Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

People will always complain. If God kills Hitler as a child, why would He kill an innocent child? If Hitler grows up and kills many people, why couldn't have God killed him before?

So are you saying that all the children who have died were destined to be terrible people who would do terrible things when they grew up?

 

[sunni56]

So are you saying that all the children who have died were destined to be terrible people who would do terrible things when they grew up?

I don't remember typing that. What I did type though, was that either way people will always complain. The reason why we will always complain is because we have no idea why God has done a specific thing to a specific person, there is information bias. We are a victim of a lack of information, information that is only accessible to the All-knowing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I really do not understand why people feel the need to characterise god as being all knowing, all powerful and all benevolent in the first place... limit any one of those three characteristics and the existence of suffering (just like the existence of joy) is simply par for course.

Okay, so I DO understand why people feel the need - but I don't understand how they could feel it satisfied by such a characterization. It should produce a ludicrous amount of cognitive dissonance in anyone capable of recognizing suffering as something which exists and is not a 'good' state of affairs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't remember typing that. What I did type though, was that either way people will always complain. The reason why we will always complain is because we have no idea why God has done a specific thing to a specific person, there is information bias. We are a victim of a lack of information, information that is only accessible to the All-knowing.

I'm sorry but that's the implication I walked away with after reading it.

I find this merely to be a convenient excuse to explain away human suffering.

 

[sunni56]

I'm sorry but that's the implication I walked away with after reading it.

I find this merely to be a convenient excuse to explain away human suffering.

It's a fact, whether you like it or not we have no idea why God does anything to anyone. I guess we'll find out later. You can't be the judge of something you don't know about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's a fact, whether you like it or not we have no idea why God does anything to anyone. I guess we'll find out later. You can't be the judge of something you don't know about.

If it were a fact, you should be able to prove that the god you believe in exists. So can you?

And if we have no way of knowing why god does anything, what's with all the holy books that are supposed to be explaining that very thing to us? I've met a whole lot of people that assert they know exactly why god does just about everything, except when they get to the suffering thing then suddenly everything is a big mystery.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[darkendless]

It's a fact, whether you like it or not we have no idea why God does anything to anyone. I guess we'll find out later. You can't be the judge of something you don't know about.

Yet we know his stance on matters such as homosexuality and slavery right?

How do we know we got this right? It seems more acceptable for anti-homosexual people to burn in hell for being so cruel than homosexuals who's only crime is love.

 

[sunni56]

If it were a fact, you should be able to prove that the god you believe in exists. So can you?

And if we have no way of knowing why god does anything, what's with all the holy books that are supposed to be explaining that very thing to us? I've met a whole lot of people that assert they know exactly why god does just about everything, except when they get to the suffering thing then suddenly everything is a big mystery.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant, that's the beauty of it

 

[SkepticThinker]

Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant, that's the beauty of it

I'm interested in what's true and demonstrable. Not bold assertions lacking in evidence.

 

[sunni56]

I'm interested in what's true and demonstrable. Not bold assertions lacking in evidence.

That's ironic, since the "evil" nature of human suffering is neither true nor demonstrable. Subjective hogwash.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's ironic, since the "evil" nature of human suffering is neither true nor demonstrable. Subjective hogwash.

Who said it was evil? Not I.

I say it's needless and cruel, especially if administered by a deity.

Nice attempt to turn the tables on me and away from your own assertions though.

 

[sunni56]

Who said it was evil? Not I.

I say it's needless and cruel, especially if administered by a deity.

Nice attempt to turn the tables on me and away from your own assertions though.

"Needless" and "cruel". Two baseless subjective verdicts. So much for truth and evidence. Not demonstrable either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Needless" and "cruel". Two baseless subjective verdicts. So much for truth and evidence.

It's needless because it needn't be the case that people suffer. For instance, people needn't starve to death given that there is enough wealth and enough resources in this world to stop that from happening. That's not a baseless claim. It's a conclusion drawn from factual information.

"Cruel" means "causing pain or suffering." Enough said.

I'd say the vast majority of people would rather not suffer than suffer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now how about addressing what I said?

