God, Suffering, and Special Pleading

[Enoch07]

Well if it solves the conundrum I'm interested, it can be difficult to respond reasonably to a proposition that maybe something happened before I was born that I don't remember -- or however it was phrased. I only said it's not something I subscribe to, I'm not convinced that such a thing is true. But if we're talking about hypothetical things that absolve God of culpability for having created a world with suffering, it's fair game -- if it does absolve God in some rational way.

That was wordy. I'm tired. I'm off work in 2 minutes. Hooray

Ok later then. Just got off work myself not long ago. Had my shower and now its time for bed. I'll hollar at ya tonight when work is slow.

 

[Grandliseur]

If God wants to prevent suffering,

The question here is, does he want this?

If God's capable of stopping suffering, but chooses not to -- there needs to be a good reason.

That is a good one, and I am not sure I can make you understand.

There exists a special kind of iron, a special composition. We use it to make springs out of. While I am not an expert on it, in olden days, this iron had to be hammered into its shape to gain this ability of being a spring. How they do it in modern production I do not know. The hammering aligned the molecules so that the material could act as a spring within certain amount of bending.
​

What is interesting (outside the trinity - inside it makes no sense) is this scripture:

About Jesus, this is said: "10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. "
And about us (C.s):
12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: 13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.​

Though this is about the suffering of God's servants, even his own son's, we are shown that suffering makes the person of Jesus perfect, and that it creates strong Christians.

2 My brothers count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the proving of your faith works patience. 4 But let patience have its perfective work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.​

While I wouldn't mind overly much to kick James in his shins because I really do not like to suffer, the thing is that he is right; besides, it is the will of God to put us through fire to verify that we are worthy. Many will burn up in this fire.

As to why the world in general has to suffer, Jesus himself somewhat avoided that question (side stepped it)
. Perhaps because it is a bit lengthy and perhaps because many won't understand it.

I'm confused on how to respond because it gets so far away from the original issue. It's possible for God to have created a world where physical suffering doesn't exist given the premises, but instead God chose to create a world where it does.

The promise is that this is what is going to happen soon for us.
The problem here is free will for angels, for human beings. Another related problem is that God obeys his own laws of justice that he asks others to obey. Until a legal precedent had been established (which we have been doing while suffering) God cannot disregard his own laws and just by power do away with those who dissent. So, while satan's rule of our world has caused a lot of pain, it also has given the faithful a chance to prove themselves worthy of the reward.

There is no hell, no life after death, only eternal non existence. However, those whom God think should have a chance of eternal life will be given resurrections after satan has been put in the abyss.
I am sure you would have liked something less complex and less painful. What is - is; what isn't - is not.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're assuming that eating such sustenance would be necessary. It's logically possible for it not to be.

Based on the only reality we know, and are allowed to know... it's actually not. I understand we can imagine there could be alternate realities, or a change in physical dynamics of the universe made by some controlling interest (i.e. God)... however none of that can even matter until we are faced with it, or faced with some sort of choice between an ACTUAL difference in such circumstances. We can use our imagination to create all sorts of scenarios, sure... but there isn't much good in it outside of entertainment.

Any problem you can imagine has a solution, and an omniscient God can actualize a solution. The world's physics could work on a conditional basis for instance.

Basically if a human could simulate a world, such as a video game, God can actualize it because it's logically possible. It's really easy to conceptualize how someone could simulate a world in which physical suffering doesn't happen to its inhabitants.

Part of me thinks that, given our intellect and level of conscious awareness, humans would simply adapt to a new system in which there were no physical suffering by labeling even the most basic level of boredom as the new "suffering." That we'd just slide the entire scale from "suffering" to "happiness" over and the "worst" we encountered in our existence would be the new "suffering." In a few generations, if we didn't have the old benchmark of physical suffering like we experience now to compare against, why wouldn't we?

 

[Super Universe]

An omnipotent/omniscient being can't do anything unintentionally: if a world with particular physics that allow for physical suffering is created, then it can't be a mistake for such a being. That would be malevolent to create over one with physics that don't allow for physical suffering.



Addressed this part above.



Not true. There could absolutely still be free agents. In a world where it's not possible to suffer physically, you still have the free agency to decide what you're doing today, who to hang out with, who not to hang out with, what to have for dinner, whether to go see a movie or go to the park. In what sense are such agents not free? That's freedom.



