Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

[firedragon]

I don't think anyone said this. The point is to show that god can't have those attributes and be all-good at the same time.

Someone said that blatantly. But that's fine. Its a waste of time to go about on who said what.

What matters is what you say and the response.

I would like to clarify from you what you mean by "those attributes". I assume you are speaking of human qualities like "all good". Thats anthropomorphism. Yet I agree that there are many theories in theodicy as I even mentioned in the OP which are trying their hardest to defend their already established positions like "God is all good" and he does only good, etc etc etc by coming with various arguments of theodicy. This thread is all about that.

 

[darkskies]

Someone said that blatantly.

I apologize then.

I would like to clarify from you what you mean by "those attributes".

Those attributes are the ones commonly given to gods such as omnibenevolance, omnipotence, omniscience, all-goodness.

Thats anthropomorphism. Yet I agree that there are many theories in theodicy as I even mentioned in the OP which are trying their hardest to defend their already established positions like "God is all good" and he does only good, etc etc etc by coming with various arguments of theodicy.

Exactly.

 

[firedragon]

Those attributes are the ones commonly given to gods such as omnibenevolance, omnipotence, omniscience, all-goodness.

I understand your argument.

Yet, I would love to see each of these so called attributes analysed independently rather than in conflation. The reason for that is, maybe you are taking all the stories you heard from everyone and putting them all into one being.

Let me give you an example. There is a concept of God called panentheism. I this, there is a branch that understands God as a creator, but not like a magician where a rabbit just pops out of an empty hat, but a creation that is cloven from God, but is part of the same universe. It evolves.

This God concept does not have the idea of this God appears in the sky to blow hard at your enemy ship to save you. But in fact lets you run the natural course.

I am not saying you should agree with this concept. But which of your attributes fit with this? Does your mixing of all of those attributes fit this God? No it doesnt.

Thats the reason when you taking all of these attributes it does not work as one. It seems like a false premise to some theologies.

I hope you understand Aketo.

 

[darkskies]

Thats the reason when you taking all of these attributes it does not work as one. It seems like a false premise to some theologies.

I understand.
I am only addressing the theologies that do have this conflation, because the others such as panentheism don't require addressing.
e.g. In panentheism, god literally IS reality itself (and beyond space and time): it's semantic. So whatever evil happens, is going to be a part of god, not something their god would have to interfere with. No plan, nothing of the sort. At least, as far as I know about it.
This certainly does require some more thought, though.

 

[darkskies]

I think I have conceded, a god with lesser of those attributes would definitely not have such a problem of evil at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

It is not believers who want God to be responsible, it is atheists. Their usual ploy is "God is omnipotent so God can do anything." What "God can do anything" means to an atheist is God should do everything I think God should do, because God is omnipotent, thus He can do anything. This is patently illogical because any God who did what humans want Him to do instead of what He chooses to do would not be omnipotent.
It takes no degree in logic to figure out why.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209

 

[Heyo]

It is not believers who want God to be responsible, it is atheists.

You also, Trailblazer?

Their usual ploy is "God is omnipotent so God can do anything." What "God can do anything" means to an atheist is God should do everything I think God should do, because God is omnipotent, thus He can do anything.

Nope.
It doesn't follow that god should do anything because it can do everything.
It follows from the attribute "omnibenevolent". Someone who is omnibenevolent has to prevent suffering from happening (if they easily can) by definition, not by demand.

This is patently illogical because any God who did what humans want Him to do instead of what He chooses to do would not be omnipotent.
It takes no degree in logic to figure out why.

It is only illogical if you misrepresent the argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

You also, Trailblazer?

I believe that God is responsible for creating a material world in which He knew there would be suffering. God is also responsible for our fate because God determines our fate. God is also responsible for death because God created life that is subject to death.

It is there that God’s responsibility ends. God is not responsible for viruses or natural disasters because He does not cause them directly. God is not responsible for our moral choices, so God is not responsible for human free will choices that cause evil in the world. Moreover, it is not God's responsibility for stopping people from making those choices.

Nope.
It doesn't follow that god should do anything because it can do everything.
It follows from the attribute "omnibenevolent". Someone who is omnibenevolent has to prevent suffering from happening (if they easily can) by definition, not by demand.

