absolutely not. All you seem to be able to judge by is the total amount of wealth, to be divided up as those in power see fit.
You seem to be oblivious of the doom that is coming upon us.

Climate-change driven disasters, increasing enmity and war.
Armageddon is near, but you hand wave it away.

One gets a religious life. I've had that. It was not rewarding - obviously, or I wouldn't have left it..

..that is not a good reason to turn away from God .. because it is "not rewarding"

The psychology is the opposite of that of humanism, which is a constructive, upbeat worldview that finds inherent value in humanity and celebrates its achievements improving the human condition. The reward is right there.

Well, carry on enjoying your reward.
I shall carry on believing in God, righteousness and the day of judgment.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure we do. It's easy to identify suffering that serves no constructive purpose.

You are not God so you are not All-Knowing so you do not know whether suffering serves a constructive purpose or not. The fly in the ointment is that if this world is not all there is, that purpose might not be realized until after one dies and passes to the spiritual world.

All you know is what you are able to see with your limited understanding, the same applies to any human. No human knows everything and that means that humans are always subject to being wrong. Only God knows everything so God can never be wrong.

I don't think you know what benevolent means. How do you treat your cats, more like Superman who protects them from danger, or more like the indolent god who sits by watching expecting you to believe that that is somehow loving. You make excuses for a god that is indistinguishable from nonexistence, and instead of noting that it does nothing, you praise that fact, call it benevolence anyway, and object to others thinking otherwise.

God is not a human being who ‘sits back watching.’ To equate God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence so to expect God to do what a human would do under the same circumstances is completely illogical.

God needs no excuses since God is incapable of making any mistakes. That comes with infallibility. Only humans need excuses since humans are fallible, and some humans make plenty of excuses.

Since God is not a human, what a benevolent God would do is not the same as what a benevolent human wuld do

benevolent
Having a disposition to do good; possessing love to mankind, and a desire to promote their prosperity and happiness; kind.
BENEVOLENCE - Definition from the KJV Dictionary

The way God demonstrates His benevolence towards mankind is not by swooping down from the sky rescuing people, like Superman. God demonstrates His benevolence by sending Messengers to earth who bring what humans need because God has a desire to promote human prosperity and happiness.

The tri-omni god doesn't exist just as married bachelors don't exist, and for the same reason. If this universe has a god, it is not involved in our lives and can't be called benevolent. There are no indifferent benevolent gods.

God is not indifferent. God sends Messengers to earth in every age. That is one way God is involved in our lives, but God is omnipresent so God is always there. God never forces His love upon anyone, so if we choose not to love God then we will not feel the love of God, even though God’s love will always be readily available for those who want it.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name there fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

Your own writing suggests that you understand that, as you try to redefine benevolence to resemble the non-acts of a non-god.

I do not have to redefine benevolence to resemble the non-acts of a non-god since I know what the benevolent God has done to demonstrate His benevolence, as noted above. You do not accept what God has done, you want something else, like a little child wants chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, but an omnipotent God does not take orders from humans, He only does what He chooses to do.

And when explained what benevolence actually looks like

Benevolence for God does not look like Superman coming down from the sky rescuing humans from everything they do not like.

It's why I can say what a benevolent god might do, and you would shush me.

You cannot know what a benevolent God might do. Nobody can ever know what God might do. All we can know is what God has done, according to scriptures. There is no other access to God other than what His Messengers have revealed in scriptures.

You might know that I consider premarital sex essential to deciding compatibility in a relationship if there will be a sexual relationship. You probably don't know that my first marriage had no premarital sex. Our first was after we were married. Big mistake. Huge mistake.

It might have been a mistake for you but it does not logically follow that it is a mistake for everyone, since not everyone has the same experience as you did.

There might be some value in living with someone before getting married, but I don’t think it is necessary to have sex before marriage in order to try out the model. If two people are in love, sex comes naturally, if they want sex. Part A goes with Part B, it’s not that difficult to figure out.

It is more important for two people to share the same values and some of the same interests, and that their personalities and lifestyles are compatible. For me, the ideal man would be one who has compatible beliefs about God and spirituality and one who likes cats, but that would not work for marriage unless our personalities and lifestyles were also compatible. I would also need to know if sex is extremely important to him because if it is, he would not be the man for me. I would not mind having sex if it was important to a man but I will never again consider sex ’extremely important.’ Of course, these things need to be discussed before marriage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are not God so you are not All-Knowing so you do not know whether suffering serves a constructive purpose or not.

I don't need to be all-knowing to answer that.

This kind of thinking paralyzes thought - the idea that if you don't know everything, you know nothing, and that things don't even need to appear to be benevolent to be so. It leaves one with no foundation for thinking. What's the point if nothing can be known and benevolence can't be identified.

