A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[Underground]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.

Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any.

Why do you keep wasting your time with theisms? Can't you see the rubbish they're made of?

"God allows suffering to exist because we wouldn't know pleasure", but he is omnipotent. He could allow human beings to know pleasure without knowing suffering, or even to know suffering without knowing suffering, as God as no limitations, including logic. "God made us free to choose", but he is omnipotent. He could've created human beings free to chose that were not free to choose, as he is omnipotent. His omnipotence makes any reason to justify suffering utterly invalid.
"The real life is the life eternal life beyond death, what we do here doesn't matter at all, but this sounds cruel like someone having fun looking at his 3 years old kid having nightmares just because they are not real. And by the way, God could've made us having nightmares without having nightmares.

Also, suffering is not the existential phenomenon theists want you to believe.
Any powerful enough opium alkaloid, as long it's binding to opioid receptors, suppresses pain and psychological suffering completely.
Suffering -Don't pretend you know it's not true before you tried - is just some signaling in our brain. And yet theists have been wasting time, paper and ink writing tons and tons of useless theories about how suffering is God's compassion and legions of retarded masochists enjoyed suffering all their life.
A signaling in our brain! It wouldn't have been so difficult! Just a switch turned off!

I would be immensely glad to know what you think about this.

 

[Sees]

Welcome to the forum.

I don't think the concepts of omnipotence and omnibenevolence are realistic, simply exaggeration past the point of comprehension as a means to glorify.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't hold omnipotence to necessarily encompass the ability to break logic. Trying to make any kind of reasoning about a being who can do away with logic causes too many problems. I do think the issue of suffering is an important one and it is not one that I have figured out how to reconcile with an all-good, all-powerful God.

 

[Desert Snake]

freewill. you don't have an argument dude.

 

[viole]

freewill. you don't have an argument dude.

Is suffering and things like Ebola, starving, children cancer, tsunamis etc. with free will preferable to none of that without free will?

Why?

Another question. If a child gets cancer or a horrible genetic disease and dies after a painful agony, is that the result of free will?

How?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

I don't hold omnipotence to necessarily encompass the ability to break logic.

Only what people claim in light of it. Conveniently forgetting about it, they make all kinds of absurd claims. Same with omniscience and omnibenevolence.

freewill. you don't have an argument dude.

Gotta agree. Freewill is dead in the water.

 

[Quintessence]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.

Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any.

Why do you keep wasting your time with theisms? Can't you see the rubbish they're made of?

I keep "wasting my time" with it because I understand that theism and classical monotheism aren't the same thing. As a polytheist, the problem of evil is not a problem at all. Our gods are neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. What humans call suffering is as much under the domain of the gods as what humans call healing.

 

[George-ananda]

I would be immensely glad to know what you think about this.

You are addressing this issue from western dualistic viewpoint; God and creation are two separate things. I come from a non-dual perspective; God and creation are not-two.

In my Hindu-Advaita thought the universe is an emanation of God. He separated Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself. It is all a divine play/drama of the Lord.

If you're interested here's something I wrote awhile back (and now that I read it I'm not sure it's as good as I thought it was )

Life is eternal but 'Problem of Evil' believers view things from the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death.The natural illusion.

I try to look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

Plus Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of cause/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are. Standard Problem of Evil proponents believe in this one life only so evil seems unfair and cruel in that limited perspective.

If all the dramas were removed, it would just be a static-state sameness. Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.

I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little speck and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.

 

[Underground]

Welcome to the forum.

Aloha!

I don't think the concepts of omnipotence and omnibenevolence are realistic, simply exaggeration past the point of comprehension as a means to glorify.

Would you please locate the boundaries?

I don't hold omnipotence to necessarily encompass the ability to break logic.

Omnipotence means omnipotence.
And you don't even need to break logic; creating the universe with another logic from the beginning would have been enough.
And, i must assume that God knew what this logic would have caused to human beings, because he is omniscient.

Trying to make any kind of reasoning about a being who can do away with logic causes too many problems.

No. Any kind of reasoning about God in general causes too many problems.
And he can do that - he is omnipotent. Either God can break logic either he is not omnipotent.

freewill. you don't have an argument dude.

