• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I forgot to add omni-benevolent deity to the list.
But I fail to see why an omnipotent etc etc deity is likely to have an understanding of evil that is so radically different than our own.

Do you think when maggots eat at the brains of a live sheep an omniscient deity does not see it as evil just because it is more intelligent than we are?

In a sense, yes. Something that is omniscient would have a perspective so utterly alien and different from the very limited perspective of humans it is not at all hard for me to surmise that an omnimax deity would not have the same understanding of evil as humans do. And that is generously assuming that concepts like "understanding" and "evil" would even compute for such an entity in the sense that we understand them, which isn't an assumption I'm necessarily willing to grant either. Based on mystical experiences I've had, it... well, let's just say point of view and perspective very dramatically changes one's understanding and perception of reality. This is apparent even without such mystical experiences if we just look at human cultural diversity and the stories humans tell. If humans have such diverse perspectives on reality, what does that suggest about an entity that can see all perspectives at once? Something impossibly beyond human comprehension, that's for sure.

In my view as a non-monotheist, the problem I see with the monotheist omnimax god-concept isn't the framework in of itself, but when humans start proclaiming they know what this god "thinks" or "wants" (as if those terms can apply). Seems to me the god-concept is inherently incomprehensible and numinous; so utterly greater than everything humanity can ever grasp that to say much of anything about it at all is folly. It's part of why I have no interest in such a god-concept as I find it an unworkable foundation for any sort of practical religion. That doesn't stop its worshipers from trying, I guess, but I find it very confusing as a polytheist whose gods are far more approachable and comprehensible.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
In my view as a non-monotheist, the problem I see with the monotheist omnimax god-concept isn't the framework in of itself, but when humans start proclaiming they know what this god "thinks" or "wants" (as if those terms can apply). Seems to me the god-concept is inherently incomprehensible and numinous; so utterly greater than everything humanity can ever grasp that to say much of anything about it at all is folly. It's part of why I have no interest in such a god-concept as I find it an unworkable foundation for any sort of practical religion. That doesn't stop its worshipers from trying, I guess, but I find it very confusing as a polytheist whose gods are far more approachable and comprehensible.
I also have a problem with the monotheist omnimax god-concept , but I am in between a rock and a hard place since that is the God revealed by my religion. The best I can do is say that I do not agree that God has all those characteristics attributed to Him.
 

darkskies

Active Member
What is your take?
That this problem of evil only addresses a god's benevolence. Of course, one might point out that this only works if this god is defined to be omnipotent as well, but, since omnibenevolence is impossible without omnipotence ( or in other words o.b. is a subset of o.p. ), such a god would simply not be omnibenevolent ( but could be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. ).
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="firedragon, post: 6981871, member: 45358"

1. righteous will be brought back to life and rewarded.

2. Philo: God is "absolute goodness". This led to the idea that punishment was dispensed by subordinates of God, not by God himself.

What is your take?[/QUOTE]

1. What if the righteous are not rewarded?

2. God's subordinates punish (because God is purely good)? Why not say that the Mafia Godfather is purely good because he has hit men (like Sammy, the Bull, Gravano) doing his bidding. By the way, Gravano plea bargained release from 17 first degree murder charges in a deal brokered by an Italian-America District of Attorney whose father was in the Mafia.

As for the concept of suffering....Thor had a hammer....of course he's thor if he accidentally hit his thumb.
 

darkskies

Active Member
You are aware, that your acceptance of reality doesn't mean, that you are in reality, right?
This reality still exists in some form or the other. It could be created by a mind, maybe smthg completely different ( like a series of binary digits ) or, not created at all; but it does exist. Nonetheless, the question of god remains: Does this reality have a god?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
This reality still exists in some form or the other. It could be created by a mind, maybe smthg completely different ( like a series of binary digits ) or, not created at all; but it does exist. Nonetheless, the question of god remains: Does this reality have a god?

Or are you in a Boltzmann Brain universe variant, where there is space, a computer and a power source. And you are running as a program on the computer, which simulates reality to you?
 

darkskies

Active Member
Or are you in a Boltzmann Brain universe variant, where there is space, a computer and a power source. And you are running as a program on the computer, which simulates reality to you?
I think we're dealing with different definitions of reality here. I'm talking about the reality that we percieve, existing. Whether it's simulated or not is irrelevent as long as it DOES EXIST in some form.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I think we're dealing with different definitions of reality here. I'm talking about the reality that we percieve, existing. Whether it's simulated or not is irrelevent as long as it DOES EXIST in some form.

You are taking the "we" for granted. You as a mind could be alone in the universe and there is no "we".
That, you define reality to include a "we", doesn't mean, that it is true.
Further there is no objective referent for the word "existence". It is no different than the word "god". It is in both cases a first person belief.
 

darkskies

Active Member
You are taking the "we" for granted. You as a mind could be alone in the universe and there is no "we".
That, you define reality to include a "we", doesn't mean, that it is true.
You're right, I was wrong to say "we". I was speaking in terms of the reality "I" percieve. Even if it is only in my mind (or a computer, or whatever) it still "is" there (wherever that is), isn't it?
P.S. I'm just trying to understand what's wrong with my logic here.

Further there is no objective referent for the word "existence". It is no different than the word "god". It is in both cases a first person belief.
Agreed. My bad; I thought "being" and "existing" were the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I think we're dealing with different definitions of reality here. I'm talking about the reality that we percieve, existing. Whether it's simulated or not is irrelevent as long as it DOES EXIST in some form.
The relevant part of reality is that it is consistent and orderly.

