Suffering and evil

[idea]

Since I do not believe in a personal God setting it all up, I don't take the suffering personally.

Most people define God as:

noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"

If the definition is #2, doesn't seem worthy of worship. Worthy of fear, but not love or worship, and without worship I don't see how it could be called God. Semantics. If #1, the God would have to demonstrate moral authority by actually acting in a moral manner - otherwise they are a hypocrite, also not worthy of worship, not a God.

Is anyone worshipping/following a being whom they believe is not loving, not just, not creator, not powerful? What is left to worship?

 

[idea]

I think for the existence of suffering to work alongside the idea of an omnibenevolent God, you would need to be able to show that suffering is either beneficial to us or unavoidable. It would be difficult to argue that all examples of suffering are beneficial to us but I could certainly see a case for it being unavoidable. However, adding omnipotence and omniscience into the mix makes either option impossible as far as I can see as not all forms of suffering are required for us to get the most out of life.

For example, somebody running a marathon is going to suffer. They'll be sore, tired and frequently want to give up but that suffering makes their eventual success all the sweeter. If suffering was confined to that kind of situation then I could certainly see how it could be beneficial and/or unavoidable.

The fact is though that people suffer needlessly, without any lesson to be learned or personal growth to be had. Somebody burning to death endures agony without any higher purpose to it. The free will argument only goes so far here as people die from accidents or illnesses all the time without any decision making from themselves or others. Would it really interfere with free will for God to prevent volcanic eruptions for example? How about congenital illnesses?

I've honestly never encountered an argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God that doesn't fall flat. At least in my opinion. It seems you have to handwave away examples of suffering that don't work well alongside whichever argument you've chosen.

The simplest way around this problem while maintaining a belief in God is to drop one or more of those qualities. @URAVIP2ME claimed that God isn't omnipotent or omniscient in their reply to me:



The problem of evil and its variants (the problem of suffering in this case) only applies to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. As @Quintessence pointed out earlier, it's an issue that the vast majority of god concepts just don't have to contend with.

Exactly.
If you drop one or more of those qualities, I would argue "God" ceases to be God.

 

[Erebus]

We all know the point of this rhetoric .. it is to sow the seeds of doubt .. to cause human beings to doubt God's existence.
In turn, that leads them away from spiritual growth, and towards failure.
No human being can create a universe.
I put my trust in God completely.

I promise you that I have no interest in convincing you that God doesn't exist. I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe.

What I've tried to do in this thread is present some of the reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God myself. I find the concept incompatible with the universe we live in. I'm much more agnostic when it comes to the idea of a creator God in general.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I've tried to do in this thread is present some of the reasons why I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God myself. I find the concept incompatible with the universe we live in..

as @Trailblazer has already pointed out, there is no reason why God should prevent mankind from all suffering.

I am well aware that being patient in adversity is very difficult, but
without it, we wouldn't be who we are .. we would lack compassion for others.

Some religious people say to me "I was following God, but he hasn't helped me .. I am suffering with disability .. why would He do that to me?"

First of all, it is unlikely that God is directly responsible .. it is more likely the works of satan .. he wishes to destroy our faith, and ruin us.
Secondly, the Messengers of God suffered more than anyone .. it is the nature of this life. Truth is seen as a threat to those with status.

... ... ...

 

[idea]

as @Trailblazer
without it, we wouldn't be who we are .. we would lack compassion for others

... ... ...

I do not think you have been around abuse victims. Many do not have compassion for others. Perhaps you have never worked with the mentally insane, perhaps you have not worked with infants addicted to drugs from the womb

Yes, some kinds of suffering are beneficial, other suffering is not. Those who live a sheltered life, without exposure to severe suffering, rationalize their privilege with *god*.

Telling little kids they need to go through hell to fully appreciate others, or go through hell to be refined, is telling them they are evil and sinful (unlike the privileged preacher who was not equally *tested*). Do those from privileged background believe they needed less refinement? They are chosen, better than, and everyone born into war/abuse/poverty deserved what they get because *aporeciation*, &refinement- must need more pain to shape them?


Religious communities increase the suffering of victims with rationalizations that abuse etc refines. (It doesn't always refine, it doesn't make you appreciate anything, it increases fear, legitimate trust issues, legitimate attachment issues).

