Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

[darkskies]

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.

I agree when you say that consistency is relevant to me, but saying that "reality is always consistent" doesn't make sense to me because consistency is temporal, and I cannot know the future (e.g. even if acceleration due to gravity were to change, that would still be part of the same reality I have known of up until that moment)
To clarify: By reality I mean everything I personally percieve of, by any method.

 

[darkskies]

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

Just clarifying.

Omnibenevolent*
If a god has this attribute, they must necessarily prevent all harm on people from happening (or at least those who worship the god, according to most scriptures). So, yes.

 

[firedragon]

Omnibenevolent*
If a god has this attribute, they must necessarily prevent all harm on people from happening (or at least those who worship the god, according to most scriptures). So, yes.

Okay. Lets say some people develop an atomic bomb and drops it in a city with thousands of people dying. In this case also you think God should intervene?

Your question is valid, I am just clarifying your position.

 

[stvdv]

Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

How would a theist answer this question?

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?

You asked a question in the OP, I gave a very clear answer

Before I answer the second question I rather like to know if you agree or disagree with my first answer

 

[firedragon]

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


You asked a question in the OP, I gave a very clear answer

Before I answer the second question I rather like to know if you agree or disagree with my first answer

I gathered that the question itself is egocentric.

I dont understand what I should agree or disagree with so if you could, just explain what I should agree or disagree with.

Thanks.

 

[stvdv]

I gathered that the question itself is egocentric.

Aha, now I understand why you asked. My reply was indeed not very clear
NO. I do NOT see a question itself as egocentric. IMO a very good, needed and valid question, as many struggle with this issue

Theodicy means vindication of God. It is to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil.

Some humans consider themselves to be the center of the world/universe, meaning consider themselves that important, that they ask the question "why does God create a world with evil in it?". When they see the bigger picture, and realize that a human is minuscule in the huge Universe then the the issue is easily resolved around the question "why God created evil" (at least, that is how it worked for me).

I dont understand what I should agree or disagree with so if you could, just explain what I should agree or disagree with.

I think/hope with the above clarification my answer to your OP question will be clear to you now.

 

[darkskies]

Okay. Lets say some people develop an atomic bomb and drops it in a city with thousands of people dying. In this case also you think God should intervene?

Your question is valid, I am just clarifying your position.

To be clear, this idea of omnibenevolence is not mine, but a rendering of my understanding of it, with my own application of logic.
I also missed something before, which I'll include now.
If there is an omnibenevolent deity, then either he has to intervene (so the answer is yes, such a deity will necessarily intervene in some way or the other that does not let anything harm people; be it changing the course of history or whatever else) or he cannot be omniscient (which is what I missed).

 

[MikeF]

Oh yes. Its a valid question. How would a theist answer this question? How would an atheist ask this question?

.....
I understand that its a very vast subject. But what are the real questions that atheists have against this God concept with the equation of theodicy and suffering? What are the theistic responses?

What is your take?

What if we look at it in terms of fairness? Consider the baby born with a congenital defect, that is able to live in pain and agony for a year and a half before succumbing to to complications and dying. When did that baby have a chance to exercise free will? How does that sort of beginning and existence fall into a well thought out design or plan? How are the concepts of evil and sin involved in this scenario?

Would not an explanation of random chance better explain the scenario described above? Outside of the way we human beings interact and behave with each other, aren't the conditions of the world better explained by random chance?

 

[1213]

Oh yes. Its a valid question. How would a theist answer this question? How would an atheist ask this question?

Theodicy arose not purely from atheists asking the question of suffering form theists but theists themselves making a whole subject out of it....
...What is your take?

If you mean the “problem of evil”, I think evil is not a real problem. Evil is only something people wanted to know and in this “Matrix” we can learn to know it as people wanted to know.

In Biblical point of view, people wanted to know evil like God knows and therefore they rejected God. That is why they were expelled to this first death that is like Matrix in that movie. In here we can experience what it really means to be without God. Luckily, nothing of this world can destroy our soul, which is the important thing. Body is only like a vessel for soul and body can be replaced. Death of a body is not the end, and those who are righteous, can have eternal life with God. that is why people should not fear anything of this world and we really have no problem with evil in this short lesson, all though this can be a tough lesson.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

…Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. …
Luke 12:22-31

Evil is a problem only in atheistic, Godless, point of view.

