• 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?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.
I said: 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 do not know what you mean by me taking a rational approach to theology, but I respect your opinion because you know a lot more about theology that I do.
.
My issue is that I do not necessarily believe that God has all the attributes that other Baha'is and Christians believe He has, such as All-Loving, All-Merciful, Omnibenevolent, Just, etc. I believe that God is Infallible, All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Wise because it makes logical sense to me that God would have to have those attributes in order to be God, but in order for me to believe that God is All-Loving, All-Merciful, Omnibenevolent and Just, I'd have to see some evidence of that as reflected in this world. I cannot believe it solely based upon scriptures.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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.

You seem like a thinker. And that is more than welcome. Mike, the reason I told you that this thread is not about theology but theodicy is because theists must engage in a concept called methodological naturalism in many subjects and it is demanded atheists as well in some subjects. Thus, for this subject, though there is no proper standard called methodological theism, since the subject is on theodicy, it is imperative that you assume for the sake of the subject that there is a God and that he is being stupid, clever, fair or unfair, but the platform has to be that God exists.

Otherwise you cannot discuss this subject.

I hope you understand.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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).
Then Imo, that rules out an omnibenevolent God.....
Of course, believers can and do say that the suffering that comes upon people is for their own good in the long run because it helps them grow spiritually, but I do not buy that bill of goods. Sometimes suffering is beneficial, but not always. The next line of argument you will get from some believers is that people just don't know what is good for them, only God knows. That's possible, but I find that pill hard to swallow, and even if it is true, many people are still suffering through no fault of their own, and not all people have religion that can help them make sense of why they have to suffer, nor do all people have other people they can turn to for help.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I said: 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 do not know what you mean by me taking a rational approach to theology, but I respect your opinion because you know a lot more about theology that I do.
.
My issue is that I do not necessarily believe that God has all the attributes that other Baha'is and Christians believe He has, such as All-Loving, All-Merciful, Omnibenevolent, Just, etc. I believe that God is Infallible, All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Wise because it makes logical sense to me that God would have to have those attributes in order to be God, but in order for me to believe that God is All-Loving, All-Merciful, Omnibenevolent and Just, I'd have to see some evidence of that as reflected in this world. I cannot believe it solely based upon scriptures.

I was not critiquing you my sister. I was only trying to understand you. You said that you are in-between a rock and a hard place, which I think is because you are taking a rational approach. If you were taking a blind-faith approach you would not have said that. Thats the reason I made that statement. I respect your position. Thus, please take my question directly.

My question to you was to understand the problem you had and I wished to understand it as much as I could. And that is not necessarily to answer you, but more so to understand you. Please dont think that every thread is to answer questions. Some threads are opened only to understand your view more thoroughly.

Hope you understand. Peace.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You seem like a thinker. And that is more than welcome. Mike, the reason I told you that this thread is not about theology but theodicy is because theists must engage in a concept called methodological naturalism in many subjects and it is demanded atheists as well in some subjects. Thus, for this subject, though there is no proper standard called methodological theism, since the subject is on theodicy, it is imperative that you assume for the sake of the subject that there is a God and that he is being stupid, clever, fair or unfair, but the platform has to be that God exists.

Otherwise you cannot discuss this subject.

I hope you understand.

Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for crossing a line.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I mentioned this in the past... it seems to me that this logic fails at the condition "If God can prevent evil but chooses not to, God is malevolent". This ignores the possible condition: "If God can prevent evil, but, chooses not to; God is only malevolent IF there is more evil than good."

If there is more good in the world than evil, if there is more joy in the world than suffering, then God is still benevolent eventhough evil exists and suffering exists. Doesn't this defeat the epicurean paradox?
Perhaps pinning "malevolence" on God if he is unable prevent all evils is only hyperbolic in order to make a point. However, provided that he witnesses a specific act of evil, is able to intercede in that specific instance and yet chooses not to, then God is, at the very least, indifferent in that particular instance. Benevolence would most certainly see Him intercede to prevent evil as He witnessed it.

Even in the case that this particular act of evil somehow lead to a "greater good", meaning that God leaving the specific act of evil to conclude in the death or maiming or psychological damage of an individual involved, there is still the idea to contend with that God, in that specific instance was either perpetrating malevolence or indifference toward the plight of the person to whom the evil was done. That cannot be denied. To that particular person's plight He was either indifferent or an active and willing participant - a witness who could intercede but chooses not to.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Perhaps pinning "malevolence" on God if he is unable prevent all evils is only hyperbolic in order to make a point. However, provided that he witnesses a specific act of evil, is able to intercede in that specific instance and yet chooses not to, then God is, at the very least, indifferent in that particular instance. Benevolence would most certainly see Him intercede to prevent evil as He witnessed it.