Might I suggest all the religious people out there please stop further victimizing / victim blaming. It is quite evil, this teaching that abuse *refines* and is *good for you*.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I do not think you have been around abuse victims. Many do not have compassion for others. Perhaps you have never worked with rhe mentally insane,.

You think..
I have been an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital on more than one occasion.

..perhaps you have not worked with infants addicted to drugs from the womb..

We are all accountable for our actions .. many of us suffer through no fault of our own .. collectively, however, it is another matter.

All you are saying is that God should not have given mankind sovereignty over planet earth.
He should not allow evil.
Almighty God has a different idea. The suffering in this life is as "a blink of an eye" compared to eternity.
Naturally, a person who doesn't believe in eternity, will see this world as all there is, and judge differently.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The best rewards are not given, but earned. The best rewards do not come from God, but from within, from our own two hands.

Jesus being and dying faithful under very adverse conditions was rewarded with being resurrected.
That resurrection did come from his God and not within.- Acts of the Apostles 2:24,32; Acts of the Apostles 3:15
None of us can resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us.
Without the Resurrection Hope there is No real lasting point to life from one's own two hands.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The freewill argument doesn't work, as much suffering isn't the result of freewill. Suffering doesn't always refine.
Suffering isn't a just test (student not correctly taught, the teacher, not student, is at fault).
Suffering beyond ability to bear - suicide, mental illness born of war/abuse. God isn't benevolent.
Condemning anyone based on Adam/Satan - unjust, unloving, unmerciful, illogical.
Atonement idea is also unjust, unloving, unmerciful, illogical.
Invited to pray? I know from experience prayers are not answered.

Absolutely, much suffering is Not the result of free-will choices and does Not necessarily refine.
Suffering (Job 2:4-5) was from -> Satan's challenge that under adverse conditions we would Not serve God.
Saying the ' Student not correctly taught, the teacher, not student, is at fault ' reminds me of the person who said if the Priest is wrong, then the Priest, not the parishioner is at fault.
However, once the student or the parishioner realizes, or comes to realize what the Priest or teacher is teaching something wrong then, at that awakening point is the Priest or teacher still at fault, or the person who now knows better that the Priest or teacher is wrong, at that point is the Priest or teacher still responsible __________
Since 'death' (Not death plus any post-mortem penalty) is the total asking price tag that sin pays - Romans 6:23,7 - then even the person who died by suicide can have a resurrection. No double jeopardy involved with suicide death.
Adam had no children before breaking God's known law that carried with it the death penalty - Genesis 2:17
So, imperfect Adam could only pass on to us his acquired un-healthy state.
This is why right away quickly God informs us that He will send us a promised 'seed' (Messiah) at Genesis 3:15
Messiah to come and undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon humanity (us).
Jesus will bring ' healing ' to earth's nations - Revelation 22:2; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
I am curious, if not being nosy, what prayers or prayer were not answered _____________

 

[Trailblazer]

Like I said earlier, if God isn't omnibenevolent then the problem of evil/suffering doesn't apply. However, I was responding to what you said here:

You said there was no reason to think an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God wouldn't allow suffering. I explained why I disagree. If you don't believe that God is omnibenevolent then fair enough but I can only go off what you say here.

Although scriptures do not use the word omnibenevolent, God is omnibenevolent by definition:

Omnibenevolent (of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
what does omnibenevolent mean - Google Search

God is also Omniscient so that means that God knows everything. Thus, it logically follows that God knows more than you or any other human regarding how to create and maintain the universe, since no human is all-knowing. Add to that the scriptures say God is All-Wise. Since no human is All-Wise that means God is wiser than any human.

When you add all this all up it becomes self-evident that any human who questions how things actually are and says they would/should be different if God was omnibenevolent is highly illogical. That of course means there is no such thing as “the problem of evil.” Suffering simply exists and we either accept it and do what we can to alleviate it, or we blame God, which does no good at all.

I know all this since I have suffered for most of my life and for a fair part of my life I blamed God for my suffering. It took years and a lot of analytical thinking to turn that ship around. Scriptures were only a small part of what helped me understand suffering because I fought those tooth and nail, until I finally realized they were right and I was wrong. I had to push my ego out of the way in order to get to where I am today, and I have to constantly be on guard lest I fall back into that trap.