Still, the theist believes he knows that this god is good even after attempting to disqualify others for making opposite judgments. How, if the mind is useless for making such judgments? That's how faith works. That's what kind of thinking comes from accepting the theology. It's good, and that's that. How do you know? I just do. Well, I know a few things myself. No you don't because you're not God and anything you think might be wrong, so stop thinking that anything you believe is correct. But you trust YOUR thinking and seem to think I should as well. That's different.

This is an epistemology of despair to me, and an abdication of the ego and its role to make intellectual and moral judgments. I continue to make such judgments because they've served me well, so I will continue to trust my own mind over the opinions of others who have no evidence for their opinions.

The fly in the ointment is that if this world is not all there is, that purpose might not be realized until after one dies and passes to the spiritual world.

So what? If I'm wrong about the suffering being gratuitous, I can wait to find that out.

To equate God to a human is the fallacy of false equivalence

I don't. I'm an atheist. But I do judge the gods that believers describe. Why wouldn't I? It's how I know that this tri-omni deity doesn't exist. I still trust my own mind despite the calls from the faithful not to.

what a benevolent God would do is not the same as what a benevolent human would do

Then why should this human consider such a god benevolent? We've got this god that does nothing, and we are asked to believe it's benevolent. When we ask why it should be called benevolent if it permits gratuitous suffering, we are told that we don't know what benevolence is or looks like. Sorry, but I would be sinning against myself to allow myself to take that plunge into unreason.

God demonstrates His benevolence by sending Messengers to earth who bring what humans need because God has a desire to promote human prosperity and happiness.

That's benevolence? It's like sending a card instead of a gift.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't need to be all-knowing to answer that.

You do not need to be all-knowing to have an opinion, but you are saying you know, and what you believe you know could be true or false since you could be wrong.

This kind of thinking paralyzes thought - the idea that if you don't know everything, you know nothing, and that things don't even need to appear to be benevolent to be so. It leaves one with no foundation for thinking. What's the point if nothing can be known and benevolence can't be identified.

You can have a personal opinion but a problem arises when you insist you know you are right.

Still, the theist believes he knows that this god is good even after attempting to disqualify others for making opposite judgments. How, if the mind is useless for making such judgments? That's how faith works. That's what kind of thinking comes from accepting the theology. It's good, and that's that. How do you know? I just do. Well, I know a few things myself. No you don't because you're not God and anything you think might be wrong, so stop thinking that anything you believe is correct. But you trust YOUR thinking and seem to think I should as well. That's different.

Some theists believe they know that God is good but they can never know that. All they can do is believe it. The same applies to the atheists who say they know that God cannot be good. They cannot know that, they can only believe it.

Anything I think might be wrong since I don’t know everything, but I trust my thinking and you should trust yours.

This is an epistemology of despair to me, and an abdication of the ego and its role to make intellectual and moral judgments. I continue to make such judgments because they've served me well, so I will continue to trust my own mind over the opinions of others who have no evidence for their opinions.

The same applies to me. I will continue to trust my own mind over the opinions of others who have no evidence for their opinions.

So what? If I'm wrong about the suffering being gratuitous, I can wait to find that out.

Some suffering may be gratuitous, or it might have been warranted, and you may or may not find that out in the next world. Nobody knows what they will find out in the next world.

Even if some suffering is gratuitous, it is still suffering and it still exists, so what good does it do to point that out?

I don't. I'm an atheist. But I do judge the gods that believers describe. Why wouldn't I? It's how I know that this tri-omni deity doesn't exist. I still trust my own mind despite the calls from the faithful not to.

You keep saying that you know that but you don’t know that, not any more than I know that such a God exists. All I have is a belief and all you have is a personal opinion.

You should trust your own mind, not someone else’s mind, and I trust my mind, despite calls from atheists not to.

Then why should this human consider such a god benevolent? We've got this god that does nothing, and we are asked to believe it's benevolent. When we ask why it should be called benevolent if it permits gratuitous suffering, we are told that we don't know what benevolence is or looks like. Sorry, but I would be sinning against myself to allow myself to take that plunge into unreason.

I am not saying that you should consider God benevolent. Why would you, unless you believed the scriptures? What you consider nothing I consider something. Sending Messengers is not nothing to me, since it gives humanity morals and principles and a pertinent message for this age to live by.

Why should God eradicate gratuitous suffering in order to be considered benevolent? Try to think realistically about how God could do that. Suffering exists because we live in a material world where suffering is unavoidable. Some suffering might be gratuitous, but that cannot be separated out from the suffering that is beneficial, it is all part of the way the world is organized.

That's benevolence? It's like sending a card instead of a gift.