Even in the case that this particular act of evil somehow lead to a "greater good", meaning that God leaving the specific act of evil to conclude in the death or maiming or psychological damage of an individual involved, there is still the idea to contend with that God, in that specific instance was either perpetrating malevolence or indifference toward the plight of the person to whom the evil was done. That cannot be denied. To that particular person's plight He was either indifferent or an active and willing participant - a witness who could intercede but chooses not to.
It cannot be denied. If there is a God, God can be cruel.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Benevolence would most certainly see Him intercede to prevent evil as He witnessed it.
The only way God could do that would be to take over the mind of the person who was about to commit an act of evil. Where would that end? Should God take over the minds of all the evil people in the world? If He did that then humans would become God's robots.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The only way God could do that would be to take over the mind of the person who was about to commit an act of evil. Where would that end? Should God take over the minds of all the evil people in the world? If He did that then humans would become God's robots.

What if God just zapped the person, similar to how an electric dog collar is used to dissuade a dog from barking. You only get zapped if you are intending evil. Outside of that, you may exercise free will.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What if God just zapped the person, similar to how an electric dog collar is used to dissuade a dog from barking. You only get zapped if you are intending evil. Outside of that, you may exercise free will.
Why should God do that? Why should God be responsible for what He is not responsible for?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Why should God do that? Why should God be responsible for what He is not responsible for?

I was offering a solution to how God could discourage evil and still have human beings be more than mind controlled robots. He might want to do that if he wanted to prevent unneeded suffering. Why would God not want to prevent evil action?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I was offering a solution to how God could discourage evil and still have human beings be more than mind controlled robots. He might want to do that if he wanted to prevent unneeded suffering. Why would God not want to prevent evil action?
Aside from revealing a Book of Laws, another way God discourages evil is my revealing in scriptures what will be the natural consequences of evil actions, the punishments. That leaves the choice squarely in the hands of the human beings who can choose to read and follow the scriptures of religion or not. If an evil person wants to ignore the admonishments in these scriptures, there will be a price to pay, if not in this life through the criminal justice system, then surely in the next life. There are rewards and punishments both in this world and in the next world.

“The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 219
 

darkskies

Active Member
some creator entities.
If it's about some specific ones, you were right then.
As to the last sentence, suffering babies are irrelevant to the creator entities standards?
Yes, apparently so. I am yet to get a good theistic answer from someone who claims their god is "all-good" or anything similar, and doesn't purport reincarnation (and karma).
 

darkskies

Active Member
Then Imo, that rules out an omnibenevolent God....
I was wrong to call it omnibenevolence in that post, this is my latest on the subject:
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.
That way, god remains omnibenevolent but simply lesser caring of everyone than what is said and assumed by most people.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Why should God do that? Why should God be responsible for what He is not responsible for?
Exactly. You are only guilty for your own actions and you are only responsible for actions you had control over.
By accepting evolution, there is no-one to blame for humans as we evolved from other monkeys. There isn't even anyone responsible for viruses or childhood leukemia. And if you accept geology you can't even hold god responsible for earthquakes.
But believers want god to be responsible, they want god to be able to override the laws of physics.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Exactly. You are only guilty for your own actions and you are only responsible for actions you had control over.
By accepting evolution, there is no-one to blame for humans as we evolved from other monkeys. There isn't even anyone responsible for viruses or childhood leukemia. And if you accept geology you can't even hold god responsible for earthquakes.
But believers want god to be responsible, they want god to be able to override the laws of physics.

Actually, it is not the believers who want God to override stuff and be responsible. It is the atheists that insist.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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 (if it is).


Agreed. My bad; I thought "being" and "existing" were the same thing.

We are playing a game, which involves, what it is(metaphysics), what we can say about that using thinking(logic) and what we can know(epistemology).

Now before we start, let me clarify. I believe, reality is real. But that is a belief and I don't believe in any version of the supernatural.

And sorry for the late answer. There is something, but all we can say about it, is that, it is independent of the mind, can't be controlled by the mind/thinking it differently and it is what causes first person experience in the mind.

So here are 3 variants that all meet those criteria:

- You are in a universe, where reality is real. Your experiences "meet one to one" reality and the universe is metaphysically natural.
- You are in an alien universe, where a non-real reality is simulated. Your experiences don't "meet one to one" reality the universe the universe is metaphysically natural, but the actual physics are unknown.
- You are in a universe, where reality is real. Your experiences "meet one to one" reality and the universe is metaphysically supernatural as for its creation.

You can't know which universe, you are in. So a creator god is no different than all other variants.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Aside from revealing a Book of Laws, another way God discourages evil is my revealing in scriptures what will be the natural consequences of evil actions, the punishments. That leaves the choice squarely in the hands of the human beings who can choose to read and follow the scriptures of religion or not. If an evil person wants to ignore the admonishments in these scriptures, there will be a price to pay, if not in this life through the criminal justice system, then surely in the next life. There are rewards and punishments both in this world and in the next world.

“The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 219

But what of those who have never been presented with a book of laws or reveling scripture? Think of the thousands and thousands of years that those who lived on continents of the Americas, or Pacific Islands, who were never exposed to the Ten Commandments, for example. Were all those people simply forsaken by the God of Abraham?

If one is never given the rules by which to live, how can they be held accountable? Why does this God have such a hard time delivering a clear and universal message? Why all the variation? How does inequitable distribution of the rules reflect the character and nature of God?
 
Top