This strikes me as handwaving away suffering that doesn't easily fit the idea of a divine plan. I can accept that some forms of suffering could be unavoidable or even beneficial (such as the marathon example I gave earlier) but it's not difficult to find examples where that isn't the case.

God wouldn't have to control everything people do in order to prevent the existence of natural disasters or congenital illnesses. If living things do have to die then there's no reason why their deaths should be painful.

It all fits the divine plan since it is part of the divine plan that humans will suffer. That means there is a purpose for suffering even though humans cannot always understand it. The reason why some deaths are painful and others aren’t is just the luck of the draw, part and parcel of living in a material world, which is a mixed bag, containing both joy and suffering. It makes no sense for God to prevent the very suffering that He built into the system.

I believe that God prevents suffering on a case-by-case basis, but that is only at God’s discretion, not ours. We can pray for something such as when someone is sick and dying, but if it is not in the best interest of everyone involved to prevent that person from dying, God is not going to. I went through that fairly recently and I had to accept the outcome as God’s will.

I believe that God is omnibenevolent because I can make sense of that in my mind, but I question whether God is All-loving, as the scriptures say, because I cannot make sense of that in my mind. It is my right to question what does not make sense to be just as it is your right to question what does not make sense to you.

As a side-note, the necessity of suffering takes another hit if somebody believes in a heaven free of suffering. I don't know what your personal beliefs are but an existence without disease or pain is an extremely common motif in heaven concepts.

I do not know why that would involve another hit. It makes perfect logical sense that heaven would be free of suffering. If God is benevolent and just, why would suffering continue after we leave this world? Moreover, the reason there will be no more disease and pain in the heaven is because we will no longer have a physical body, we will have a spiritual body which is not subject to pain, decay, and death, decay. That teaching is in the Bible

1 Corinthians 15:40,44 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.

This is no different from what the Baha’i Faith teaches about the spiritual world (heaven).

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

I strongly suspect that you would hold humans to a higher standard than you hold God to here. Unless your argument is that we should do nothing to prevent or alleviate suffering ourselves, why shouldn't we expect an omnipotent, omniscient being to step in?

I hold God to no standards because that is completely illogical to hold God to any standards, because that would be akin to saying that God is accountable to humans, when it is the other way around.

The very minute we ‘expect’ an omnipotent, omniscient being to step in we are putting expectations on God, which is highly illogical, since it is God who has expectations of humans, not the other way around.

Humans should do all they can so to prevent or alleviate suffering, but there is no reason why God should be expected to do so, since God is not accountable to humans for anything He chooses to do. That said, I believe God does prevent and alleviate some human suffering, although there is no way we can every know if or when God does so, since humans cannot know the actions of God. We can only have faith and believe.

If the reason is that God just doesn't want to, that God plays favourites or that God sees suffering as a good thing, then describing God as omnibenevolent makes no sense to me. Since you've said that you don't view God as omnibenevolent and that you believe he plays favourites, I'm not sure why you took issue with my initial post?

God does not necessarily see suffering as a ‘good thing.’ But apparently it was necessary so that is why God built suffering into the creation. Why some people suffer more than other people is partly because of free will and choices people make, but much of human suffering is not by choice; it is because of choices other people make that cause us to suffer, and also because things happen to us that are beyond our control, such as diseases and natural disasters. I believe that God is responsible for those things because those are our fate.

God can be omnibenevolent and also bestow favor on certain people and withhold it from other people. Since God is All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Wise, God knows what He is doing and why, and thus it is God’s choice upon whom He bestows favor. Whenever we start questioning God's choices we are acting as if we know more than God, which is logically impossible.

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.” Gleanings, p. 73

“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, p. 209

“Say: He ordaineth as He pleaseth, by virtue of His sovereignty, and doeth whatsoever He willeth at His own behest. He shall not be asked of the things it pleaseth Him to ordain. He, in truth, is the Unrestrained, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, p, 284

You don't believe in that God either so where is our argument coming from?

As noted above, I do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. I just don’t believe that God would do what you expect Him to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

True. And, personally, natural causes I can accept, but much else I have never done so, and mostly put such things down to our 'human' nature, and as to such this has evolved over time and necessarily has tendencies and habits that can reinforce bad behaviour and/or attitudes to others, and often due to insecurity. Hence why we perhaps have so much selfishness, greed, arrogance, and often hatred.