Some of this is just going to depend on what happens when we talk about the possibility of world with physics unconducive to physical suffering yet with free will.

God can't do anything unintentionally? There are guidelines that the angels are supposed to follow. They were on the earth when humans were more primitive, essentially smart animals. The angels were supposed to identify what humans had the most "selfish" genes and institute a controlled breeding program. Couples with better genes could have as many children as they wanted while couples with "selfish" genes could only have two children. This plan would have removed the worst genes from the human genetic pool. The plan was instituted but it did not continue nearly long enough before the Lucifer Rebellion began and ruined everything.

The world could have free will and have no suffering? The very advanced worlds are considered to be settled in "Light and Life". They have evolved to the point where they are essentially equal in universal knowledge with beings in heaven. Beings on these worlds know absolutely positively that God exists. They cannot choose to not believe. Some angels and beings from heaven can visit and be seen and walk among them. These worlds have no suffering. There are no police or soldiers, there are no laws because none are needed. All worlds will eventually evolve to the "Light and Life" stage. This is what Jesus meant when He said "The meek shall inherit the earth." We have a long ways to go.

Why do beings have to go through the animal primitive stage and take millions of years to evolve into higher beings? You have the right to believe or not believe in God. Highly evolved beings do not have that right. They know absolutely positively that God exists. It's not a game to fool you. It's a game to see what you will do with the personality that you have and it only works if you don't know. Will you be good even when you don't really know for sure if God exists or not, or will you be selfish and justify all the bad things you do because you think no one is watching?

It's not physics that is allowing suffering to exist. It's genetic. We still have animal genes in us. There was an experiment called the grey fox experiment. A Russian scientist captured many grey foxes. She noticed that 90% of them were very aggressive towards her, they would bite the cage when she approached, but 10% were less aggressive. She bred the 10% together and in five generations out came a fox that was completely friendly to humans. They would cuddle just like a domestic dog. Then she bred the 10% with the aggressive foxes and in five generations they became extremely aggressive again.

One human study found a "selfish" gene that 90% of all serial killers have.

 

[Ponder This]

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

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?

An omnipotent/omniscient being can't do anything unintentionally: if a world with particular physics that allow for physical suffering is created, then it can't be a mistake for such a being. That would be malevolent to create over one with physics that don't allow for physical suffering.

A few notes: if there is something good, is there a need for great change? Also, lacking physical suffering doesn't mean stagnant: there would still be free agency. Still the ability to make new discoveries, forge new friendships, dream up new things.

In my anecdotal experience, I've seen artist friends (just as one example) do amazing things when freed from the burden of rent (i.e., when they finally got well paying jobs). It didn't cause them to stagnate to be in a better situation.

It just doesn't seem reasonable that it's good for God to create circumstances where children die of leukemia, people get raped, people die slow horrible deaths of starvation, etc. for some vague sense of "it's good to struggle against adversity because we can build things," when we're perfectly capable of building things with MUCH less adversity. Innocent victims don't have to exist for us to be creative and thrive.

Their free will doesn't absolve God of the culpability of putting a dangerous object there in the first place, warning against using it or no. That's still a malevolent act.

Consider a pocket universe where a room of people live where physical suffering is impossible. If people try to hurt each other with their free will, nothing happens: it's like a video game with God Mode turned on. They're free to make choices all they want: whether to write poetry, or play video games, or watch movies, who to hang out with, etc. Free agents, no physical suffering.

Now imagine I decide to visit this pocket universe and I drop a loaded gun in the middle of this room. It's a special loaded gun, one that disobeys the usual laws of the pocket universe preventing death and suffering. I have now given them "the choice."

Sure, it's up to them to use it or not. But are you saying that I have *zero* culpability in leaving this gun there? If I never did, their world would have gone right on without suffering. Because I would argue I would *absolutely* be culpable for leaving that gun. It's a malevolent act.

Part of me thinks that, given our intellect and level of conscious awareness, humans would simply adapt to a new system in which there were no physical suffering by labeling even the most basic level of boredom as the new "suffering." That we'd just slide the entire scale from "suffering" to "happiness" over and the "worst" we encountered in our existence would be the new "suffering." In a few generations, if we didn't have the old benchmark of physical suffering like we experience now to compare against, why wouldn't we?

