Should God have created a world without suffering?

[Trailblazer]

But God created the physical world and the human relationships. You can't say God created everything and then list some things God didn't create.

God only created the physical world and set the process of evolution in motion and humans evolved somewhere during that process.

God did not create human relationships, humans created those by relating to each other.

Your religion does not give you any more knowledge than anyone else. We all have access to exactly the same information.

Everyone has access to the information in my religion but it they have not read what I have read then they do not have the same information that I have. My religion gives me more knowledge than anyone who has not read what I have read.

God could still be extremely powerful, just not truly omnipotent. It doesn't make much difference to a great extent, though does subtly adjust some of the deeper philosophical questions about the nature or God and certainly makes it less valid to dismiss out-of-hand challenges to things attributed to God simply on the basis of his omnipotence.

The definition of Omnipotent is having unlimited power; able to do anything. But being able to do anything is not the same as being able to be anything. God cannot be other than what God is because in that case God would not be God anymore.

For example, God cannot be less than all-powerful because an immutable attribute of God is all-powerful, and God cannot be less than all-knowing because an immutable attribute of God is all-knowing, and God cannot be malevolent because an immutable attribute of God is benevolent.

That is my point though. We can't understand how an omniscient being would think and presenting it in a way we understand fundamentally changes it. The simple answer is that we can't know.

I fully agree, we cannot know how an omniscient being would think.

I'd actually argue that true omniscience is logically impossible, since an omniscient being would need to know everything they know in addition to everything else which means they'd need to somehow hold more information than there is in all existence.

I have no idea what you mean by 'more information than there is in all existence.'

 

[Trailblazer]

This sounds to me like a cop out: Sure you can use logic and reason to try understand God and his existence ... as long as it's favouritable to God. But the moment there is a crititque, logic and reason are no longer valid. That's like playing tennis without the net. And to be honest, I have no interest in that.

I have no issues with using logic and reason and I believe that God wants us to use our logic and reason.
The problem that often arises is that what one person considers logical and reasonable another person is not going to consider logical and reasonable because we all reason differently, from our own perspectives since we all have a bias based upon our past experiences and accumulated knowledge.

When I was a Christian I asked many many times. I never got an answer.

An answer as to why humans have to suffer? For one thing, the material world is the cause of all suffering because having to live in a material world brings about suffering, but it also brings about joy. I suggest that you read this short talk: PAIN AND SORROW (Paris Talks, pp. 109-112)

There are two main causes of suffering:

1) Suffering that is cause by humans because of free will choices that humans make and the ensuing actions. This includes the suffering that humans cause to other humans by their choices and actions.

2) Suffering that is not a choice and not caused by the choices of humans. Natural disasters are one example, but the paragraph below gives more examples.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

Man forced to endure what is noted above because God set it up that way. We can kick and scream but we cannot change reality so I think it is best to try to understand what we can understand as to why suffering exists instead of blaming God. I went down the road of blaming God for many years and it is not a road that leads anywhere but to misery. It does not change reality because we cannot do anything about anything that is not subject to our free will. This is logical.

It would be amazing to ask those 230.000 people who died, how they grew stronger. Or the 6.000.000 Jews who died in WWII for 'the greater good'.

I never suggested that everything that happens to people in this life helps them grow stronger. I only ever said that enduring suffering has the potential to help people grow stronger. If someone dies in a natural disaster or gas chamber they have no opportunity to grow stronger from that experience. However, it they survived these experiences they often grow stronger as a result of having endured them.

There are many examples of people who have survived natural disaster who will tell you they grew stronger. The parents of my best friend in high school were both in Auschwitz but they survived and later came to America and raised a family and had a successful bakery business. They would say how they became stronger from that experience. Sure. most people were not that fortunate, but everyone has a different fate. Moreover, I do not blame God for WWII or the Jews that died, as that was the result of free will choices men made.

 

[HonestJoe]

God only created the physical world and set the process of evolution in motion and humans evolved somewhere during that process.

Not just "somewhere" during that process, exactly when, where and how God intended. You can't absolve any being of responsibility for the predictable consequences of their actions, and that is especially true if that being is defined as all-powerful and all-knowing.

