Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

[MikeF]

Curious as to the consensus. Is there any evidence yet that God is either Omnibenevolent, or even selectively benevolent, or even good, or loving?

 

[firedragon]

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?

Why would you assume that Mike?

I understand that its next to impossible to keep a threat on the topic. So before a good discussion takes place, and before people like you and others with thinking prowess have given your insights and criticism the thread is derailed and goes into proselytisation, but I give up.

Nevertheless, why do you assume that a so called people who were never exposed to "Ten Commandments" which I believe you gave as just an example were forsaken?

Who told you so?

 

[firedragon]

Is there are reference to a paragraph or chapter?

One paragraph? I gave a synopsis.

Anyway, since you asked, read through City of God chapter 9 and 10.

 

[Heyo]

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

Can you back that claim up? No atheists I know of would want something from god. They don't believe it exists.

 

[firedragon]

Can you back that claim up? No atheists I know of would want something from god. They don't believe it exists.

But atheists through out this forum, and even in this thread, insists that God must intervene in everything. Much more so than the theists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Is this truly "the only way?" I've heard tell that God has created even the very monumental stars in the heavens. Could he not do something like create a great gust of wind that pushed the person away from the other? How about simply making them unconscious? A beam in the ceiling splits at that exact moment and smacks them in the head with just enough force to knock them out, but not enough to do any lasting damage. Or perhaps each attempt they make to hurt the other person just results in them tripping on their own shoelaces, or their arm or leg just mysteriously loses all feeling as the blood rushes out of it, and they fall over themselves, or need to deal with that immediacy, which distracts them from their target. Or dust billows around the room suddenly and enters their eyes, blinding them. They mysteriously being to sweat profusely, and start to feel dehydrated, while sweat pours into their eyes and they struggle to wipe it away in order to see.

Even if God is entirely intent on hiding Himself and disguising His actions, if He can create and manipulate at will, then He has all sorts of options available to Him. I am sure even my meager imagination (in comparison to God's) has only scratched a very tiny portion of the surface.

 

[firedragon]

Is this truly "the only way?" I've heard tell that God has created even the very monumental stars in the heavens. Could he not do something like create a great gust of wind that pushed the person away from the other?

So that's the idea of God you have right? A God like superman who rushes to save you and blows people away with his breath?

Is that your idea of God?

 

[Heyo]

But atheists through out this forum, and even in this thread, insists that God must intervene in everything. Much more so than the theists.

Oh, I guess what you mean is, atheists demand that, if god exists and is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, than it should intervene?
That's not a demand by the atheists, it's a logical conclusion.
When I say that water at below 0° C (at normal pressure with seed crystals present) should freeze to ice, that is not a demand at water.

 

[MikeF]

Why would you assume that Mike?

Nevertheless, why do you assume that a so called people who were never exposed to "Ten Commandments" which I believe you gave as just an example were forsaken?

Who told you so?

I hope I'm not still crossing lines.

My post was in response to this post:

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.

If I have been following Trailblazer's line of thought, Trailblazer seemed to be saying God is not an interventionist god, that God dissuades people from doing evil through a Book of Laws and revealing scripture. If one ignores the admonishments in these scriptures, there will be a price to pay.

I am merely highlighting the fact that millions of people for thousands of years have not had access to one particular God's Book of Laws and scripture. And clearly, what we know of these early inhabitants of the Americas and Pacific Islands is that their beliefs, culture, morals, social morays are quite dissimilar to that portrayed in Judeo-Christian scripture and history.

The same rules and guidelines have not been disseminated to everyone. What then, is Gods attitude toward these peoples if this is the case? If we limit ourselves to the Tanakh as a source of information about God, God seems quite explicit in His interest in only one particular group of people and an overt antagonism towards other groups that His chosen people interacted with. How is one to interpret this uneven level of interest and attention that is actually documented and not merely based on our observations?

It is not about what I have been told, I am simply asking Trailblazer if one requires access to the scriptures to avoid doing evil, what does this say about God's attitude towards those whom he did not grace with His Word?

 

[darkskies]

And sorry for the late answer.

No need

I believe, reality is real.

Here, by "real" you mean "separate from your individual mind", right?

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.

These are still unfounded beliefs. A mind could be all there is. Separation of mind and universe is not eminent to me.

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.

Sure, they meet the criteria. Still not sure how you got to reality being separate from the mind though.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

................................
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?

1) There was No suffering nor death in Eden. Adam was only offered everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth forever without suffering.
2) Adam could live forever on Earth as long as he did Not break God's law, Adam disobeyed the law.
3) Not God but sinner Satan Not only challenged the man Job but challenges all of us - Job 2:4-5.
' Touch our flesh....' ( loose our physical health ) and we would Not serve God.

 

[firedragon]

That's not a demand by the atheists, it's a logical conclusion.

Nope. Its a demand. Its a false dilemma. Either God has to stop all evil by intervening at every micro level, or there is no God.

Thus, what you said is false. Theists dont demand that God intervenes at every level of everything, it the atheists. Though many of the atheists are also trying their best to bring this thread too to their favourite topic of a teacup flying around the earth or a spaghetti monster or a "No God" argument, this is not a logical conclusion, it is a logical fallacy.

 

[MikeF]

No need

Here, by "real" you mean "separate from your individual mind", right?