If it were a fact, you should be able to prove that the god you believe in exists. So can you?

And if we have no way of knowing why god does anything, what's with all the holy books that are supposed to be explaining that very thing to us? I've met a whole lot of people that assert they know exactly why god does just about everything, except when they get to the suffering thing then suddenly everything is a big mystery.

 

[sunni56]

It's needless because it needn't be the case that people suffer. For instance, people needn't starve to death given that there is enough wealth and enough resources in this world to stop that from happening. That's not a baseless claim. It's a conclusion drawn from factual information.

"Cruel" means "causing pain or suffering." Enough said.

I'd say the vast majority of people would rather not suffer than suffer.

Subjective hogwash. You will not get away with sticking labels on things without demonstrable sound evidence, which is your own criteria, not mine. Calling something needless and then not having some type of objectivity makes you basically a hypocrite mr "I only deal with truth and demonstrable evidence". You reap what you sow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Subjective hogwash. You will not get away with sticking labels on things without demonstrable sound evidence, which is your own criteria, not mine. Calling something needless and then not having some type of objectivity makes you basically a hypocrite mr "I only deal with truth and demonstrable evidence". You reap what you sow.

Says the person who accepts an ancient text as absolute fact and denies verifiable scientific information. Nice try again.

I just explained to you why it's needless, given observation of cause and effect, and basic reasoning.

I'm a female, by the way.


So how about addressing what I said now:

If it were a fact, you should be able to prove that the god you believe in exists. So can you?

And if we have no way of knowing why god does anything, what's with all the holy books that are supposed to be explaining that very thing to us? I've met a whole lot of people that assert they know exactly why god does just about everything, except when they get to the suffering thing then suddenly everything is a big mystery.

 

[sunni56]

Says the person who accepts an ancient text as absolute fact and denies verifiable scientific information. Nice try again.

I just explained to you why it's needless, given observation of cause and effect, and basic reasoning.

I'm a female, by the way.


So how about addressing what I said now:

If it were a fact, you should be able to prove that the god you believe in exists. So can you?

And if we have no way of knowing why god does anything, what's with all the holy books that are supposed to be explaining that very thing to us? I've met a whole lot of people that assert they know exactly why god does just about everything, except when they get to the suffering thing then suddenly everything is a big mystery.

I'm not addressing anything you've got to say until you provide demonstrable objective evidence for your statements sir. Your criteria, not mine. Now, are you going to live up to your standards or are you just another hypocrite trolling around?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm not addressing anything you've got to say until you provide demonstrable objective evidence for your statements sir. Your criteria, not mine. Now, are you going to live up to your standards or are you just another hypocrite trolling around?

I LOVE this! Perhaps if one adhered to Thomas J.J Altizer the theory of th existence of god in relation to theist would make on sound more resonable to both parties.
But even though I myself believe in god it is highly ignorant to take the existence of god in absolute. I believe in a god, that's it. I can't prove it nor can anyone disprove it.
To say SkepticThinker is trolling is quite an assertion considering you can't answer his questions with a reasonable response. You seem to be subtly claiming defeat. Perhap you now understand the errors of accepting the dogma you have received.
What I enjoy about Islam and science is how it progressed in the golden age of Islam then receded. This left the Ummah in the fractured state it is in now. Progression just doesn't stop for no reason.

Take Surat Al-Anbiya ayat 32(Muhsin)33(Pickthall) "And We have made the heaven a roof, safe and well guarded. Yet they turn away from its signs." "And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit."

Let's look at ayat 32 then I will move to 33. You should know of course that the word sahk-fan(سَقۡفًا, very similar to sahk-fa but the only difference is the fa/ف used in its suffix form) is used to refer to canopy or ceiling. It refers to the sky as existing in only the uppermost area of the earth which also gives the impression that the earth is round. The usage of the word canopy did not come until later English translations to assert a better and more scientifically accurate view of the earth and sky. But the original word only implies the uppermost or above ceiling, I know interpretations may differ but I have been a Muslim long enough to know what the Qur'an says.
I shall also validate my claim about the earth being on a horizontal plane with a later ayat after the next.