Everyone has access to the information in my religion but it they have not read what I have read then they do not have the same information that I have.

You've not read everything I've read either. By default, our knowledge, experience and conclusions are of equal value. Nothing about your religion makes you fundamentally any more (or less) likely to be right about anything (especially not on general topics like logic, semantics or human nature).

The definition of Omnipotent is having unlimited power; able to do anything. But being able to do anything is not the same as being able to be anything. God cannot be other than what God is because in that case God would not be God anymore.

That still boils down to "Able to do anything apart from the things it can't do". True omnipotence is illogical.

You are actually proposing a God who is extremely powerful but still has some fundamental logical limitations. That poses the question of exactly what it is which imposes those limitations (which you don't want to address).

I fully agree, we cannot know how an omniscient being would think.

OK, so how can you define God as omniscient but then claim to know they kind of thoughts they have, defining them as "Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient"? You either know how God thinks or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I have no idea what you mean by 'more information than there is in all existence.'

Imagine there is an extremely simple universe and the sole thing that exists within the entire universe is a single number. Lets say that number is "6".

To know everything about this universe, you need one piece of information; "The number is 6". But, that existence of that knowledge is itself a piece of information so to know everything, you now need "The number is 6" and "I know the number is 6". But now there is another new piece of information you need to know; "I know that I know the number is 6". And so it goes on infinitely. You can never know everything because every time you learn something new, that creates more new information itself.

As I've said, this kind of thing is pretty much impossible for us to really get our heads around and maybe there is some context beyond human imagining where it can work but we can't know that by definition. That does make our applying these terms to something irrational since we can't understand the terms in the first place. You can say God is beyond our understanding but you can't say how God is beyond our understanding because to know that we'd have to understand God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not just "somewhere" during that process, exactly when, where and how God intended. You can't absolve any being of responsibility for the predictable consequences of their actions, and that is especially true if that being is defined as all-powerful and all-knowing.

God is not responsible for the consequences of human free will choices and actions. The fact that God knew what humans would do since God has foreknowledge does not mean God caused anything to occur.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

“the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........
The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

You've not read everything I've read either. By default, our knowledge, experience and conclusions are of equal value. Nothing about your religion makes you fundamentally any more (or less) likely to be right about anything (especially not on general topics like logic, semantics or human nature).

You may have knowledge and experience that I do not have, but I have knowledge and experience that you do not have. I have a lot of knowledge of psychology and logic because I studied it in college and have an advanced degree in psychology.

Not all knowledge about God is of equal value. My religion gives me additional knowledge of God that was not available before it was revealed.

That still boils down to "Able to do anything apart from the things it can't do". True omnipotence is illogical.

You are actually proposing a God who is extremely powerful but still has some fundamental logical limitations. That poses the question of exactly what it is which imposes those limitations (which you don't want to address).

God is not subject to logic because God operates outside of logic as we know it. I cannot address God's limitations because I am not privy to them. Nobody can impose limitations upon God except God. Only God knows what His limitations are if He has any.

OK, so how can you define God as omniscient but then claim to know they kind of thoughts they have, defining them as "Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient"? You either know how God thinks or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I do not know how God thinks, nobody does, not even the Messengers of God know. "Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient" are some of the *attributes of God* I believe God has from reading scripture, they are not related to the mind of God and how God thinks.

Imagine there is an extremely simple universe and the sole thing that exists within the entire universe is a single number. Lets say that number is "6".

To know everything about this universe, you need one piece of information; "The number is 6". But, that existence of that knowledge is itself a piece of information so to know everything, you now need "The number is 6" and "I know the number is 6". But now there is another new piece of information you need to know; "I know that I know the number is 6". And so it goes on infinitely. You can never know everything because every time you learn something new, that creates more new information itself.

As I've said, this kind of thing is pretty much impossible for us to really get our heads around and maybe there is some context beyond human imagining where it can work but we can't know that by definition. That does make our applying these terms to something irrational since we can't understand the terms in the first place. You can say God is beyond our understanding but you can't say how God is beyond our understanding because to know that we'd have to understand God.

