Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[ThePainefulTruth]

This implies that an obvious choice is equivalent to no choice at all.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here with the phrase "obvious choice". Assuming you mean "obvious moral choice", then yeah, I think it's not only (usually) obvious, it's inherent as a result of our full self-awareness. Take murder for purely self-serving reasons. How is that not a moral choice when people choose to commit it all the time, or choose not to? You choose to do evil, or not. How is that not a choice?

It also undercuts its own premises, since if we've established that even the claim of God's mere existence can't be justified rationally, then any statements about God's values and objectives are necessarily unjustified.

I don't claim that God exists, I state emphatically that there is no evidence either way. But from there, it's entirely reasonable to speculate "what if". IF God exists and created the universe that spawns self-aware creatures, the first question the springs to mind is, why?

Beyond that, since there's (so far) a complete absence of evidence for or against God, we could imagine that such perfection would be by design since if there wasn't a designer, we would expect some evidence against God's existence to naturally creep in, there being no designer to hide It's own nonexistence. Of course the problem with using that as evidence against God is, we can't use a lack of evidence as evidence. Clever.

After all, any reasonable basis you might have for concluding that there exists a God who cares about free will would also serve as a reasonable basis for concluding that God exists, period, but you've just argued against any reasonable basis to conclude that God exists.

You keep substituting the language of certainty for an agnostic approach. We have no evidence to conclude "that there exists a God". We can only speculate "if". And even if its possible that God created the universe as a stage on which we could exercise our free will, that doesn't preclude the possibility that free will exists if atheism is correct--it just wouldn't have the purpose a test implies.

The elephant in the room is not the question of the existence of God, it's how did the universe come to be. That's evidence for something.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This rationale only works if your god is not omnipotent. Is your god omnipotent?

According to our Faith He is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to our Faith He is.

Then your argument is fatally flawed, because then all suffering is avoidable.

Can God cause good outcomes to occur without incidental suffering? If God is omnipotent, then the answer is yes: if God can do anything, then God can do that.

If God is omnipotent, then all suffering is a deliberate choice by God that has to be justified on its own merits. It doesn't work to justify the suffering as a side effect of doing something for a net good, because an omnipotent god could have caused the good without the suffering.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If God is omnipotent, then all suffering is a deliberate choice by God that has to be justified on its own merits.

The only choice God, if It exists, made, was to give us free will. All God could do from there is be completely hands off. All the choices between good and evil are ours.

It doesn't work to justify the suffering as a side effect of doing something for a net good, because an omnipotent god could have caused the good without the suffering.

All true except it can't cause the good without suffering. If God exists, free will is the sole purpose of the universe. It could have done anything else instantly instead of stretching it out over 13 billion years, to isolate us from It.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I'm incredibly curious as to where you're getting this information from(?).

God.

 

[blue taylor]

God tells me something else. Is there not only one god?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only choice God, if It exists, made, was to give us free will. All God could do from there is be completely hands off. All the choices between good and evil are ours.



All true except it can't cause the good without suffering. If God exists, free will is the sole purpose of the universe. It could have done anything else instantly instead of stretching it out over 13 billion years, to isolate us from It.

Since you've also said this:

I don't claim that God exists, I state emphatically that there is no evidence either way.

... I feel safe in concluding that you've pulled all that stuff about God's choices and purposes out of your butt.

 

[C-Faith]

There is only ONE God. Ephesians 4: 1-4

 

[Aquitaine]

God.

As in. . . god is directly communicating with you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

SkepticThinker and serp777

It would very much be to your advantage to read and ponder the word of both "Hockeycowboy" and "Loverofhumanity". Both of them speak with the spirit of God and what they say is such a huge reflection on my own beliefs, but put so much more succinctly then I could endeavour to put it, so much so that I feel humbled when I read their word. They are both far better Christians then I am, so if it is the true principles of the Gospel you seek, if it is a better understanding of the character of God that you want then debate with these two emissary of God and the eyes of your understanding will be opened.

Notice that they pull no punches in what they write, yet they both portray the love and humility of the God they worship. No guile and retaliatory hostility in their post as can at oft times be found in mine, they are far more Christ centred then I am, so, you would benefit far more by seeking their opinion then you would by writing huge posts full of frivolous superficial tripe that result in offensive and contentious rhetoric, that causes a desensitivity and derision of it by dulling the senses. You become used to wallowing in deep water to the detriment of the soul. You get used to deflecting insults and misrepresentation leaving you senselessly arguing a point that is not always worth defending so arduously over in an attempt to discredit for intertainment. So, if you listen to nothing else I write, then listen to these apologists of God

Serenity7855, I just now read your post..... I do not deserve such a recommendation; thank you very much! You display a lot of humility!

It is hard sometimes, to put a muzzle on my mouth. But applying Proverbs 15:1 is always helpful.


As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I just try to imitate Jehovah as our Savior Jesus did.

Thanks again.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

... I feel safe in concluding that you've pulled all that stuff about God's choices and purposes out of your butt.

Not only is that not correct, it's an incredibly simple process. Keep in mind this is a "what if God exists". There isn't the first bit of evidence for divine interaction in the natural universe, at least since the Big Bang--before which we have no evidence at all. It's a short step from there as to why God would create the universe and not interact.