 

[firedragon]

Aha, now I understand why you asked. My reply was indeed not very clear
NO. I do NOT see a question itself as egocentric. IMO a very good, needed and valid question, as many struggle with this issue

Some humans consider themselves to be the center of the world/universe, meaning consider themselves that important, that they ask the question "why does God create a world with evil in it?". When they see the bigger picture, and realize that a human is minuscule in the huge Universe then the the issue is easily resolved around the question "why God created evil" (at least, that is how it worked for me).


I think/hope with the above clarification my answer to your OP question will be clear to you now.

Oh yes. I understand now. Apologies bro.

I have to agree with you. What you are saying is that we ignoring the whole of the universe and focusing on "us", vis a vis, the humans. Thats why were questioning it. If we consider the whole universe, we are just a small spec, and just one puny set of species we would not question this existence of evil with a God around. Thats your case.

I do agree with you. Just that, I also must think from an atheists point of view where they would not still be satisfied with that answer. They would still question, even if we are one small speck in the universe there is still suffering and for us it is severe. Thus, if there is a God he must answer.

I think your answer has more to it than it seems nevertheless.

 

[firedragon]

To be clear, this idea of omnibenevolence is not mine, but a rendering of my understanding of it, with my own application of logic.
I also missed something before, which I'll include now.
If there is an omnibenevolent deity, then either he has to intervene (so the answer is yes, such a deity will necessarily intervene in some way or the other that does not let anything harm people; be it changing the course of history or whatever else) or he cannot be omniscient (which is what I missed).

I understand your point and its valid. Think about it. What if God is as you say "omnibenevolent" but that does not mean God does miraculous interventions on a daily basis but his so called "creation" is with natural laws? Thus it has to take the natural course! Thats why sometimes innocent people die of a tsunami! And then there are murderers like bombers who use nuclear weapons to mass murder etc etc? Do you think this God must stop all of that?

 

[firedragon]

If you mean the “problem of evil”, I think evil is not a real problem. Evil is only something people wanted to know and in this “Matrix” we can learn to know it as people wanted to know.

In Biblical point of view, people wanted to know evil like God knows and therefore they rejected God. That is why they were expelled to this first death that is like Matrix in that movie. In here we can experience what it really means to be without God. Luckily, nothing of this world can destroy our soul, which is the important thing. Body is only like a vessel for soul and body can be replaced. Death of a body is not the end, and those who are righteous, can have eternal life with God. that is why people should not fear anything of this world and we really have no problem with evil in this short lesson, all though this can be a tough lesson.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

…Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. …
Luke 12:22-31

Evil is a problem only in atheistic, Godless, point of view.

Interesting point really!

 

[firedragon]

What if we look at it in terms of fairness? Consider the baby born with a congenital defect, that is able to live in pain and agony for a year and a half before succumbing to to complications and dying. When did that baby have a chance to exercise free will? How does that sort of beginning and existence fall into a well thought out design or plan? How are the concepts of evil and sin involved in this scenario?

Would not an explanation of random chance better explain the scenario described above? Outside of the way we human beings interact and behave with each other, aren't the conditions of the world better explained by random chance?

I understand your point Mike. Yet, what if the "randomness" is the plan?

 

[stvdv]

Oh yes. I understand now. Apologies bro.

I have to agree with you. What you are saying is that we ignoring the whole of the universe and focusing on "us", vis a vis, the humans. Thats why were questioning it. If we consider the whole universe, we are just a small spec, and just one puny set of species we would not question this existence of evil with a God around. Thats your case.

YES. That is exactly what I meant ... we are small specs in reality but behave as if we know it all (when criticizing why violence exists)

Title: Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

How would a theist answer this question?

I answered and solved this issue "as a Theist" for myself. Atheists have to solve their own issues with this

I do agree with you. Just that, I also must think from an atheists point of view where they would not still be satisfied with that answer. They would still question, even if we are one small speck in the universe there is still suffering and for us it is severe. Thus, if there is a God he must answer.

