A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[WhatGod]

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.

So why bother calling them gods?

 

[WhatGod]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.

You left one out - omniscient.

Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any.

Suffering is a more effective response to our environment than not suffering because those who don't suffer die out more. For example, not feeling pain happens in some people and they tend to constantly injure themselves and die young.

 

[Underground]

You left one out - omniscient.

God can be proven incoherent even without considering omniscience.

Suffering is a more effective response to our environment than not suffering because those who don't suffer die out more. For example, not feeling pain happens in some people and they tend to constantly injure themselves and die young.

You feel hungry each morning and each evening, and hunger is not painful at all, yet you eat each day. Even after fasting for a day hunger is not painful but you'd walk for miles to find some food.
In our enviroment pain is needed, but God could've found a way around it just by playing with neurobiology.

 

[WhatGod]

Originally Posted by WhatGod View Post
You left one out - omniscient.

God can be proven incoherent even without considering omniscience.

1) you still left it out
2) youcan't prove he is evil without it

Originally Posted by WhatGod View Post
Suffering is a more effective response to our environment than not suffering because those who don't suffer die out more. For example, not feeling pain happens in some people and they tend to constantly injure themselves and die young.

You feel hungry each morning and each evening, and hunger is not painful at all, yet you eat each day. Even after fasting for a day hunger is not painful but you'd walk for miles to find some food.
In our enviroment pain is needed, but God could've found a way around it just by playing with neurobiology.

So? You said "Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any."
My argument is valid.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Somebody mentioned that God is 'omniscient' (all-knowing)
However that's not necessarily the case on this testing ground called earth, because there'd be no point him testing us if he already knows if we'll pass or fail..
Remember when he tested Abraham by ordering him to kill his young son?
As Abraham raised the dagger, God stopped him by saying-
"Lay not your hand upon the lad, and don't do anything to him; for now I know that you're a God-fearing man" (Genesis 22:12)

See, the words "now I know" are a clear indication that God DIDN'T KNOW before the test.

 

[Underground]

1) you still left it out
2) youcan't prove he is evil without it

Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.

So? You said "Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any."
My argument is valid.

It is not if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

 

[Desert Snake]

Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.



It is not if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Did you ever answer the comments about a non-all benevolent deity? Seems to me your whole theory falls flat if you don't have that. Your' 'no freewill' thing is a theory, btw, and a very bad one.

 

[Underground]

Did you ever answer the comments about a non-all benevolent deity? Seems to me your whole theory falls flat if you don't have that.

Yes, this doesn't work with non-omnibenevolent deities.

Your' 'no freewill' thing is a theory, btw, and a very bad one.

Of course human beings are free. God is an illusion.



Now please show your point of view. If you have none you shouldn't go around judging what other people write.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, this doesn't work with non-omnibenevolent deities.



Of course human beings are free. God is an illusion.



Now please show your point of view. If you have none you shouldn't go around judging what other people write.

My 'point of view', is that the problem you presented does not seem to be relevant to any of the religious people who have taken the time to answer your op, so given the above facts, this is an exercise in futility.

 

[rusra02]

Look inside yourself and find a light that judges Romans 5:12 worthless rubbish.

Hint: Adam never existed.

Well, the facts don't support your beliefs, IMO. I am reminded of another inspired statement in the same book of Romans:"What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”"

 

[rusra02]

Somebody mentioned that God is 'omniscient' (all-knowing)
However that's not necessarily the case on this testing ground called earth, because there'd be no point him testing us if he already knows if we'll pass or fail..
Remember when he tested Abraham by ordering him to kill his young son?
As Abraham raised the dagger, God stopped him by saying-
"Lay not your hand upon the lad, and don't do anything to him; for now I know that you're a God-fearing man" (Genesis 22:12)

See, the words "now I know" are a clear indication that God DIDN'T KNOW before the test.

I agree. God could have foreseen the outcome of the test but chose not to do so. God exercises his ability to foretell the future according to his will and purpose. A person who can sing well doesn't necessarily sing constantly. God chooses when to foresee the future and when to refrain.

 

[Underground]

My 'point of view', is that the problem you presented does not seem to be relevant to any of the religious people who have taken the time to answer your op, so given the above facts, this is an exercise in futility.

I need to know from you which problem is relevant, then.

Well, the facts don't support your beliefs, IMO. I am reminded of another inspired statement in the same book of Romans:"What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”"

I have no beliefs, to understand that statement you need to be prepared to understand, and i can't see facts that doesn't support what i state.

 

[sojourner]

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.

I wouldn't call the sentiments you mention "theology." I'd call them "simplistic excuses where theodicy is concerned."

It's a waste of intellectual effort to maintain that God "could have" done thus-and-such. The reality is, God didn't do thus-and such. The universe is created where suffering is a reality; human beings are created to experience suffering.

However: One can't simply take "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence," make them absolute and all-encompassing definitions for God, and then claim that because the definitions don't fit reality, then God must not be real. In logic, that's called a "straw man argument." Omnipotence and omnibenevolence do not stand alone with universal definitions. They are used to describe God (not define God) in part -- not in whole, and only within the bounds of certain theological constructions. We have to define what is specifically meant by those terms within the theological context in which they are used at any given time. Omnibenevolence and omnipotence generally are not useful when considering theodicy, and are generally not used in that context. So, it sort of creates a false dilemma to use them in that context. Then, we have to decide what, specifically, is meant by "suffering" before it can be explored theologically.