These are still unfounded beliefs. A mind could be all there is. Separation of mind and universe is not eminent to me.

Sure, they meet the criteria. Still not sure how you got to reality being separate from the mind though.

Given our collective knowledge and understanding of how we and the cosmos function, I find it quite astonishing that one would argue that all of this is in one particular persons mind.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So that's the idea of God you have right? A God like superman who rushes to save you and blows people away with his breath?

Is that your idea of God?

Hey - I only know what I have been told, friend. That's it. And believe me, the accounts ranged QUITE A BIT. So some believe God is just indifferent. Sure explains what we consider "evil" quite simply and succinctly, doesn't it? God simply doesn't care. However, many many others tell of a God who does care, and who has nearly infinite faculty. That was the specific description of God I was addressing, because this is the God most often described by those who believe in The Bible.

Believe me - when I, personally, read The Bible, I don't see it. I don't see omnibenevolence... heck, I don't even see "benevolence." I mean, sometimes He seems to want to "help" people - but very often it is by giving them permissions to go in and wholesale slaughter some other group of people. A lot of punishments doled out using various Earthly means for crimes that sometimes seem ridiculous and unimportant.

Basically - my point is... what version of God would you like me to believe in? Hmm? You know very well it differs from that of your neighbor by some significant factor. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS for you to point at my concept of God as some "problem." Concepts of God are a dime a dozen. Demonstrate to me using cogent, compelling, real-world evidence that your God concept is the one that truly exists and I'll have a listen to you. Otherwise - DO NOT BOTHER. Seriously. Keep your God concept to yourself unless you have the goods to demonstrate its reality. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

 

[firedragon]

1) There was No suffering nor death in Eden. Adam was only offered everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth forever without suffering.
2) Adam could live forever on Earth as long as he did Not break God's law, Adam disobeyed the law.
3) Not God but sinner Satan Not only challenged the man Job but challenges all of us - Job 2:4-5.
' Touch our flesh....' ( loose our physical health ) and we would Not serve God.

Okay so your idea is due to the original sin, everything is bound to suffer!

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Hey - I only know what I have been told, friend. That's it. And believe me, the accounts ranged QUITE A BIT. So some believe God is just indifferent. Sure explains what we consider "evil" quite simply and succinctly, doesn't it? God simply doesn't care. However, many many others tell of a God who does care, and who has nearly infinite faculty. That was the specific description of God I was addressing, because this is the God most often described by those who believe in The Bible.

Believe me - when I, personally, read The Bible, I don't see it. I don't see omnibenevolence... heck, I don't even see "benevolence." I mean, sometimes He seems to want to "help" people - but very often it is by giving them permissions to go in and wholesale slaughter some other group of people. A lot of punishments doled out using various Earthly means for crimes that sometimes seem ridiculous and unimportant.

Basically - my point is... what version of God would you like me to believe in? Hmm? You know very well it differs from that of your neighbor by some significant factor. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS for you to point at my concept of God as some "problem." Concepts of God are a dime a dozen. Demonstrate to me using cogent, compelling, real-world evidence that your God concept is the one that truly exists and I'll have a listen to you. Otherwise - DO NOT BOTHER. Seriously. Keep your God concept to yourself unless you have the goods to demonstrate its reality. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

Oh no. Dont be mistaken. I have no problem in you having whatever concept of God. I am only observing your concept of God. See, just because the typical superman arguments and the mocking for pleasure is a practice, that does not mean others cannot observe and take in the observation.

Thanks.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Okay so your idea is due to the original sin, everything is bound to suffer! Thanks.

Suffer but Not by God's hand but by man's hands.
If everyone on Earth lived by the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) would there be so much suffering ________________
Also, remember: We are all invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come !
Come and undo all the suffering Satan and Adam brought upon us - Isaiah 33:24
Come and bring ' healing ' to earth's nations - Revelation 22:2
Come and bring the good conditions as described in Isaiah's 35th chapter.

 

[firedragon]

Suffer but Not by God's hand but by man's hands.

Yes but still condemned by God right? I mean, that's the whole point of the original sin!

So far, the women still suffer the pain of labour because of the original sin as in Genesis. So this is your concept and this is why you say everything suffers.

 

[dybmh]

Curious as to the consensus. Is there any evidence yet that God is either Omnibenevolent, or even selectively benevolent, or even good, or loving?

Without evidence that God exists, attempting to bring evidence of any of these seems impossible.

If one starts to add conditions, if God exists and created everything, then certainly a person can point to individual events which render joy, relief, love, self-sacrifice, etc as support for a selectively benevolent God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh no. Dont be mistaken.

Give me a break. There was so obviously condescension and rancor in your post asking me if that was my concept of God. You trumped it up with "God like superman who rushes to save you and blows people away with his breath" - very obviously displaying that you thought that idea ridiculous. And then spaced out from the rest, you made a particular point to re-ask: "Is that your idea of God?"

Believe me - I use those same tactics in my posts. Asking things a second time for effect, using bombastic descriptions of things to trump-up their ridiculousness and make it obvious that I am displeased. The main difference between you and I is that I don't pretend otherwise when called out on it. I believe we've talked about this before, you and I. Still at it I see. Typical. Absolutely and sadly typical. Hope you get better @firedragon. So sad to hear that you're still not performing at peak levels of honesty. Sincerely.