I do have to question the notion of a world where suffering does not exist. We suppose that such a world is possible, but can we show that such a world is possible? Can we show that evil is objective and not subjective?

How exactly would we design a world in which "evil" is impossible?
How do we get rid of guns? Do we make it so that humans never evolve the intelligence necessary to create guns? Is that a better world? What about bows and arrows? What about axes and hammers? If we just lobotomize everyone is that better?

To have a world without "evil" we must first have a world in which it is not possible to imagine evil. The capacity to imagine gives us the capacity to imagine evil and the capacity to think of evil makes evil possible. Is this not so? How do we create a world where it is not possible to think of evil? And why is that world "better"?

Perhaps the Knowledge of Good and Evil leads to suffering.

 

[Etritonakin]

This just doesn't strike me as reasonable: "You are going to become better people, so here Timmy, here's an excruciating short life of misery and leukemia"

Timmy's ordeal would not be specifically necessary.
It is not specifically necessary that Timmy, in particular, suffer in that particular way.
The overall situation which allowed for Timmy's ordeal is necessary -given the intended end result of all things.

As an example of how one seemingly-unnecessary harsh judgment (not that Timmy's ordeal was specified to happen) is actually for the benefit of all.....

I'm not sure if I remember it correctly... But some people were carrying the ark of the covenant -and the ark Itself was not to be touched. One guy accidentally slipped -touched the ark -and God basically killed him on the spot.
Taken alone, it was an extremely unnecessary act -but the most important thing for God to do at that point -in order to accomplish his overall objective -was to have the others see that man die.
He needed them to take him extremely seriously at that point.
The same is true for people being put to death according to the judgments under the law in accent Israel.
Though it is not easy to see how it relates -or is in any way reasonable -because the plan is being worked out over millennia (you might say making cavemen into gods), the things which happened in the Old Testament prepared a people to receive the new covenant.
The new covenant continues to prepare a people to literally be the government under God and Christ of earth and beyond -which is what is necessary so that all of these things never happen again -ever -forever -throughout the whole universe -and perhaps beyond.
All of those people who died under the more harsh judgments of the Old Testament will be resurrected -and will benefit from the situation which has been created. Some were stoned to death as a deterrent for others, and in order to keep Israel from being corrupted while God prepared human minds for the next phase of the plan -which was the coupling of man's spirit with that of God's spirit -which empowers man to become Godlike in preparation for their futur roles -and those killed will all basically pop back into existence and be prepared to live happily ever after -because now they can. There will then be a government on earth and beyond capable of creating and maintaining peace -and billions not only willing to live in peace and happiness, but now ABLE to do so.

One might ask why God did not make us perfect in the first place -but this is the first place, and that is what he is doing -and this is how that is done.

If he made us perfect by not giving us choice -we would not truly be "us" -we could not be truly individual - would not be able to accept or reject, or even be creative (at the heart of which is the ability to make choices). WE are the ones who need to be perfect -and WE need to be involved in that process -which inherently requires temporary experience of imperfection.

God consistently explained things along the way -to the angels and then man -set forth the rules necessary to be happy and maintain the creation in good order as they learned -and he was constantly rejected by most -which is actually understandable, as new beings really did not know God or reality -but it needed to be done so that it could be known that it had been done. God gave every reasonable opportunity before allowing rebellious angels and successive generations of humans to experience the results of their own ways (corrupting the creation and themselves as part of it as they erred) as well as a somewhat-unmaintained environment, to learn in this life what they could apply when resurrected.

Timmy will be resurrected -will no longer be subject to a corrupted creation (which was necessary for all to experience -not specificallyTimmy in that particular way) -will live happily ever after -all will see the necessity of both God's power and government -and God takes full responsibility for allowing the present state and for bringing about the future state.

 

[Etritonakin]

Suffering of SOME sort will be possible if there is free will (for instance, a good example is unrequited love), sure. However, there is no reason for physical suffering to exist. There is no reason for leukemia kids or murder to exist. If God created a world that contains such things, God is culpable for those things existing. Most of us call that malevolence.