Yes, all this is because of our human nature, so it makes no sense to blame God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right. If a human can point out instances where suffering is needless, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being should have no trouble with it whatsoever. If it's possible to envision a better world, why wouldn't God make it that way in the first place?

God made the world the way it had to be in order to give humans the opportunity to best prepare themselves for the next world, which is the main act of the play that is eternal. If there was no suffering in this world, there would be no spiritual growth and humans would not be prepared for the next world which is a purely spiritual world.

I assume you're talking about heaven here, right? A better world?

So it is possible for God to create something better after all

If by better you mean free of suffering, yes, it is possible for God to create such a world, but for us to prepare ourselves for that world we need to suffer through this world. We have to learn and grow and perfect our characters and that does not happen if we live al our lives on easy street and never suffer.

You do raise an interesting point though: What exactly is benevolent about creating beings capable of choosing evil in the first place? Why is our existence necessary for God to be considered omnibenevolent?

If we could not choose evil then we could not choose good, can't have one without the other.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem of evil is that the ideas of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence lead to a world with no gratuitous suffering, which world we don't live in.

Gratuitous suffering is suffering that is uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.
You are not God so you are not All-Knowing or All-Wise, and as such do not know what suffering is uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.

It is really as simple as that. All you have is an ego-based personal opinion about the way the world should be if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would be a god worth respecting. The universe would be better if its indolent god were replaced by one of benevolent action.

Only in your personal opinion. In my personal opinion, if God rescued everyone like Superman that would not be benevolent because it would negate the entire purpose of this life.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct. It only means that there is no tri-omni deity.

Only in your personal opinion, so I would exercise caution when stating it as a fact. Facts are known and provable, personal opinions aren't.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not the answer given. You left out omnibenevolent. Throw that in, and you have your answer. You're free to create your own theology that leaves out omnibenevolence or any kind of benevolence at all, and you'll restore coherence to your position. There is no reason to expect a deity no longer involved in our universe or unaware that we exist or powerless to help us or indifferent to our needs and desires to prevent suffering. But that's not the theodicy problem any more nor any kind of problem

None of that describes the deity. The deity is involved in our universe or and the deity is fully aware that we exist and the deity has all power to help us. The deity is not indifferent to our needs and desires to prevent suffering. The deity gives us exactly what we need to prevent our own suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most people define God as:

noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
   
   
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
   "a moon god"

If the definition is #2, doesn't seem worthy of worship. Worthy of fear, but not love or worship, and without worship I don't see how it could be called God. Semantics. If #1, the God would have to demonstrate moral authority by actually acting in a moral manner - otherwise they are a hypocrite, also not worthy of worship, not a God.

Please note that the definition #1 says that God is the source of all moral authority.
God sets the standards for human morality, which is what most people live by, whether they believe in God or not.
Thus God is the source of all morality for humans. God is not subject to morality, only humans are subject to morality.

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

God does not have to act in a moral manner because God is not a human.
God is by His nature all-good, God cannot be bad. Only humans can be good or bad.

Is anyone worshipping/following a being whom they believe is not loving, not just, not creator, not powerful? What is left to worship?

No, people who worship God believe that God has one or all of those attributes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Almighty God has a different idea. The suffering in this life is as "a blink of an eye" compared to eternity.
Naturally, a person who doesn't believe in eternity, will see this world as all there is, and judge differently.

The afterlife is practically the whole ball of wax... if there is no afterlife, God could easily be viewed as cruel and unjust.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The explanation I like best is: The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. Those who rise above the worst of the worst ( death and suffering of innocents ) and are able to maintain their faith, continue to be productive, never quit are rewarded greatly.

Is this a Christian belief? I was thinking the belief is people who keep their faith go to the Christian version of heaven and within this heaven, there aren’t levels. So, how do some people get “rewarded greatly”?

 

[MonkeyFire]

When it comes to hate, it is better to catch evil, than to have just let evil be naught and not let haters exist simultaneously.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, all this is because of our human nature, so it makes no sense to blame God.

No, just evolution, and I'm sure most non-believers just accept this too, since it makes more sense.