Reality means that you can't change it by wishful thinking, nor can or will a "god" entity.
Reality is the security of knowing that, when you wake up, the gravity is still 9.81 m/s², your mother-in-law can't change you into a newt and that radioactive spider that bit you, won't give you super powers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="firedragon, post: 6981871, member: 45358"

1. righteous will be brought back to life and rewarded.

2. Philo: God is "absolute goodness". This led to the idea that punishment was dispensed by subordinates of God, not by God himself.

What is your take?

1. What if the righteous are not rewarded?

2. God's subordinates punish (because God is purely good)? Why not say that the Mafia Godfather is purely good because he has hit men (like Sammy, the Bull, Gravano) doing his bidding. By the way, Gravano plea bargained release from 17 first degree murder charges in a deal brokered by an Italian-America District of Attorney whose father was in the Mafia.

As for the concept of suffering....Thor had a hammer....of course he's thor if he accidentally hit his thumb.[/QUOTE]

1. Well, according to Philo, the sinners are punished, and the righteous are rewarded. Thus, in his concept, if the righteous are not rewarded there is no difference between being righteous or evil.

2. Yep. if a Mafia guy sends his minions to murder he is responsible.

So Thor. Thats your idea of God? Understood.

Thanks.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
That this problem of evil only addresses a god's benevolence. Of course, one might point out that this only works if this god is defined to be omnipotent as well, but, since omnibenevolence is impossible without omnipotence ( or in other words o.b. is a subset of o.p. ), such a god would simply not be omnibenevolent ( but could be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. ).

So your idea of God being benevolent and omnipotent is that he should be intervening in all evil?

Just clarifying.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

Humans love to consider themselves the center of the world, very important
IF I develop humility, open my eyes to the vastness of this earth/universe
Such a question, implying EGO centered, seems really futile to me

Why is that Ego Centric?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
At one point in my journey, the issue of theodicity was part of my thought process. My studies led me to the conclusion that this is an issue in the West not in the East where the concepts of karma and reincarnation hold sway.

Trying to apply this to a single person is hard and fraught with errors from my perspective so blaming a person for their own suffering is not only wrong but will itself lead to karmic rebalancing.

Let's say I murder someone. In a future life, does that person murder me to balance the karma? Do I save that person's life at the cost of my own to balance the karma? I can go wild with other possibilities.​

Add to this a perspective present in a children's song "life is but a dream". From that perspective, when we 'wake up', we realize that all apparent suffering and joy was only a dream so what is apparent to us now is truly not real.

Oh. You know what? You just reminded me that the so called "eastern theodicy" had completely gone out of my mind when I wrote this post. Thank you for reminding how one sided we could be sometimes. Maybe it didnt cross my mind because I dont really consider Buddhism as a "theology" so

Anyway, to your question about the Karma question, I would say "no" as an answer. I am not very much well read in the Hindu scripture but I can tell you that in the Buddhist philosophy, retribution is not important for what you called "balance of Karma". What you are actually addressing is not a balance but a state where its zero. No Karma. How you could achieve this is when you attain Sovan. Its a state. For example, there is this story about two women killing their children one birth after another for several lives. In the end one of the women who was born as Kali meets the Buddha and he gives her Maithri. The cycle of revenge ends there. That child is saved, retribution is not necessary, Kali is also saved because she was simply "saved".

Anyway since you said blaming a person for their own suffering is wrong, but not so according to Buddhism. Because what you are talking about is not really Karma, but you are speaking of Vipaka. This is what has earned for himself. So it is all your fault. You are the one to blame. This is the Buddhist philosophy. Thus, to avoid this suffering one has to understand the chathurarya satya, and take the path of Madhyama prathipadha.

Anyway, thanks mate.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I also have a problem with the monotheist omnimax god-concept , but I am in between a rock and a hard place since that is the God revealed by my religion. The best I can do is say that I do not agree that God has all those characteristics attributed to Him.

I would like to understand the problem you have. I think you are taking a rational approach to theology, so I would like to ponder over what your problem is that you came across taking this approach. Yet, if I am wrong please do correct me.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I also have a problem with the monotheist omnimax god-concept , but I am in between a rock and a hard place since that is the God revealed by my religion. The best I can do is say that I do not agree that God has all those characteristics attributed to Him.

God is not defined by those attributes, Baha’u’llah says "... no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute..."

Thus All knowing is an attribute we see in the Manifestation

“ Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and knowledge of His attributes and not of His Reality. And even this knowledge of His attributes extends only so far as human power and capacity permit, and remains wholly inadequate... All that man can hope to achieve is to comprehend the attributes of the Divinity, the light of which is manifest and resplendent in the world and within the souls of men. ” — Some Answered Questions.

The perfect man being the Manifestation.

Also with God, there is no time

“ For God the beginning and the end are one and the same. Similarly, the reckoning of days, weeks, months, and years—of yesterday and today—is made with respect to the earth; but in the sun such things are unknown: There is neither yesterday, nor today, nor tomorrow, neither months nor years—all are equal. Likewise, the Word of God is sanctified above all these conditions and exalted beyond every law, constraint, or limitation that may exist in the contingent world. ”— Some Answered Questions

Hope all is well! Regards Tony
 
Top