Again -for God to create a bunch of happy and content humans who live and die and make room for more, it would not be necessary -nor would many of our capabilities.
If temporary physical suffering it is absolutely necessary to avoid a universe full of endless misery -and to make possible a universe where all of those things are reversed -made far better -a universe full of endless joy, creativity and godlike beings who do not need to be micromanaged, it is well worth it -and eventually won't be remembered.

It should be noted that, according to the bible, at least the present level of pain

God states that he has done all of this -that he will undo all of this -and that it will be well worth it.
There is no malevolence involved as all that he does and allows is in the best interest of all involved.

It should be noted that, according to the bible, the pain and suffering we now experience (since Adam -the first with the potential to become immortal) -is allowed for about 6,000 years overall, and limited to basically 120 years individually. Afterward it will not be so. Even if the humans who continue on earth (as others are initially made immortal) still have the same system which allows for physical pain, there will be far less which is capable of causing physical pain on earth. There will be no fear of animals, no fear of war, no fear of natural disaster, at least far less fear of accidents due to extremely capable government and increased knowledge -and there will also be access to miraculous healing in case something does happen.

Notice both of these are in the Old Testament. God declared the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 45:5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isaiah65:17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create.......

 

[Tumah]

Infinity doesn't work like that, though. There's no "years short of infinity," something is either infinite or it's not. There are different cardinalities of infinity. I don't think it's a reasonable idea that someone could be tortured for 1,000,000,000 years for a "good, unknown reason," let alone 1,000 or anything of the sort. This drives home the point that if special pleading is allowed, then we can get around any deduction or any reasoned position by simply saying "the contradiction isn't REALLY a contradiction in an unknowable way." It's a non-response. One might as well respond "well, maybe it really IS a contradiction in a further unknowable way," or something. This is why special pleading is fallacious.

What I meant to say is any number of years, but not eternally. There has to always be an end, because suffering is not a goal, its a means.
The reason is simple, suffering removes sins or impurities that bar us from enjoying the ultimate reward for our actions. What a person may have done or why a specific individual might require that is what's unknown. Not the general idea.

 

[Etritonakin]

I disagree with the premise that suffering is required for a better future. When suffering exists, you can only do certain things about it: you can prevent future instances of it or you can alleviate it. Anything that we call "good" that comes out of suffering gets its goodness from that. Can you think of another example? For instance a heroic fireman rescuing someone from a fire: we call it good because he prevented and alleviated suffering. When suffering is involved and goods are created because of the suffering, it's always in RESPONSE to suffering somehow, or preparation for it.

There are goods that I think a lot of us can agree are good independently of suffering. So, is it "worth it" for a fire to exist just so we can have a heroic fireman? Is it "worth it" for smallpox to exist just so we can create a vaccine? I think upon thinking about this, most would agree that's absurd: I think people would agree it's better to have never had the fire and better to have never had the smallpox.

What do you think?

"When suffering exists, you can only do certain things about it: you can prevent future instances of it or you can alleviate it."

(or both)

I would think there must have been a first instance of what we might call actual suffering.
Could it have been avoided -or did it first have to happen in order to be avoided?

For the sake of consideration.... Assume there is no God. What could we do to prevent all future suffering -and how could we implement such a plan?
Let's say we started by turning off the system which causes physical pain..... Then what?

Assume there is a God who is able to avoid all suffering himself. He then creates new, inexperienced beings similar to himself within a vast and complicated environment. Is it possible to keep them from all suffering? Is it possible to teach them to avoid all suffering? Why should they listen to God? What if they choose to do whatever they want? How can you make everyone decide to do the right thing?

 

[Koldo]

With the experience of our lifetime to teach us about degrees of pleasure and achievement.

Sure, but no experience will tell us that we have achieved the 'greatest possible pleasure' (TM).
You can live your entire life without knowing if you have ever experienced it. The greatest you have experienced is not necessarily the greatest possible. This is why I've asked you about the 'how'. Because no degree of experience on this world would give us the knowledge you find necessary.

I don't want to use examples from Tanach about G-d not being compatible with falsehood, but they are there.

I don't think that G-d has the capacity to lie though. G-d doesn't have any character traits with which to lie. Technically G-d doesn't have any trait with which to be truthful either, but our application of truthfulness to G-d is in the sense of G-d has done it. At least what I understand from Jewish sources, when G-d thinks, speaks, does, etc., those are just different degrees of creative acts in potential or actuality. It's something that we can point to (had we the capacity to perceive potentiality) as existing. So by extension G-d doesn't do anything that isn't truthful.