You just don't get it.

Beside the fact that God is omniscient and free will can't exist, because we move in time and God in the moment of creation created the whole eternity of time, as he created everything and we can't move into something that doesn't exist, you must explain why we have free will.

Any reason you will came out with will be out of your logic, and on the other side there's a God that is omnipotent and can break logic.

Try again.

I keep "wasting my time" with it because I understand that theism and classical monotheism aren't the same thing. As a polytheist, the problem of evil is not a problem at all. Our gods are neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. What humans call suffering is as much under the domain of the gods as what humans call healing.

Beautiful. Would you please explain your concept of God?

 

[Underground]

You are addressing this issue from western dualistic viewpoint

I'm addressing it from the western dualistic viewpoint on purpose.

God and creation are two separate things. I come from a non-dual perspective; God and creation are not-two.
In my Hindu-Advaita thought the universe is an emanation of God. He separated Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself. It is all a divine play/drama of the Lord.

In fact, Hinduism is much superior to any western religion.

Life is eternal but 'Problem of Evil' believers view things from the limited perspective that life begins at birth and ends at death.The natural illusion.

I try to look at life from the perspective that life is eternal and we are in the process of learning that. We live as individuals for eons and not one life. We all return to godhead in the end. If one could see one's life from separation from godhead through the eons to return to godhead then things make more sense. What we see as evil are very short temporary events in the grand scheme of things where each individual story ends in success; return to peace/bliss/awareness of godhead.

Plus Problem of Evil proponents look at good/bad events as happening randomly to people. Eastern thinkers believe a long series of cause/events (karma) causes things to be the way they are. Standard Problem of Evil proponents believe in this one life only so evil seems unfair and cruel in that limited perspective.

If all the dramas were removed, it would just be a static-state sameness. Nothing would propel us to question, advance and grow.

I also use the analogy of creation as some grand expansive multi-dimensional artwork. And human problem of evil proponents view from their little speck and dimensional perspective of the artwork and try to judge the entire artwork. Their view is too limited to be meaningful.

Beautiful
However, some comments i would like to write down would be off topic here.

 

[Parsimony]

Omnipotence means omnipotence.
And you don't even need to break logic; creating the universe with another logic from the beginning would have been enough.
And, i must assume that God knew what this logic would have caused to human beings, because he is omniscient.

No. Any kind of reasoning about God in general causes too many problems.
And he can do that - he is omnipotent. Either God can break logic either he is not omnipotent.

If those are the terms, I'd just say that He isn't omnipotent. He's just the most powerful being.

 

[Desert Snake]

You just don't get it.

Guess not.

 

[Desert Snake]

I keep "wasting my time" with it because I understand that theism and classical monotheism aren't the same thing. As a polytheist, the problem of evil is not a problem at all. Our gods are neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. What humans call suffering is as much under the domain of the gods as what humans call healing.

I don't see how this 'problem of evil' affects monotheism, it's very vague and out of any context.

 

[Parsimony]

Dude of course He's omnipotent!

I don't think He is in the completely literal sense of the word. He may be capable of all things that are logically possible, but when it comes to things that are logically impossible (like making 2+2=5), I'm a little skeptical.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm addressing it from the western dualistic viewpoint on purpose.

Oh my goddess, how would it make a difference? You would still have all the same problems, just powerless deities,?:biglaugh:

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think He is in the completely literal sense of the word. He may be capable of all things that are logically possible, but when it comes to things that are logically impossible (like making 2+2=5), I'm a little skeptical.

Hmm I see.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This question doesn't exactly adhere to my belief in God, but my answer would be based on my current beliefs in 'good and evil'.

Think of life as a river, and its flow is the passage of time. Imagine yourself as a leaf in this river, flowing with it. Looking up ahead, you see an obstacle that intimidates you which eventually becomes an 'evil' you have to deal with.

This obstacle is there because it is there, the roll of the dice.

The formation of this river, let's say it was made by an overseer, is simply formed the way the overseer intended it to be for whatever reason that is irrelevant. It doesn't mean that the overseer put it there for us to dislike it.