Yes, there is some context beyond human imagining where it can work but we can't know that by definition. I can say God is beyond our understanding but I can't say how God is beyond our understanding because to know that I'd have to understand God.

 

[HonestJoe]

God is not responsible for the consequences of human free will choices and actions.

If God created everything that leads to those actions with full knowledge of exactly how they would play out, and would be entirely capable of changing things so they play out differently, how could you say he isn't responsible for all of those consequences (good, bad and indifferent)? Whether it involves a volcanic eruption, a meteor strike, a tree falling in the forest or human behaviour, God would be in complete and utter control at every single step.

Not all knowledge about God is of equal value. My religion gives me additional knowledge of God that was not available before it was revealed.

How do you know I haven't had additional information revealed to me (maybe I don't even know myself)?

I'll answer that for you - you don't know. What you have is faith. You accept whatever you want to believe and dismiss anything you don't. Knowledge, logic or simple facts are irrelevant. This isn't an attack, just a statement of fact and it isn't unique to you. We're all pretty much the same on this point. I'd just be nice (and possible beneficial in the long term) if more people were willing and able to accept it.

God is not subject to logic because God operates outside of logic as we know it.

Except when you want to apply logic such as stating God can't change his nature? You're still trying to have it both ways and it won't work.

I do not know how God thinks, nobody does, not even the Messengers of God know. "Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient" are some of the *attributes of God* I believe God has from reading scripture, they are not related to the mind of God and how God thinks.

But scripture is no more meaningful that anything you or I say if it was written by people equally incapable of knowing anything about God. Again, this is just blind faith. There is no other reason for attributing these "attributes" to God as there are any others.

I can say God is beyond our understanding but I can't say how God is beyond our understanding because to know that I'd have to understand God.

Then why do you keep saying things about God? If the answer is "We can't know", that is end of topic.

 

[CG Didymus]

God is not responsible for the consequences of human free will choices and actions. The fact that God knew what humans would do since God has foreknowledge does not mean God caused anything to occur.

If God created everything that leads to those actions with full knowledge of exactly how they would play out, and would be entirely capable of changing things so they play out differently, how could you say he isn't responsible for all of those consequences (good, bad and indifferent)? Whether it involves a volcanic eruption, a meteor strike, a tree falling in the forest or human behaviour, God would be in complete and utter control at every single step.

Yeah, it's like we wrote a novel and had one of the main characters have something bad happen to him. All the things that led up to that moment, we wrote. Whatever it was a car crash or being blown up while running in the Boston marathon. We put him there and knew what was going to happen.

But TB, and I guess the Baha'i Faith, don't want God to be blamed. Yet, he created everything and knows what's going to happen? But, it's people's fault for making bad choices? Even though, some accidents or getting a deadly disease wasn't their fault? What was God thinking? "Oh, poor Suzy, she inherited bad genes, so she's going to die of cancer at seven years old. Oh well, too bad." Or, this really happened. "Gee, the family goes on vacation to Yosemite and the dumb parents let the kids slept under an oak tree. I, because I know all, know that limb is going to break and crush them. Too bad they didn't know that. Too bad they went on vacation this month. And too bad they stayed at this campground on this day. Oh well, what can I do. It was their stupid choice." Yet, I know religious people who say that God did warn them of impending danger. If that is true, then God does interfere and change things. And I wouldn't doubt that some Baha'is have stories about God warning them and saving them or healing them.

 

[Trailblazer]

But TB, and I guess the Baha'i Faith, don't want God to be blamed. Yet, he created everything and knows what's going to happen? But, it's people's fault for making bad choices? Even though, some accidents or getting a deadly disease wasn't their fault? What was God thinking?

Maybe most Baha'is do not want God to be blamed but I am not like most Baha'is because I think logically, not religiously.