I understand that saying G-d doesn't isn't the same as saying G-d can't but I have to think about it more. I never really thought about the possibility.

But more to the point, it all comes down to the conclusion that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and the creator then he clearly has priorities over and above his benevolence. To be quite honest, I don't really understand why this would be contentious, in practice, considering what is written on the religious scriptures.

 

[Koldo]

The question here is, does he want this?

If he doesn't, then in what way can you say he is omnibenevolent ?

 

[Koldo]

I do have to question the notion of a world where suffering does not exist. We suppose that such a world is possible, but can we show that such a world is possible?

It seems logically possible at the very least.
And even if it were not, then it is still possible to imagine a world without Smallpox, isn't it ?

Can we show that evil is objective and not subjective?

Not relevant to the discussion. If you think otherwise, please explain.

How exactly would we design a world in which "evil" is impossible?
How do we get rid of guns? Do we make it so that humans never evolve the intelligence necessary to create guns? Is that a better world? What about bows and arrows? What about axes and hammers? If we just lobotomize everyone is that better?

To have a world without "evil" we must first have a world in which it is not possible to imagine evil. The capacity to imagine gives us the capacity to imagine evil and the capacity to think of evil makes evil possible. Is this not so? How do we create a world where it is not possible to think of evil? And why is that world "better"?

Perhaps the Knowledge of Good and Evil leads to suffering.

Being invulnerable solves every issue you have brought up.

 

[Clear]

A) Asking religious questions is good but errors in context limits real-world conclusions

I am more theist-historian than philosopher, thus my bias is to look at moral questions for historical and theological application. Once the thread leaves the logical and rational world, it no longer applies to historical religion. Its’ not questions that are problematic, but their context.


1) It’s not simply the agnostics that ask insightful moral questions such as why God allows the evil to exist.

The literature describes early prophet asking for similar information.

After reminding God that Adams fall happened according to God’s initial plan, the prophet Sedrach asked God WHY he didn’t rid mankind of the Devil and his influences.

Sedrach said : “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? ” (Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7)

The Prophet Abraham, speaking of Satan, asked a similar question : “How then, since he is now not before you, did you establish yourself with (him)? “ (The Apocalypse of Abraham 20:5-7) “

Moses, (Pirke d. Rabbi Eliezer) sees injustices and evil happening and asks the same question: “why are evil and injustice present?” (paraphrasing)

When the convert Abraham asks God : “Eternal, Mighty One, why then did you adjudge him [satan] such dominion that through his works he could ruin humankind on earth? “

The prophets had to learn the important answers to these issues just like every one else. However, in each case, the answer was not in the same context this thread describes.


2)The problem with placing religious historical data into a fantasy context

The answers in such literature are given in the context of an eternal existence and inside of process theology (i.e. mortality as part of a process) while the thread asks about evil in the “short term” and inside the assumptions of light switch theology (i.e. mortality as instant creation).

I think Meow Mixs’ logic is good but the inaccurate context creates unusable conclusions for the real world. One of the downfalls of hypothetical philosophy is that not all assumptions have relation to and application in reality.

As Vestigial Mote explained : “I understand we can imagine there could be alternate realities, or a change in physical dynamics of the universe made by some controlling interest (i.e. God)... however none of that can even matter until we are faced with it, or faced with some sort of choice between an ACTUAL difference in such circumstances. We can use our imagination to create all sorts of scenarios, sure... but there isn't much good in it outside of entertainment. (post #83)

Vestigial Motes' point is good. One can imagine a little boy fantasizing to his friend : “What if, when you closed your eyes and wiggled your ears at the same time, a $10 dollar bill would appear? Wouldn’t that be cool?” Like a child imagining a fantasy that has NO real world application, some of the assumptions in the thread seem similarly fantastic and bear no relationship to authentic historical religion.

For example : the assumption that “Any problem you can imagine has a solution, and an omniscient God can actualize a solution. The world's physics could work on a conditional basis for instance.” Is an assumption that is similar to the hypothetical question of the boy. It assumes an irrational, fantasy version of Omnipotence. (Granted, theists themselves often originated these fantasy views.)