Moving on to Ayat 33.....
Now of course towards the end fal'la-keen is used to refer to orbit so of course we know the sun and moon have an orbit. Do to the way it says "Kul'loon fee fal'la-keen yas'bahoon" I am certain we can come to the mutual agreement that "each in an orbit" is a somewhat proper translation of this. Now if you read other english translation which are highly inaccurate they are nothing but "interpretation" of the Qur'an and are not literal. The phrase "along its own course" is often added which is obviously not present. This is used to remove the assertion that the Qur'an states that the Sun and the Moon orbit around the Earth. This of course is common thought for many cultures at that time who did not develop the knowledge for proper astrological studies. But it indeed is stated that the Sun and moon orbit around the earth which I will provide more clearly in another post. Sorry but I can't memorize the Qur'an like I use to , it has really been a while.

Surat Al-Hijr ayat 19 (Pickthall) "And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein."

I shall validate this ayat with another ayat (double duce! )

Surat An-Nabi ayah 6-7(one of my utmost favorite surah besides Al Baqarah for its grandeur in poeticism) "Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs"

Word at hand is ah-mee'had'oo which can refer to a bed, cradle but often the word resting place is used to be more vague and 'mysterious' which is to hide the next ayat's meaning.
That word is aw-tawd-ee which is used to reference the word anchor, wedge or pillar (which is oddly unused). The reason is quite obvious because this would imply that mountains are the peaks of pillars upholding the earth. Now many scholars have said the modern bed design was not used but lets take into consideration that every other culture around Arabia at that time and before DID use the modern bed design such as Egypt, Sumeria and Babylonians did I can say it is safe to assume that Arabs did as well and Bedouins as well no doubt although it would be impractical for them although the usage of the words suggest this is not what Muhammad was referring to. Words such an anchors has been used to suggest they slept on the floor but again this is highly doubtful and to prove my point all you have to do is Google(gotta true) ancient beds and look at the archeological findings for the ancient civilizations that formed in and outside of Arabia. I can assure you that the ayat referred to a bed much like what we have today and that it was indeed supported by pillars, pegs or wedges. Take your pick but it all implies the same.

I enjoy the Qur'an despite its inaccuracies but an ancient book cannot hold scientific knowledge or accuracy because it is restricted by a culture and pre-existing thought. No claim can be proven from your book about the existence of a god yet alone even Muhammad. The reason I say this is because Arabs and Muslims alike have been erasing their Wathaniyya past to prevent any corruption and or revelation about the origins of their own religion. You view this as negative and I view it as positive. The Qur'an is filled with inaccuracies and I am simply too tired to post them all.
There is no shame in not accepting something, it does not make you look like a fool or a heretic despite what anybody says. Because in the eyes of others you are wise and as for yourself...you are whatever the h*ll you feel like. You cannot accept something in entirety. No Muslim does this or else we would not have all the madahhib we have now. From Salafi, Ismaili'i or everything that embodies Ahlus Sun'nati wa al Jama'ah and Shia-tul Ali no Muslim agrees with each other and none of them accept the Quran in entirety or else they would not be subtly praying to Muhammad during the end of Tashahhud.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not addressing anything you've got to say until you provide demonstrable objective evidence for your statements sir. Your criteria, not mine. Now, are you going to live up to your standards or are you just another hypocrite trolling around?

LOL Okay, so you virtually ignored what I initially asked you, which is what drew me into the thread in the first place, then decided to turn the tables on me instead and place the burden of proof in my corner? Nice try. You must really think you're something!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I LOVE this! Perhaps if one adhered to Thomas J.J Altizer the theory of th existence of god in relation to theist would make on sound more resonable to both parties.
But even though I myself believe in god it is highly ignorant to take the existence of god in absolute. I believe in a god, that's it. I can't prove it nor can anyone disprove it.
To say SkepticThinker is trolling is quite an assertion considering you can't answer his questions with a reasonable response. You seem to be subtly claiming defeat. Perhap you now understand the errors of accepting the dogma you have received.
What I enjoy about Islam and science is how it progressed in the golden age of Islam then receded. This left the Ummah in the fractured state it is in now. Progression just doesn't stop for no reason.