The problem is most atheists, like most theists, have been so entrenched into thinking of God in terms set by the revealed religions, it takes a tremendous effort, and desire, to imagine a deist God. Most dogmatic atheists don't want to even consider it because it undercuts their arguments against the easy-to-refute theist gods. Many rational, scientific atheists/skeptics have come around to admitting that a deist God can't be ruled out, e.g. Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Victor Stanger, Stephen Hawking (dragged kicking and screaming) and even Charles Darwin. These two put things most succinctly:

Albert Einstein: "I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

Isaac Asimov: “I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, 'Let it be.' However, neither is there any evidence against it.” (For some reason when I say this, people usually dismiss it out-of-hand. But when they see that Asimov said it.... The Truth speaks for itself.)

 

[Desert Snake]

God tells me something else. Is there not only one god?

Find me the verse, in the Bible, that states, that there is only one god.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Find me the verse, in the Bible, that states, that there is only one god.

Deut. 6:4 "Hear, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one". It's reiterated throughout the Bible, with this verse, referred to as the Shema Yisrael, as the foremost belief in Judaism.

And the monotheism in that is emphasized in Is. 43:10, "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me"

 

[Serenity7855]

How about canning the (attempt at) personal attacks and actually attacking the argument/point being discussed?

Even if you had a miniscule amount of sense for the introspection of yourself you would still have to admit that your words here are some what hypercritical and incongruous. If I maybe so bold as to say, It is a little rich of you to tell me that I am attacking your person when almost every post you yielded to me, on here, contains ether and insult, some kind of clandestine underhanded chicanery or provocation. I think it safe to say that your many posts to me have bye and large been written to either stupefy me or vilify me, or both, with the intentions of making me look like a halfwit who is too ignorant of everything that it would be folly to listen to anything I say and me and belittling me to make me look like an unintelligent moron to other posters hear in an attempt to put yourself in a better position to forward youe erroneous opinions, usually take from Wiki.

You do love to repeat yourself in the hope that repetition of a lie will make it a truth It is called Argument from Repetition Argument from repetition refers to someone repeating a statement often in the hopes that the listener will begin to accept it as truth, instead of providing evidence.
Funny how this happens when you've been incorrect about something.

What I said about genetics and alcoholism was accurate. It was mirrored in the links you provided in an attempt to discredit that information. Get over it.

I am not trying to discredit the information I am trying to correct it, and in the process teach the both of you something to your advantage, so that nobody is deceived by a half story, which is what you and serp777 are guilty of. Both of you have said that there is a gay gene responsible for alcoholism. It is here on this thread written by the both of you. Your persistence with a lie only makes you look guilty and vindicates me.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then your argument is fatally flawed, because then all suffering is avoidable.

Can God cause good outcomes to occur without incidental suffering? If God is omnipotent, then the answer is yes: if God can do anything, then God can do that.

If God is omnipotent, then all suffering is a deliberate choice by God that has to be justified on its own merits. It doesn't work to justify the suffering as a side effect of doing something for a net good, because an omnipotent god could have caused the good without the suffering.

God is All Knowing and All Wise. We may not always understand His wisdom.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

God tells me something else. Is there not only one god?

What does God tell you?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

As in. . . god is directly communicating with you?

Yes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even if you had a miniscule amount of sense for the introspection of yourself you would still have to admit that your words here are some what hypercritical and incongruous. If I maybe so bold as to say, It is a little rich of you to tell me that I am attacking your person when almost every post you yielded to me, on here, contains ether and insult, some kind of clandestine underhanded chicanery or provocation. I think it safe to say that your many posts to me have bye and large been written to either stupefy me or vilify me, or both, with the intentions of making me look like a halfwit who is too ignorant of everything that it would be folly to listen to anything I say and me and belittling me to make me look like an unintelligent moron to other posters hear in an attempt to put yourself in a better position to forward youe erroneous opinions, usually take from Wiki.

You do love to repeat yourself in the hope that repetition of a lie will make it a truth It is called Argument from Repetition Argument from repetition refers to someone repeating a statement often in the hopes that the listener will begin to accept it as truth, instead of providing evidence.
Funny how this happens when you've been incorrect about something.

Okay, it looks like I have to ask again. Can we get back to the discussion?

Maybe you could let me know when you're going to be finished projecting and making things up.

I am not trying to discredit the information I am trying to correct it, and in the process teach the both of you something to your advantage, so that nobody is deceived by a half story, which is what you and serp777 are guilty of. Both of you have said that there is a gay gene responsible for alcoholism. It is here on this thread written by the both of you. Your persistence with a lie only makes you look guilty and vindicates me.

I'm not sure what it is you think you're teaching, given that myself and the other poster obviously already have a decent understanding of what we are talking about.

I actually said a few times that there are many genes that have been identified that are known to increase the risk of alcoholism.

 

[Neo Deist]

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering?

Answer: free will.

God does not intervene with any human choice, otherwise it would not be free will. A parent's choice can affect their children. A criminal's choice can affect a victim. Your ancestors' choices can affect you today.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering?

Answer: free will.

Good luck with that. I mentioned it earlier and its like water off a duck's back. So many prefer to go after the easy target than accept the super-simple answer--while others just prefer to argue.