3)God has logical Limits

There are simply certain things that even a God lacks the power to do. Certain basic realities cannot be changed. Since we are speaking of MORALS and evil, one logical limit is that a God cannot, create an arbitrary set of inverted morals where evil is good and good is evil.

If this is correct, then IF God suddenly started “doing evil”, then evil would not become suddenly “good”, but rather he would simply become an “evil” God.

An clear example is : “God cannot create a world where the torture and rape of a small child is now “good” and kind intent is now “evil”. “Omnipotence” has logical limits and, if the early Judeo-Christian literature is correct, God felt worse about the evil that was to occur inside mortality than mankind does.

For example, in the abbaton discourse, the text has Jesus describing to his disciples the controversy that God faced when creating Adam. God knew that Adam would fall and mankind would, as part of gaining moral education and moral wisdom, suffer, by virtue of those among them who would choose to do evil.

“And He took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, 'If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.'
And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.' And My Father said unto Me, 'If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.' And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfill Thy command.'



B) Experiencial knowledge of suffering and evil requires experiencing suffering and Evil.

In this model, as part of the process of learning both good and evil and mastering the principles upon which one can avoid incivility and moral evil and by which one can achieve civility and joy, the spirits of mankind are placed through the experience of mortality. Then they are divided into groups based upon their moral desires and choices (judgment) Ultimately, they are placed into various levels of societies based on their abilities to live in those societies.(the society of heaven or a lower society)

1) The context of suffering matters

In the context of my practice of pediatric medicine, I cause intentional suffering to innocent infants and children. I admit that I feel justified in causing such suffering.

For example, I either put needles into the skin of infants and innocent children or order someone else to do it during immunization. In certain surgeries, I often cut into the skin of innocent infants and children with small sharp knives and leave them with wounds that are painful and leave them suffering for some time. I will, at times, intentionally and willfully, push on a small childs’ belly or move their bones and joint with the express intent to cause that child pain. Though I justify it because it is part of a process of diagnosis or treatment, still, I cause temporary suffering.

Not only do I cause such suffering and pain, but I do it to some children that I love. Even the loving parents of these children know that I am going to cause suffering to their child and yet they pay me to do what I do. In fact, I have received honors from professional societies and from honest and good hearted and kind individuals for doing what I do. And, despite my intentional causing such pain and suffering, day in and day out, for years, both theists and non-theists continue to ask me to do things which will cause suffering to innocent infants and children that they truly and deeply love.

Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing? If you can imagine any justification for what I do, why is it so difficult to imagine that God also has a justification for allowing temporary suffering inside this mortal process?

Should I stop doing these medical procedures that I am doing if it means preventing worse future suffering?


2) My point is simply that the context of suffering matters.

This thread is discussing suffering but it frequently removes evil and suffering from an authentic historical and religious context and places it into an inaccurate context which is no longer easily justified.

This is why certain contextual comments are both profound and important to consider : Etritonakin said : “If temporary physical suffering it is absolutely necessary to avoid a universe full of endless misery -and to make possible a universe where all of those things are reversed -made far better -a universe full of endless joy, creativity and godlike beings who do not need to be micromanaged, it is well worth it -and eventually won't be remembered.

It should be noted that, according to the bible, at least the present level of pain God states that he has done all of this -that he will undo all of this -and that it will be well worth it. There is no malevolence involved as all that he does and allows is in the best interest of all involved. (post #87)

If this mortal world is simply a temporary process that one goes through, which results in a greater good for a later eternal existenxe, then it is justifiable.


"At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in its due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: 'Go now, descend into this and this place, into this and this body.' Yet often enough the soul would reply: 'Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.' Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: 'Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.' The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul

The reason God could justify having this spirit be exposed to evil as part of this spirits Moral education is that the world and the type of life God was preparing the spirit to ultimately live, was much, much better than the world and the type of life the spirit had lived before.

In any case, I hope your journeys are good as you consider what you will believe and as you construct models of what God is doing in this life.


Clear
σιφυειω

 

[Grandliseur]

If he doesn't, then in what way can you say he is omnibenevolent ?

Never read the term anywhere in the Bible. I don't believe in church teachings.