This is how your argument looks:
1) If there is suffering in the world, an omnipotent, loving God doesn't exist. (Premise)
2) There is suffering in the world (Fact)
3) Therefore an omnipotent, loving God doesn't exist. (Conclusion)

The premise is wrong, the fact is right, and the conclusion is wrong.

These instances you call evil are not actually evil, and it is possible that they weren't intended to be upon creation. It is only 'evil' because you personally find it to be.

Usually the question comes up: Why does God let us suffer if he knows what will make us suffer?

But that only applies to people who believe the world was built specifically for man, which isn't true. God cares just as much about what happens to us as it does to other things. God created a system which works for ALL of these things, and this is the result. It's not perfect, but perhaps it is the best way possible to include all things.

And another way to look at omnipotence is that it doesn't mean "God can do anything even the illogical". Perhaps he only has the ability to reach every single goal, but the way to reach those goals are limited.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't see how this 'problem of evil' affects monotheism, it's very vague and out of any context.

To be more precise, it doesn't affect monotheism more broadly, it specifically is a problem with classical monotheism that posits that the one-god is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. This is the monotheistic god-concept presumed by the OP, who rightly points out there are some logical difficulties in reconciling classical monotheism with the existence of suffering. To some, this is considered a sound logical argument against the validity of the classical monotheist god-concept.

There are other monotheisms that do not have this issue; monotheistic varieties of pantheism for example do not typically claim that reality/universe/god is omnibenevolent, thereby removing the logical conundrum. Deism, which is also typically monotheistic, resolves it by emphasizing that the one-god is non-interventionist; it set the clock ticking and then backed off. There are also logical arguments used by classical monotheists that work to resolve the problem of evil, but I can't say I've made much study of that since it isn't my theology.

 

[Quintessence]

Beautiful. Would you please explain your concept of God?

I don't tend to refer to my gods as "God" because in proper case and singular like that, it's typically referring to the one-god of the Abrahamic religions. In an attempt to maintain a more culturally-neutral understanding of the concept of gods, I broadly define gods as that which a culture or individual deems worthy of worship. It's basically that which one values or deems sacred, and worship involves different things to different traditions but often includes expressions of gratitude, an attitude of deep respect, and/or a model for our own behavior.

For me, I can think of nothing more worthy of worship and sacred title than reality itself. Not only do I depend on the entirety of reality for my existence, this world (and the otherworlds) are just plain amazing and awe-inspiring. On a practical level I don't actively worship everything, but focus on things that are most meaningful to me at a given time. I don't follow any historical Pagan pantheon (though I do have a smattering of Hellenism in my path). Instead I just revere various aspects of reality as they are without personification. Sun Spirit is just the sun; that super hot blazing ball of hydrogen up there in the sky that literally anchors our planet in space. If that isn't worthy of worship, I sure as blazes don't know what is. XD

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't tend to refer to my gods as "God" because in proper case and singular like that, it's typically referring to the one-god of the Abrahamic religions. In an attempt to maintain a more culturally-neutral understanding of the concept of gods, I broadly define gods as that which a culture or individual deems worthy of worship. It's basically that which one values or deems sacred, and worship involves different things to different traditions but often includes expressions of gratitude, an attitude of deep respect, and/or a model for our own behavior.

For me, I can think of nothing more worthy of worship and sacred title than reality itself. Not only do I depend on the entirety of reality for my existence, this world (and the otherworlds) are just plain amazing and awe-inspiring. On a practical level I don't actively worship everything, but focus on things that are most meaningful to me at a given time. I don't follow any historical Pagan pantheon (though I do have a smattering of Hellenism in my path). Instead I just revere various aspects of reality as they are without personification. Sun Spirit is just the sun; that super hot blazing ball of hydrogen up there in the sky that literally anchors our planet in space. If that isn't worthy of worship, I sure as blazes don't know what is. XD

I think some of these questions would be better served in a DIR, seems like this 'problem' is unrelateable to any of the theistic members who have responded thus far, my fault for adding to the confusion.