I do not agree that God has to do that or else He is not omnibenevolent, because there could be a reason for the suffering that we are unaware of and might not realize until after we die.

That said, I am not buying off on God being omnibenevolent because what I see in the world does not indicate that He is, so the only thing we have to go by are scriptures that describe God as such.

It is only illogical if you misrepresent the argument.

You are correct, but I have heard this argument from atheists hundreds of times, so I am not misrepresenting it. You are the first person in eight years since I have been posting on forums that even recognized that it is illogical illogical, so you get the door prize.

Usually the form the argument takes is something like this: “God knows what I would need in order to believe that He exists, and God is omnipotent so God has the power to convince me, so it is not my fault I do not believe in God, because God could convince me if He wanted to.”

Here is another argument I have heard hundreds of times: “If an omnipotent God existed He could communicate directly to everyone instead of using Messengers to communicate. The atheist who repeated that hundreds of times even took it a step further and said that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone; so the mere fact that we do not observe God doing that means God most likely does not exist.”

In other words, if God existed, God would do exactly what I expect and want Him to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

The Bible had been delivered to every nation by the mid-19th century. Admittedly, I believe that it's Laws are somewhat dated, although some Laws such as most of the Ten Commandments will never be out of date.

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?

God delivers a message in every age, a message that is suited to that age. The reason the message has varied from age to age is because people and the world change over time, so what was suitable in a former age will never be suited to the present age, nor will what was revealed by God in this age be suited to subsequent ages.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

I do not believe that there was an inequitable distribution of the rules, but if a people did not receive the rules, they are not accountable to follow them. We are only accountable for that which we are aware of.

Admittedly, the message from God recorded in scriptures was not always that clear, but it was available and readable. According to my beliefs, God has now delivered a clear and universal message through the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, which is pertinent to the age in which we live, and there is a new Book of Laws. Unfortunately, not everyone knows about that message because the Baha'i Faith is a fairly new religion, and if they don't know they are not accountable. However, there are many people who do know and have rejected the message because they cling to the religions of the past, and I believe they are accountable to God for rejecting His new Messenger.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I had to go and get a second cup of coffee before answering this...

God is All-Powerful, so God has power over all things, but just because God CAN do something that does not men that God SHOULD do it, or that He WILL choose to do it.

But what God CAN do is not the important point. The important point is that an omnipotent God only does what God chooses to do, NOT what humans think He SHOULD do. Another important point is that God is not only omnipotent but is also omniscient. An omniscient God knows the best solution to whatever problems there are in the world because He knows everything. Since no human is omniscient, no human can know the BEST course of action. This is logic 101 stuff.

Since God already knows everything, He does not need to be presented with a list of "options that are available to Him." It can be assumed that if God has not chosen any of those options, they are not the BEST options.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is only illogical if you misrepresent the argument.

As I said in my previous post, I do not think I am misrepresenting what atheists say, but in case you are interested, here is a post that proves the point I was making and my response to it, in case you are interested.

#86 A Vestigial Mote, Today at 6:27 AM

#130 Trailblazer, A moment ago

It would not be so alarming if atheists were not serious about the things they say that God could do.

 

[Trailblazer]

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."

Then maybe you should read some other scriptures. After all, the Bible is not the only Word of God, and it is not even actually the Word of God, it is the words of men who were allegedly inspired by God... How much do you think could go wrong in that scenario?

Basically - my point is... what version of God would you like me to believe in?

I suggest you believe in the version which is the most accurate, the updated version.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe that God is responsible for creating a material world in which He knew there would be suffering. God is also responsible for our fate because God determines our fate. God is also responsible for death because God created life that is subject to death.
It is there that God’s responsibility ends. God is not responsible for viruses or natural disasters because He does not cause them directly. God is not responsible for our moral choices, so God is not responsible for human free will choices that cause evil in the world. Moreover, it is not God's responsibility for stopping people from making those choices.
I do not agree that God has to do that or else He is not omnibenevolent, because there could be a reason for the suffering that we are unaware of and might not realize until after we die.
That said, I am not buying off on God being omnibenevolent because what I see in the world does not indicate that He is, so the only thing we have to go by are scriptures that describe God as such.