If humans disobey God seriously, he is going to kill them. Remember Sodom and the deluge.
He once sent a young prophet to Israel, someone I forget. The prophet was told to not to stop and do his business and return home forthwith. He didn't He stopped when someone kind of strongly told him to come and have a meal with him and ate against his orders. On leaving God made a lion kill him. That is not omni-benevolence to me. That is do as you are told or else. It serves as an example to us.

1 Kings 13:21-25 . . .“This is what Jehovah has said, ‘For the reason that you rebelled against the order of Jehovah and did not keep the commandment with which Jehovah your God commanded you, 22 but you went back that you might eat bread and drink water in the place about which he spoke to you: “Do not eat bread or drink water,” your dead body will not come into the burial place of your forefathers.’” 23 And it came about after his eating bread and after his drinking that he at once saddled for him the ***, that is, for the prophet whom he had brought back. 24 And he got on his way. Later a lion found him on the road and put him to death, and his dead body came to be thrown onto the road. And the *** was standing beside it, and the lion was standing beside the dead body. 25 And here there were men passing by, so that they got to see the dead body thrown onto the road and the lion standing beside the dead body. Then they came in and spoke of it in the city in which the old prophet was dwelling.

​

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

God created a world for his creations- which had no suffering, no worry, no grief, or even sadness- no ability to do evil even, and this world still exists today, for Jellyfish.

Of course this means no joy, love, happiness, or any means to do good in the world either.

would you trade? me neither

 

[Ponder This]

It seems logically possible at the very least.

It is possible to imagine the logical value of any statement to be 'true'. This does not make those statements true.

And even if it were not, then it is still possible to imagine a world without Smallpox, isn't it ?

Well that's just it: imagining things to be so is different from things actually being so or being possible logically. It does not suffice to simply imagine a world without small pox.

Not relevant to the discussion. If you think otherwise, please explain.

If we are going to talk about "The Problem of Evil", then it helps to know if evil is subjective or not. If evil is subjective, then it means subjective solutions exist.

Being invulnerable solves every issue you have brought up.

"Being invulnerable" (something you imagine to be possible), may not actually be possible. How can we say that "being invulnerable" solves anything? Instead of saying, "God is omnipotent. Therefore, He should solve the problem... " you instead say, "We could all be invulnerable. Therefore, the problem is solved." To me this is like saying that we can all have sunny days if it just never rains ever again and then saying the problem of sunny days is "solved" (who cares if the world turns into a global desert).

Personally, I think we should take a closer look at the nature of the "problem" before we propose "solutions".

 

[Koldo]

It is possible to imagine the logical value of any statement to be 'true'. This does not make those statements true.

Well that's just it: imagining things to be so is different from things actually being so or being possible logically. It does not suffice to simply imagine a world without small pox.

Imagining things to be different is sufficient to say they are logically possible.
If there is no inherent contradiction, that is if the statement is not necessarily false, then it is possibly true.

I brought up Smallpox because it has been eradicated. So we know it is possible to have a world without it from experience.

If we are going to talk about "The Problem of Evil", then it helps to know if evil is subjective or not. If evil is subjective, then it means subjective solutions exist.

That doesn't follow. If evil is subjective, then it means there might be subjective solutions. You would have to establish their existence to claim that they do exist. That's quite a burden.

But more importantly, you still haven't address why this distinction is relevant. Why hasn't God dealt with evil himself even if it is subjective ?

"Being invulnerable" (something you imagine to be possible), may not actually be possible. How can we say that "being invulnerable" solves anything? Instead of saying, "God is omnipotent. Therefore, He should solve the problem... " you instead say, "We could all be invulnerable. Therefore, the problem is solved." To me this is like saying that we can all have sunny days if it just never rains ever again and then saying the problem of sunny days is "solved" (who cares if the world turns into a global desert).

Personally, I think we should take a closer look at the nature of the "problem" before we propose "solutions".

It seems you are confusing nomological possibility with logical possibility.
It is logically possible that 'I can jump into outer space using only my own strength.' but that is nomologically impossible given the actual laws of nature.

 

[Ponder This]

Imagining things to be different is sufficient to say they are logically possible.
If there is no inherent contradiction, that is if the statement is not necessarily false, then it is possibly true.