Take Surat Al-Anbiya ayat 32(Muhsin)33(Pickthall) "And We have made the heaven a roof, safe and well guarded. Yet they turn away from its signs." "And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit."

Let's look at ayat 32 then I will move to 33. You should know of course that the word sahk-fan(سَقۡفًا, very similar to sahk-fa but the only difference is the fa/ف used in its suffix form) is used to refer to canopy or ceiling. It refers to the sky as existing in only the uppermost area of the earth which also gives the impression that the earth is round. The usage of the word canopy did not come until later English translations to assert a better and more scientifically accurate view of the earth and sky. But the original word only implies the uppermost or above ceiling, I know interpretations may differ but I have been a Muslim long enough to know what the Qur'an says.
I shall also validate my claim about the earth being on a horizontal plane with a later ayat after the next.

Moving on to Ayat 33.....
Now of course towards the end fal'la-keen is used to refer to orbit so of course we know the sun and moon have an orbit. Do to the way it says "Kul'loon fee fal'la-keen yas'bahoon" I am certain we can come to the mutual agreement that "each in an orbit" is a somewhat proper translation of this. Now if you read other english translation which are highly inaccurate they are nothing but "interpretation" of the Qur'an and are not literal. The phrase "along its own course" is often added which is obviously not present. This is used to remove the assertion that the Qur'an states that the Sun and the Moon orbit around the Earth. This of course is common thought for many cultures at that time who did not develop the knowledge for proper astrological studies. But it indeed is stated that the Sun and moon orbit around the earth which I will provide more clearly in another post. Sorry but I can't memorize the Qur'an like I use to , it has really been a while.

Surat Al-Hijr ayat 19 (Pickthall) "And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein."

I shall validate this ayat with another ayat (double duce! )

Surat An-Nabi ayah 6-7(one of my utmost favorite surah besides Al Baqarah for its grandeur in poeticism) "Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs"

Word at hand is ah-mee'had'oo which can refer to a bed, cradle but often the word resting place is used to be more vague and 'mysterious' which is to hide the next ayat's meaning.
That word is aw-tawd-ee which is used to reference the word anchor, wedge or pillar (which is oddly unused). The reason is quite obvious because this would imply that mountains are the peaks of pillars upholding the earth. Now many scholars have said the modern bed design was not used but lets take into consideration that every other culture around Arabia at that time and before DID use the modern bed design such as Egypt, Sumeria and Babylonians did I can say it is safe to assume that Arabs did as well and Bedouins as well no doubt although it would be impractical for them although the usage of the words suggest this is not what Muhammad was referring to. Words such an anchors has been used to suggest they slept on the floor but again this is highly doubtful and to prove my point all you have to do is Google(gotta true) ancient beds and look at the archeological findings for the ancient civilizations that formed in and outside of Arabia. I can assure you that the ayat referred to a bed much like what we have today and that it was indeed supported by pillars, pegs or wedges. Take your pick but it all implies the same.

I enjoy the Qur'an despite its inaccuracies but an ancient book cannot hold scientific knowledge or accuracy because it is restricted by a culture and pre-existing thought. No claim can be proven from your book about the existence of a god yet alone even Muhammad. The reason I say this is because Arabs and Muslims alike have been erasing their Wathaniyya past to prevent any corruption and or revelation about the origins of their own religion. You view this as negative and I view it as positive. The Qur'an is filled with inaccuracies and I am simply too tired to post them all.
There is no shame in not accepting something, it does not make you look like a fool or a heretic despite what anybody says. Because in the eyes of others you are wise and as for yourself...you are whatever the h*ll you feel like. You cannot accept something in entirety. No Muslim does this or else we would not have all the madahhib we have now. From Salafi, Ismaili'i or everything that embodies Ahlus Sun'nati wa al Jama'ah and Shia-tul Ali no Muslim agrees with each other and none of them accept the Quran in entirety or else they would not be subtly praying to Muhammad during the end of Tashahhud.

Well put.