I think your answer has more to it than it seems nevertheless.

YES. I liked it, that you split it out in two ... how both Atheists and Theists solve it (having issues "why is there violence")

Atheists are known for good reasoning power, so they don't need me to figure this one out (IF I can figure it out, they can figure it out for sure)
I would not even ask others to figure it out for me, what is the fun in that. I rather solve such riddles myself. Much more satisfying
But then again, I am patient and never give up (just yesterday I solved the chicken/egg riddle .. took me decades)

Note: Nowadays with Google at our fingertips, people easily become too lazy to think for themselves and solve such questions

 

[darkskies]

I understand your point and its valid. Think about it. What if God is as you say "omnibenevolent" but that does not mean God does miraculous interventions on a daily basis but his so called "creation" is with natural laws? Thus it has to take the natural course! Thats why sometimes innocent people die of a tsunami! And then there are murderers like bombers who use nuclear weapons to mass murder etc etc? Do you think this God must stop all of that?

I see what you're trying to say.
I think I might have been misinterpreting benevolence then. Maybe god doesn't need to stop anything from happening, rather only do good when he's the one acting in a situation. In other words, if he is to act, then he must act by doing good; or else he wouldn't act at all. Makes sense.

 

[MikeF]

I understand your point Mike. Yet, what if the "randomness" is the plan?

If the universe operates in such a way that we cannot tell the difference between a universe with a creator entity and one that operates in a random way, why bother with the creator entities? We still just have to adapt and get along with the world as it is.

 

[firedragon]

If the universe operates in such a way that we cannot tell the difference between a universe with a creator entity and one that operates in a random way, why bother with the creator entities? We still just have to adapt and get along with the world as it is.

WEll. Thats true. We can get along with the world as it is. What you are now addressing is the "existence of God". That is a whole different topic.

The topic is not "theology", it is "theodicy". I hope you understand.

 

[darkskies]

If the universe operates in such a way that we cannot tell the difference between a universe with a creator entity and one that operates in a random way, why bother with the creator entities? We still just have to adapt and get along with the world as it is.

Simple solution: a god who doesn't do anything to the natural order, unless he deems it necessary. Saying that either every single thing is either controlled or random, is a false dichotomy. Evil can exist this way because the god in question wouldn't bat an eye to things irrelevant to his standards.

 

[MikeF]

WEll. Thats true. We can get along with the world as it is. What you are now addressing is the "existence of God". That is a whole different topic.

The topic is not "theology", it is "theodicy". I hope you understand.

I think you are being unfair. What is the purpose of theodicy other than to evaluate whether how we experience the world conforms to a world one would expect given specific criteria for a creator entity. Essentially, does what we see support the various truths we are given through revealed sources, scripture.

You also explicitly invited the comments of those who no longer or may never have ascribed to a theistic belief system.

My comment on fairness was well within the bounds of the OP. You provided one possible speculation in response to my comment, that randomness was part of the plan. Another option that you did not mention, was that there is no randomness, that randomness is not part of the plan, but there is an existence of another powerful entity who is actively working to thwart or disrupt a perfect, non-random design.

We are engaged in an exercise to see if what we observe in the world gives us an idea or clue as to the true nature of a creator entity (And to be fair, we should say entities, for there are many who would speculate to that), because what we see does not comport with revealed truth. But if we are looking to our observations of the world to understand the character of these entities, one possible conclusion must be that what we observe does not support the proffered entity as revealed or described, that the entity or entities in question may not even really exist.

 

[MikeF]

Simple solution: a god who doesn't do anything to the natural order, unless he deems it necessary. Saying that either every single thing is either controlled or random, is a false dichotomy. Evil can exist this way because the god in question wouldn't bat an eye to things irrelevant to his standards.

Hmmmmm. I don't believe I was trying to set up a dichotomy, rather providing an example of how what is observed does not comport with expectations based on described characteristics of some creator entities.

As to the last sentence, suffering babies are irrelevant to the creator entities standards?