If I imagine that it is possible that God can both make a stone too heavy to lift and also be able to lift it, then it means that it is within the realm of imagination even though it is not logically possible. Thus it is self-evident that imagining things to be possible is not equivalent to those things being logically possible.

I brought up Smallpox because it has been eradicated. So we know it is possible to have a world without it from experience.

Actually, you've shown that things that are possible not necessarily so. You haven't shown that small pox was not inevitable. In fact, we could easily argue that it was only eradicated because it existed (suggesting that a world in which small pox never occurs might not be possible without first having a world in which small pox does occur).

That doesn't follow. If evil is subjective, then it means there might be subjective solutions. You would have to establish their existence to claim that they do exist. That's quite a burden.

What I mean is: if things are good or evil only because you decide they are, then you can solve the problem by making a different decision about what is good or evil. The existence of an objective evil is essential to the "Problem of Evil". In other words, things can't simply be evil because you have decided they are. For example: small pox. Did we decide small pox was evil or do we have an objective reason why small pox is evil? Is small pox evil simply because we can imagine a world without small pox?

But more importantly, you still haven't address why this distinction is relevant. Why hasn't God dealt with evil himself even if it is subjective ?

If it is subjective, then the "problem" isn't God. If the problem objective, then maybe we should be wondering why God hasn't dealt with it.

It seems you are confusing nomological possibility with logical possibility.
It is logically possible that 'I can jump into outer space using only my own strength.' but that is nomologically impossible given the actual laws of nature.

The matter is somewhat more subtle than that.

 

[Meow Mix]

As to why the world in general has to suffer, Jesus himself somewhat avoided that question (side stepped it)
. Perhaps because it is a bit lengthy and perhaps because many won't understand it.

Some of what you quoted reminded me of Romans 9 in some senses.

In any case, this was what my original post said: "eventually, special pleading will happen in this conversation. Someone will say, 'God does or allows horrible things for unknowable reasons.'"

The promise is that this is what is going to happen soon for us.
The problem here is free will for angels, for human beings. Another related problem is that God obeys his own laws of justice that he asks others to obey. Until a legal precedent had been established (which we have been doing while suffering) God cannot disregard his own laws and just by power do away with those who dissent. So, while satan's rule of our world has caused a lot of pain, it also has given the faithful a chance to prove themselves worthy of the reward.

There is no hell, no life after death, only eternal non existence. However, those whom God think should have a chance of eternal life will be given resurrections after satan has been put in the abyss.
I am sure you would have liked something less complex and less painful. What is - is; what isn't - is not.

Allowing suffering and then trying to make up for it later still doesn't meet a rigorous definition of benevolence, though. This is just saying "God is malevolent at first, but then makes up for it."

 

[Meow Mix]

Based on the only reality we know, and are allowed to know... it's actually not. I understand we can imagine there could be alternate realities, or a change in physical dynamics of the universe made by some controlling interest (i.e. God)... however none of that can even matter until we are faced with it, or faced with some sort of choice between an ACTUAL difference in such circumstances. We can use our imagination to create all sorts of scenarios, sure... but there isn't much good in it outside of entertainment.

If something is logically possible, then God can actualize it: so it's a fair question. It *is* possible to have a universe where physical suffering isn't possible. That means choosing to create a universe where it is makes God culpable for it.

Part of me thinks that, given our intellect and level of conscious awareness, humans would simply adapt to a new system in which there were no physical suffering by labeling even the most basic level of boredom as the new "suffering." That we'd just slide the entire scale from "suffering" to "happiness" over and the "worst" we encountered in our existence would be the new "suffering." In a few generations, if we didn't have the old benchmark of physical suffering like we experience now to compare against, why wouldn't we?

I've considered that; but to make my case here, I just need to show that there's an entire *category* of suffering that can be eliminated: there's no sliding scale when an entire category is gone. For instance, in a universe where there are no tornadoes or floods or anything else besides stubbed toes, people might consider stubbed toes just the worst possible thing in the world (which, I guess by definition, it would be). But if it's possible to remove *all* physical suffering -- which it is -- this sliding scale isn't a problem.

Now, would there still be suffering in such a world? Yes, if we have free will: the best example I can think of is something like unrequited love. You might suffer if you love someone and they don't love you back. But that's a consequence of having free will. Physical suffering doesn't *have* to be.