It is clear and plain from what Abdu'l-Baha wrote that God is responsible for many things that happen to us over which we have no control, as noted in the quote below. Not only that, but we cannot control our genetic inheritance or what kind of parents we had and how that affected us later in life. We are only responsible for our moral choices and other choices we are 'able' to make. However, free will is very constrained so we cannot always choose to do what we want to do.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And WHY is man forced to endure them? Because God set it up that way. I am not very happy with my lifestyle but I cannot seem to change it, and I am not sure if that is because I have a certain predestined fate or a psychological problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God created everything that leads to those actions with full knowledge of exactly how they would play out, and would be entirely capable of changing things so they play out differently, how could you say he isn't responsible for all of those consequences (good, bad and indifferent)? Whether it involves a volcanic eruption, a meteor strike, a tree falling in the forest or human behaviour, God would be in complete and utter control at every single step.

Just because God has full knowledge of of exactly what humans would do and would be entirely capable of changing things so they play out differently, and just because God could control everything that happens, that does not mean that God chooses to exercise that control. Given God gave humans free will and dominion over this planet, how do you figure that God is responsible for what humans do with their free will?

God is controlling human behavior because God chose NOT control human behavior when God gave humans free will.
However, God is in control of other things over which humans have no control -- a volcanic eruption, a meteor strike, a tree falling in the forest, a hurricane, a tornado, a tsunami, etc. God is also in control of anything that is not subject to our free will.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

How do you know I haven't had additional information revealed to me (maybe I don't even know myself)?

I'll answer that for you - you don't know. What you have is faith. You accept whatever you want to believe and dismiss anything you don't. Knowledge, logic or simple facts are irrelevant. This isn't an attack, just a statement of fact and it isn't unique to you. We're all pretty much the same on this point. I'd just be nice (and possible beneficial in the long term) if more people were willing and able to accept it.

Maybe you have additional knowledge that I don't have but you do not have the same knowledge I have unless you have read what I have read. That is what I meant when I said "Not all knowledge about God is of equal value. My religion gives me additional knowledge of God that was not available before it was revealed."

You said that I accept whatever I want to believe and dismiss anything I don't want to believe and that knowledge, logic or simple facts are irrelevant, but you don't know that unless you know me and how I process information and come to my beliefs. I certainly do not dismiss knowledge, logic or facts.

Not all people are the same so not all believers believe what they "want to believe." I believe what I do because I have determined it is true and I want to do what is right. I do not always believe it because I want to believe it, because being a Baha'i is not an easy road.

Except when you want to apply logic such as stating God can't change his nature? You're still trying to have it both ways and it won't work.

When I say that God cannot change His nature that has nothing to do with how God operates, outside of logic. God cannot change who God is because in that case God would not be God anymore. If humans changed their natures would they still be humans? Why would it be any different for God?

But scripture is no more meaningful that anything you or I say if it was written by people equally incapable of knowing anything about God. Again, this is just blind faith. There is no other reason for attributing these "attributes" to God as there are any others.

You are right in saying that scripture is no more meaningful that anything you or I say if it was written by people equally incapable of knowing anything about God, but if they were not capable of knowing anything about God it would not be scripture, it would just be like any other book written by man. The premise is that the scriptures represent the Word of God in some way even though that premise can never be proven.

Certainly the Bible is not the direct Word of God because it is the Word of God through many different men who were allegedly inspired by the Holy Spirit. By contrast, the Writings of Baha'u'llah are more direct because He claimed to hear the Voice of God and as he heard it He either wrote His own scriptures or dictated what He heard to His secretary.

Then why do you keep saying things about God? If the answer is "We can't know", that is end of topic.

It is the Essence of God, God's intrinsic nature, that we can't ever know, but I believe we can know some of the attributes of God and God's will for us in any age through what is revealed by the Messengers of God.

 

[night912]

When I say that God cannot change His nature that has nothing to do with how God operates, outside of logic. God cannot change who God is because in that case God would not be God anymore. If humans changed their natures would they still be humans? Why would it be any different for God?

That's still applying logic onto God, therefore, making God bound to logic.

God cannot change who God is because in that case God would not be God anymore.

But God is not bound by logic, so that would be possible.

If humans changed their natures would they still be humans?

That's because humans are bound by logic.