I would say it is a gift with a card attached. Although it might not be the gift you hoped for, we don’t always get what we hope for. You can return to sender if you want to, it does not matter to God one way or another, since the gift is only for your benefit.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe it is nature and nurture, because it makes sense to me.
We acquired our nature by the process of evolution.

Well, we also inevitably gain our nurture too by evolution, so evolution is still the most convenient term to use - if one has no gods to depend upon.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You do not need to be all-knowing to have an opinion, but you are saying you know, and what you believe you know could be true or false since you could be wrong.

I am saying that gratuitous suffering occurs - suffering that does the sufferer no good. I know that for a fact. And I know that relieving that suffering is an act of compassion. You are asking others to believe that that might not be correct even though I am certain that you live by that idea. You relieve suffering every single time you can. Do your cats become frightened in a storm? My dogs do, and we comfort them, because they are experiencing suffering that does them no good that we can mitigate a bit and which simply makes their lives a little worse.

And yes, I judge even the descriptions of gods according to those same standards. And you can, too, if you choose to.

You can have a personal opinion but a problem arises when you insist you know you are right.

We've been down this road before. A person can be right and know he is right when others lack the skills to do the same. That skill is critical thinking, and when done according to the established rules of interpreting evidence, will arrive at sound (correct) conclusions every time. I've told you this before, and you didn't believe it then, either. I don't expect you to ever believe it.

And your inability to do it yourself isn't the only problem here. If it were, you would defer to others to do it for you. You would understand that other people you know or know of can do so, and you would turn to them for help, as did millions of Americans during the pandemic when faced with making decisions about vaccines. Some can look at the data and conclude with certainty that the data supports the belief that eligible people should be vaccinated. Others who can't do that but recognize that others can knew enough to defer to experts to interpret that data for them. But a third group of people are unaware that such a process exists and simply believe that all beliefs were arrived at as all of theirs must be - by making a best guess on what to believe. Such people consider all opinions equal, and can be identified by their expression of that belief.

I know you think that you think critically. You have claimed as much previously. But then you provide examples of that, and it's fallacious thought - thought riddled with fallacy, thought that generates unsound conclusions. You keep calling the mundane lives and very human words of messengers evidence of a deity. These are things that people can do themselves. They can live lives as good or better than any messenger. I know many. I know this kind of thing incenses you as blasphemous, but I've lived such a life, and I'll bet that you have as well. My life was more helpful than that of a messenger. I treated the sick. I helped prevent suffering, disability, and premature death. And thousands of other people do the same. Yet you would call wandering the streets telling people to be pious a live lived so well that only a god could have been the reason for it. That's what you are saying when you say that that life was evidence of a god, and you are wrong. There, I said it - that is simply wrong, even if YOU can't see that.

You keep saying that you know that but you don’t know that, not any more than I know that such a God exists. All I have is a belief and all you have is a personal opinion.

Yes, I do know that. I know that suffering that degrades lives occurs, and that if a deity exists that could have prevented it, it is indifferent or worse to man's plight. As I've said repeatedly, I don't know why you can't come to that same conclusion yourself, but the inability to do so doesn't mean that others are just guessing as well. That's what your comment implies - that all opinions are equal no matter the method used to arrive at them.

Even if some suffering is gratuitous, it is still suffering and it still exists, so what good does it do to point that out?

What is the subject of this thread? "How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen?" This is a famous centuries old problem for those who believe that there is a tri-omni deity. They have to explain why suffering that appears to do nothing but degrade lives is allowed to occur if such a god exists and is on the job. They have to explain why there is gratuitous suffering. You've seen the replies. They convince nobody.

Your answer was actually one of the best. You commented, "I am not saying that you should consider God benevolent." That resolves the issue. Why would you expect benevolence from a god? All one need do to resolve the issue is remove one of the three elements - maybe this god isn't omniscient and doesn't even know we exist, or maybe it isn't omnipotent and can't help, or maybe it isn't omnibenevolent as you have chosen.

You expect nothing of your god, which we have in common albeit for different reasons. You keep telling me that your god is no Superman, that nobody is coming to save the day. That's a reasonable answer because it's obviously correct. It's consistent with the evidence. Of course there is useless suffering.

But your tri-omni counterparts don't have it as easy. They simply have no answer except ineffective and unconvincing apologetics. That's why identifying the existence of gratuitous suffering is key to this issue. If it didn't exist, there'd be no conundrum to explain. Incidentally, your suggestion that maybe this suffering serves some unseen purpose and is actually good is among the ineffective apologetics.

Even if that were correct, whatever that purpose is not the sufferer's purpose. Think of the story of Job - a classic example of pointless suffering as would be inflicted by a sadist. In it, the deity and its archenemy have agendas, but they are not Job's, and the suffering delivered to him cannot be called benevolent. Yet the tri-omni theists labor to explain why this was a good thing for Job - why a good god would do that to him. Good luck with that.