I find since the great crowd of people mentioned at Revelation 7:9 is an un-numbered crowd, then to me that shows we have free-will choices.
In other words, Not God, but it's us who has determination in our fate (In Scripture we are either figurative humble 'sheep' or haughty 'goats' by one's own choice)
Yes, there is a reason for the suffering that many are Not aware of, but we can realize that reason before we die.
Please note: The man Job was challenged by Satan ( Job 2:4-5 ) ' touch our ' flesh'.... ' ( meaning loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.
So, by way of extension we are ALL challenged and like both Job and Jesus we could prove sinner Satan to be the liar that he is.
Both Job and Jesus under very adverse conditions proved faithful to God and so can we.
Remember: Suffering on Earth is temporary because there is coming ' healing ' for earth's nations as per Revelation 22:2.
No one will say, " I am sick...." according to Isaiah 33:24.
Earth and its inhabitants will be as healthy described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
On Earth, our last enemy 'death' will be brought to nothing - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8
This is why we are ALL invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come !
Come to 'save / deliver / rescue' us from suffering and enemy death.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is only illogical if you misrepresent the argument.

Do you still think I am misrepresenting my argument about 'expectations' of atheists?

"But until this god comes down and personally clarifies what the 'truth' is, all we have is our own sense of empathy to decide what's right and what's wrong.

#58 QuestioningMind, Today at 10:43 AM

 

[MikeF]

The Bible had been delivered to every nation by the mid-19th century. Admittedly, I believe that it's Laws are somewhat dated, although some Laws such as most of the Ten Commandments will never be out of date.

God delivers a message in every age, a message that is suited to that age. The reason the message has varied from age to age is because people and the world change over time, so what was suitable in a former age will never be suited to the present age, nor will what was revealed by God in this age be suited to subsequent ages.

Then by all means, lets look around the world in a specific age. In the year 150 CE, the estimated population of the earth was around 200 to 300 million people. Of that, an estimate 3 to 4.5 million were Jews, and 40,000 were Christians. So, within the same age 98% of the earths population was totally ignorant of the Ten Commandments. For me, this seems quite an inequitable distribution. We haven't yet taken into account that in the Tanakh, Elohim/YHWH/El Shaddai explicitly favors only one group or peoples, the Israelites, and is actively antagonistic to all other groups the Israelites interact with. This is directly from revealed scripture.

I really don't think your explanation holds up to what we observe.

Admittedly, the message from God recorded in scriptures was not always that clear, but it was available and readable.

And this lack of clarity, inconsistency, uneven distribution of message is not that easily disregarded. This should not be the case, in my opinion, given the idealized characteristics that are used to describe God.

And hence, we have this discussion. Perhaps the idealized characteristics are not truly reflective of Gods nature.

 

[MikeF]

Interesting that you say ' selectively chooses to intervene ' because at the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37 this will be a divine intervening, a divine involvement into mankind's affairs.
God's will (Golden Rule for example ) is that Earth be filled with righteous-hearted people.
Only the wicked will be: destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
We all have the opportunity to ' repent ' if we don't want to ' perish ' (be destroyed) - 2 Peter 3:9

Well, thank goodness I'm not wicked then.

 

[Trailblazer]

...... that shows we have free-will choices.
In other words, Not God, but it's us who has determination in our fate (In Scripture we are either figurative humble 'sheep' or haughty 'goats' by one's own choice)

I agree we have a free will that allows us to choose what we will believe, but God has a part in determining what we will choose, since God determines our fate. Not everyone has the same life circumstances so not everyone can make the same choices.

Yes, there is a reason for the suffering that many are Not aware of, but we can realize that reason before we die.

I think we may or not realize the reason for our suffering before we die, but hopefully we will realize after we die.

Both Job and Jesus under very adverse conditions proved faithful to God and so can we.

I agree that we have that potential, but not everyone can realize that potential.

Remember: Suffering on Earth is temporary because there is coming ' healing ' for earth's nations as per Revelation 22:2.

I agree with that in part, because I believe that suffering on Earth will be much less after the Kingdom of God comes to Earth, but there will always be some suffering on earth, because suffering is inherent in a material world. Only after we die and go to the spiritual world (heaven) will suffering be no more.

On Earth, our last enemy 'death' will be brought to nothing - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8
This is why we are ALL invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come !
Come to 'save / deliver / rescue' us from suffering and enemy death.