If humans changed their natures would they still be humans? Why would it be any different for God?

That's a fallacy, false equivalence. You're comparing God as if he is a human, having the limitations of humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's still applying logic onto God, therefore, making God bound to logic.

But God is not bound by logic, so that would be possible.

That's because humans are bound by logic.

That's a fallacy, false equivalence. You're comparing God as if he is a human, having the limitations of humans.

God is:Unchanging, Eternal, Holy, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Infallible, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Sovereign, and Immaterial.
,
If God changed who God is then God would not be God anymore.
That is me as a human applying logic.

 

[night912]

If God changed who God is then God would not be God anymore.
That is me as a human applying logic.

You, a human who is by logic, is trying to apply the laws of logic to a thing that is not bound by the laws of logic. You cannot apply laws to something that operates outside/beyond those laws. That's like trying to make a Canadian whose living in Canada, obey and follow US laws.

Unless God is bound by the laws of logic just like how humans are, logic is inapplicable when using it on God. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. In fact, you are committing the special pleading fallacy, accepting an argument/statement as being logical only when it's being used by you.

One way or the other, it would then refute your argument that you've used regarding the PoE.

 

[Trailblazer]

You, a human who is by logic, is trying to apply the laws of logic to a thing that is not bound by the laws of logic.

No, I just go by what scriptures say about God, since there is no other way to know anything about God.
Anything else people imagine God about God is just sheer imagination.

 

[night912]

No, I just go by what scriptures say about God, since there is no other way to know anything about God.
Anything else people imagine God about God is just sheer imagination.

That's irrelevant to what was being discussed, the context of "logic."

 

[HonestJoe]

Given God gave humans free will and dominion over this planet, how do you figure that God is responsible for what humans do with their free will?

I question whether omnipotence and true free will can exist in the same universe. How can we be truly free to do anything if what we're going to do is already know and thus predetermined? That is a whole sperate philosophical problem.

In this context, introducing the concept of "free will" doesn't change anything. God made everything and knows what the consequences of how he made it will be. He remains in complete and unconditional control regardless (otherwise, he wouldn't be omnipotent). Even if he gave us free will somehow, he could take it away again at any point. Nothing can happen if God didn't want it to.

When I say that God cannot change His nature that has nothing to do with how God operates, outside of logic. God cannot change who God is because in that case God would not be God anymore.

That second sentence is a statement of logic though. You are grossly underestimating the significance and scope of declaring that logic can't be applied to God. Pretty much everything we're both saying here is based on logic.

The premise is that the scriptures represent the Word of God in some way even though that premise can never be proven.

Again, the fundamental contradiction you present. You declare that we can't know anything about God but then present scripture as being a way in which we can know something about God.

This is the core issue of many statements of faith and religion. Challenges from outside are dismissed with generic concepts - God is beyond our understanding, God is beyond logic, God is all powerful and all knowing etc. but believers go on to make all sorts of definitive statements about God (because what would be the point of theistic religion if you didn't). My point remains the same - you can't have it both ways.

If God is beyond out logic, knowledge and understanding, nobody can say anything definitively about God (ironically, including that statement ).

If it is possible to make any valid statements about the nature, actions and motives of God (which you do), you can't dismiss those made by anyone else out of hand. You have to address them on the basis of simple logic, theological interpretation and observable reality.

But then that isn't how faith works is it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless God is bound by the laws of logic just like how humans are, logic is inapplicable when using it on God. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

When did I apply logic to God?

One way or the other, it would then refute your argument that you've used regarding the PoE.

What was that argument?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's irrelevant to what was being discussed, the context of "logic."

See above.

 

[night912]

When did I apply logic to God?

Here.

If God changed who God is then God would not be God anymore.
That is me as a human applying logic.

What was that argument?

The argument where you said, "God is beyond/transcends logic."

 

[night912]

See above.

Don't see anything that's relevant in your post that I mentioned.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here.

The argument where you said, "God is beyond/transcends logic."

I was applying my human logic. God is not subject to human logic. God transcends logic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't see anything that's relevant in your post that I mentioned.

Then you don't.