 

[Lekatt]

God gives us free will, and that is why suffering is our mistakes of either doing something wrong or not doing something we should.

We don't really die, or get harmed, we are spirit and return to the spirit world when our bodies no longer function whatever the reason.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, I do know that. I know that suffering that degrades lives occurs, and that if a deity exists that could have prevented it, it is indifferent or worse to man's plight..

..so because it is a necessary part of life to suffer, as God clearly doesn't think like you do, you claim that God cannot care about mankind .. doesn't care if they end up in hell or heaven .. is indifferent.

Oh well, if God is indifferent, then we are ALL doomed .. according to you, that is.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the subject of this thread? "How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen?" This is a famous centuries old problem for those who believe that there is a tri-omni deity.

Suffering exists because we live in a material world which engenders suffering, so it is unavoidable. Evil exists because humans have free will to choose either good or evil.

They have to explain why suffering that appears to do nothing but degrade lives is allowed to occur if such a god exists and is on the job.

On the job? It is not God's job to ensure that no suffering exists. That is simply a childish expectation some people have. Most people just endure the suffering, and if they blame someone, they blame who is responsible if they were victimized, they don’t blame God. If they need help alleviating their suffering they reach out for help from medical or mental health professionals, or from friends and family.

There will be no more suffering after we die, at least not the kind of suffering we endure because of the material world. The suffering that we might endure is the regret over what we lost by not having fulfilled the purpose of our existence, to know and love God and to love and serve others. Going to the grave hating God is going to cause untold suffering, which is why I decided to get rid of that hate before I die. I still don’t love God but at least I am moving in that direction. Maybe I’ll get there, maybe I won’t, but God will know that I tried, and that is what will matter.

Your answer was actually one of the best. You commented, "I am not saying that you should consider God benevolent." That resolves the issue. Why would you expect benevolence from a god?

I am not saying that YOU should consider God benevolent just because I consider God benevolent. I do not *expect* benevolence from God since I do not expect anything from God. I believe that God is benevolent in spite of the fact that I have endured untold suffering for most of my life, suffering that continues to this day. Many days I don’t know how I am going to endure one more day, but I do whatever I can to alleviate my suffering and reach out for help from other people who are kind and want to help, because the only other choice is to commit suicide.

I do not base what I believe about God’s benevolence on my own life experiences or on my limited human understanding of what I see in the world, since that is sure to fail, since I am only a fallible human being. I base what I believe about God on scriptures, which is the *only way* to ever know *anything* about God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Suffering exists because we live in a material world which engenders suffering, so it is unavoidable. Evil exists because humans have free will to choose either good or evil.

Yes, I agree. That is to be expected in a naturalistic world, but doesn't answer the question of why they occur in a universe ruled by a tri-omni deity.

On the job? It is not God's job to ensure that no suffering exists.

Same response.

There will be no more suffering after we die

It takes a lot of faith to believe that about a god that lets you suffer now.

I believe that God is benevolent in spite of the fact that I have endured untold suffering for most of my life, suffering that continues to this day. Many days I don’t know how I am going to endure one more day, but I do whatever I can to alleviate my suffering and reach out for help from other people who are kind and want to help, because the only other choice is to commit suicide.

I'm very sorry to read that, and not just because of your suffering, but also because of what reads like Stockholm syndrome. You call a god that you believe exists yet leaves you in that state when it didn't have to be benevolent. Incidentally, if I or any number of other benevolent people had the powers of a god, you would not be suffering. I guess that I define the word differently than you do.

Your journey into religion seems to be a method to stop hating God as you have described in this post. You don't want to go to the grave in that state. I wish I could help you, but you have shut the door on that kind of help, which would come as unbelief in gods. Atheists don't hate gods.

I resent the people who taught you these things. They were not your friends. This belief gives you no comfort, and it is interfering in your quest to find companionship if it limits you only to other theists and prevents you from discovering if you're compatible as roommates and lovers before committing to that.

I do not base what I believe about God’s benevolence on my own life experiences or on my limited human understanding of what I see in the world, since that is sure to fail

I also object to the teaching that people's own minds cannot be relied upon, the argument being that those minds are not infallible. Notice that the argument comes from such human minds. Also notice who benefits if you substitute their judgment for your own. When it's your mother and she is wise, it's you who benefits until you are capable of making sound judgments yourself. But when it's a priesthood, and you're an adult? They serve a god that they imagine wants them to help harvest submissive souls, and they begin by teaching you to submit to their ideas, which they present as coming from a god. Best to steer clear of that.

I did exactly what you didn't, and it certainly didn't fail me. It rescued me from an ideology of despair. My mind is my only guide. It's not my only source of information, but it is the arbiter of what is true, what is good, and what is salutary to the soul (metaphorical usage) - not holy books.