I do not believe that Jesus is coming back to Earth, and I cannot understand why Bible- believing Christians believe that, given what Jesus said: (John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36)

I do not believe that we will ever be rescued from physical death. I believe all humans will die eventually and then their souls will pass to the spiritual world (heaven) and take on a spiritual body.

What Paul wrote is right on the money. I picked the most pertinent verses from the chapter because that helps to see it clearer. Our dying bodies will be transformed into bodies that will never die. Our transformed bodies will be spiritual bodies. Paul says that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and that means they cannot exist in heaven. When Paul says these dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever, he is referring to the spiritual world (heaven), which will last forever.

1 Corinthians 15:35-58 New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.

44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

50 What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51 But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed!

54 Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,[c] this Scripture will be fulfilled: “Death is swallowed up in victory.[d]

Read full chapter

 

[MikeF]

I am not arguing for it, only arguing for it's possibility. Also, since the person is me and the mind is mine, I can only acknowledge the possibility for myself.
And I think you undermine the mind. The proposition should still be considered given what we don't know about the mind.

All I can say is, given our modern understanding of how the central nervous system functions, it does not seem remotely possible. In your statement below:

I
The mind is quite mysterious, even from a neurological perspective.

I think your use of the phrase "quite mysterious" implies that there could still be some yet undiscovered quality that goes beyond the mere biological components that we and other animals share. The central nervous system of higher vertebrates is not mysterious, it is complex.

Yes, there is still a lot we do not know, but that unknown still falls within the confines of the biological capabilities of the cells that make up the central nervous system.

Given that we know human beings can engage in self-deception, hallucinate, and be clinically delusional, it is best not to rely solely on our individual, personal perceptions when evaluating questions of the mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then by all means, lets look around the world in a specific age. In the year 150 CE, the estimated population of the earth was around 200 to 300 million people. Of that, an estimate 3 to 4.5 million were Jews, and 40,000 were Christians. So, within the same age 98% of the earths population was totally ignorant of the Ten Commandments. For me, this seems quite an inequitable distribution. We haven't yet taken into account that in the Tanakh, Elohim/YHWH/El Shaddai explicitly favors only one group or peoples, the Israelites, and is actively antagonistic to all other groups the Israelites interact with. This is directly from revealed scripture.

I really don't think your explanation holds up to what we observe.

The most we can say is that certain scriptures seemed to favor certain people, but you are overlooking the fact that the Tanakh and the Bible are not the only scriptures ever revealed to humans. Much of the rest of the world are Hindus and Buddhists and other religious people who had there own scriptures. Both Baha'is and Muslims believe that Prophets have come to every nation, and just because you do not know about them does not mean they did not exist. Moreover, there are three kinds of Prophets.. Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah were the first kind, universal Manifestations of God but another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality.

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?

Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.

The Three Kinds of Prophets

And this lack of clarity, inconsistency, uneven distribution of message is not that easily disregarded. This should not be the case, in my opinion, given the idealized characteristics that are used to describe God.

And hence, we have this discussion. Perhaps the idealized characteristics are not truly reflective of Gods nature.

Or perhaps you are limiting yourself to the Bible and the Tanakh as the only scriptures that were ever revealed by God to humanity.

 

[MikeF]

The most we can say is that certain scriptures seemed to favor certain people, but you are overlooking the fact that the Tanakh and the Bible are not the only scriptures ever revealed to humans. Much of the rest of the world are Hindus and Buddhists and other religious people who had there own scriptures. Both Baha'is and Muslims believe that Prophets have come to every nation, and just because you do not know about them does not mean they did not exist. Moreover, there are three kinds of Prophets.. Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah were the first kind, universal Manifestations of God but another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality.
Or perhaps you are limiting yourself to the Bible and the Tanakh as the only scriptures that were ever revealed by God to humanity.

There is only so much one can write in one post. I've already been admonished for posting lengthy responses.

I hardly limit myself to the Abrahamic tradition in my analysis of religious belief. But on this site, the label "God" tends to refer to a Judeo-Christian monotheistic entity. Since the OP uses "God", it is the Judeo-Christian God that I am using as a base reference when demonstrating the variety and inconsistency of religious belief in the world throughout history.