You're simply not doing your theological due diligence here. The post is relatively meaningless. It's kind of like ranting on about "I can't take the seeds out of a steak, therefore, the steak must be rubbish."

 

[Skwim]

God chooses when to foresee the future and when to refrain.

And you came by this little tidbit of information from where?

 

[WhatGod]

Somebody mentioned that God is 'omniscient' (all-knowing)
However that's not necessarily the case on this testing ground called earth, because there'd be no point him testing us if he already knows if we'll pass or fail..

Why does there have to be a point?

Removing omniscience also removes one of the three pillars that make him a good god and not just a destructive force of nature running amok.

Remember when he tested Abraham by ordering him to kill his young son?
As Abraham raised the dagger, God stopped him by saying-
"Lay not your hand upon the lad, and don't do anything to him; for now I know that you're a God-fearing man" (Genesis 22:12)

See, the words "now I know" are a clear indication that God DIDN'T KNOW before the test.

It also makes him straight up evil, but that would be one of his minor evil deeds.

 

[WhatGod]

Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.

I don't see knowing as a subset of power. Nor have I seen it presented that way before. But I'm willing to hear you out. Explain it please. For example the sun is the most omnipotent object near by. How is it omniscient?

It is not if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Since god is fundamentally just a made up term, it's not really possible to say what it is or is not by anything other than fiat. The main issue with the triple Omni god is she is inherently self contradictory. For example, by having the knowledge and capacity to help, but refusing to - omnipotence, omniscience and his inaction mean that she must be evil instead of omnibenevolent.

Dropping any of them reduces him to less than the god the xtians want and demotes him to just another anthropomorphized force of nature.

 

[WhatGod]

I agree. God could have foreseen the outcome of the test but chose not to do so. God exercises his ability to foretell the future according to his will and purpose. A person who can sing well doesn't necessarily sing constantly. God chooses when to foresee the future and when to refrain.

So god just chooses to be blind and stupid and impotent when its convenient for him?

Wouldn't that be evil?

 

[WhatGod]

It's a waste of intellectual effort to maintain that God "could have" done thus-and-such. The reality is, God didn't do thus-and such. The universe is created where suffering is a reality; human beings are created to experience suffering.

So you believe in an evil god then?

However: One can't simply take "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence," make them absolute and all-encompassing definitions for God, and then claim that because the definitions don't fit reality, then God must not be real.

The triple Omni definition of god is a pretty standard one. Standard enough that it predates xtianity by at least a couple hundred years.

What do you propose for the qualities of god then?

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence do not stand alone with universal definitions.

Of course not. They are pretend qualities for a pretend deity. It would seem self evident nothing could actually exhibit any of the three omnis.

They are used to describe God (not define God) in part -- not in whole, and only within the bounds of certain theological constructions.

Now you are trying to equivocate yourself out of a corner. They are the qualities which make god a good god. God may have other qualities like being petty, wrathful and jealous. But without the omnis, she is not a god.

Then, we have to decide what, specifically, is meant by "suffering" before it can be explored theologically.

Mental, emotional or physical anguish. Often closely associated with pain, but not pain in and of itself. For example you can suffer the anticipation of pain.

 

[Underground]

I don't see knowing as a subset of power. Nor have I seen it presented that way before. But I'm willing to hear you out. Explain it please. For example the sun is the most omnipotent object near by. How is it omniscient?

Power is a void, a phenomenon that requires objects to be. Without objects, potent, or omnipotent are meaningless words.
Same goes with logic. Without objects there can be no logic.
Omnipotence means no limitations, whatever the object, ignorance included.
I could state that because of its omnipotence God is able to move a universe from here to there, and no one would state that God needs omnimovence to do so, or that omnimovence is not a subset of omnipotence.

Also, a omnibenevolent, omnipotent and non omniscient God is incoherent with suffering on earth even if omniscience wouldn't be a subset of omnipotence, because even if the ways of knowledge are not available to God, there would be an infinite spectrum of ways to end suffering.

Also, even if omniscience wouldn't be a subset of omnipotence, out of omnipotence God could attain omniscience, and if God couldn't, God is not omnipotent either.

Since god is fundamentally just a made up term, it's not really possible to say what it is or is not by anything other than fiat. The main issue with the triple Omni god is she is inherently self contradictory. For example, by having the knowledge and capacity to help, but refusing to - omnipotence, omniscience and his inaction mean that she must be evil instead of omnibenevolent.

Dropping any of them reduces him to less than the god the xtians want and demotes him to just another anthropomorphized force of nature.

That is funny
People sharing the same ideas arguing, +∞ and counting.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

I personally see no problem with suffering. In fact, I believe that our God was most loving to enable us with an ability to suffer.

You see, suffering is "pain that is caused by injury, illness, loss, etc."

What sort of existence would we have if we should not feel pain when we are faced with injury, illness, or loss? No my friend, suffering is good. I thank God that He has made us capable of suffering.