A Return to the Argument from Evil (by Epicurus)

[RestlessSoul]

Actually, if I were a theist and religious person I would ask myself before: "If God didn't get rid of suffering, why should I do anything about it? If God doesn't bother, I definitely won't."

So you’re saying you’d prefer to win an argument or prove a point, than help another human?

That actually goes some way to explaining why the world is the way it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you’re saying you’d prefer to win an argument or prove a point, than help another human?

That actually goes some way to explaining why the world is the way it is.

Seems to me that it's more about looking to God's behaviour as the barometer of what's best.

This is a popular position among theists; the most famous example is the "what would Jesus do?" meme: if you want to know what to do, think of what God - or the son of God - would do in that situation and then do that.

It's just that when we look at the amount of suffering in the world, it sure seems like the answer to the question "what would Jesus do?" is "**** all" virtually all of the time.

 

[Koldo]

So you’re saying you’d prefer to win an argument or prove a point, than help another human?

That actually goes some way to explaining why the world is the way it is.

That post was neither an argument nor me proving a point. It was just me expressing my perspective.

If I believed and worshipped an almighty god then everything that happened in the world would be, in some way, God's will. All the good and the bad things.

If God didn't bother to change the world, for whatever reason he might have had, why should I?

 

[RestlessSoul]

That post was neither an argument nor me proving a point. It was just me expressing my perspective.

If I believed and worshipped an almighty god then everything that happened in the world would be, in some way, God's will. All the good and the bad things.

If God didn't bother to change the world, for whatever reason he might have had, why should I?

I can't answer that question for you.

I can only answer it for me; and the answer is, because I believe it's the right thing to do. Why I believe that is incidental in this instance. It's what we do that counts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Seems to me that it's more about looking to God's behaviour as the barometer of what's best.

This is a popular position among theists; the most famous example is the "what would Jesus do?" meme: if you want to know what to do, think of what God - or the son of God - would do in that situation and then do that.

It's just that when we look at the amount of suffering in the world, it sure seems like the answer to the question "what would Jesus do?" is "**** all" virtually all of the time.

Someone who knows the Gospels better than me would be able to quote verses from Matthew, which answer the question What would Jesus do? (or expect his followers to do). Maybe you can supply the verses, I don't know. Something about, I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was in prison and you visited me...

But that wasn't my point. My point was, if you're not getting answers that satisfy you, sometimes it pays to ask a different question.

 

[Koldo]

I can't answer that question for you.

I can only answer it for me; and the answer is, because I believe it's the right thing to do. Why I believe that is incidental in this instance. It's what we do that counts.

I take it you worship God. Is that correct? If so, you either believe that God told you to help people, or you just use your own moral compass instead of pondering on the consequences of the existence of an almighty god, even if those consequences should bear implications on how you behave.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I take it you worship God. Is that correct? If so, you either believe that God told you to help people, or you just use your own moral compass instead of pondering on the consequences of the existence of an almighty god, even if those consequences should bear implications on how you behave.

I believe in God, not so sure about worship. There's a thread about that on here somewhere.

I believe God wants us to love each other. But I don't think it's necessary to believe in God, to believe that it's in all our interests to help each other.

Not sure what you mean about consequences. Actions have consequences, clearly. Whether a belief in the existence or non-existence of God does, is one for the philosophers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Someone who knows the Gospels better than me would be able to quote verses from Matthew, which answer the question What would Jesus do? (or expect his followers to do). Maybe you can supply the verses, I don't know. Something about, I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was in prison and you visited me...

Sure, but I'm talking about lately. For the last 2,000 years or so, the answer to "what would Jesus do?" is "watch and do nothing as people starve, are murdered, get sick, etc., etc."

But that wasn't my point. My point was, if you're not getting answers that satisfy you, sometimes it pays to ask a different question.

If we should help people "because it's the right thing to do," what does this say about any God who would sit by and watch as people suffer? Why isn't God doing "the right thing to do"?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, but I'm talking about lately. For the last 2,000 years or so, the answer to "what would Jesus do?" is "watch and do nothing as people starve, are murdered, get sick, etc., etc."


If we should help people "because it's the right thing to do," what does this say about any God who would sit by and watch as people suffer? Why isn't God doing "the right thing to do"?

Jesus the man, the spiritual teacher whose words echo down the centuries, is dead; so he's powerless to do anything.

If by Jesus you mean the living Christ, I'm agnostic about that Jesus. Quite possibly, He works through people - so, it's up to us alleviate the suffering of others. No one is going to do that for us, not Jesus or the Buddha or Lord Krishna, and not Karl Marx or Adam Smith or the Government.

I can't answer for God. Never claimed to, and if you ever catch me claiming to do so, by all means tell me to get over myself.

 

[Koldo]

I believe in God, not so sure about worship. There's a thread about that on here somewhere.

I believe God wants us to love each other. But I don't think it's necessary to believe in God, to believe that it's in all our interests to help each other.

Not sure what you mean about consequences. Actions have consequences, clearly. Whether a belief in the existence or non-existence of God does, is one for the philosophers.

I meant the logical consequences. If you worship an almighty god, then the consequence is believing that whatever happens is God's will and that you are fine with that

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus the man, the spiritual teacher whose words echo down the centuries, is dead; so he's powerless to do anything.

If by Jesus you mean the living Christ, I'm agnostic about that Jesus.

It certainly resolves the problem of evil to conclude that the god in question just doesn't exist.

Personally, I see the problem of evil as just one specific case of a larger question: why is it that God - whichever version of God we're talking about - apparently behaves in a way that's perfectly consistent with God not existing?

Quite possibly, He works through people - so, it's up to us alleviate the suffering of others. No one is going to do that for us, not Jesus or the Buddha or Lord Krishna, and not Karl Marx or Adam Smith or the Government.

If that's a moral and ethical stance for Jesus, why wouldn't it be moral and ethical for us, as well?

I see that this person seriously injured themselves and I deeply, sincerely want them to be helped and heal, but rather than give them first aid myself, I'll just stand by and watch so that someone else has the opportunity to make my sincere wish to become reality. I'll work through them.

Or if nobody helps and this guy bleeds out, well, my heart was in the right place, so you can't fault me.

I can't answer for God. Never claimed to, and if you ever catch me claiming to do so, by all means tell me to get over myself.

But that's the whole point of the exercise of responding to the problem of evil: coming up with response means answering for - or at least coming up with a plausible excuse for - God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I meant the logical consequences. If you worship an almighty god, then the consequence is believing that whatever happens is God's will and that you are fine with that

I confess I struggle with that.

What is life without struggle? I still believe, I'm just not sure exactly what I believe.

 

[Koldo]

I confess I struggle with that.

What is life without struggle? I still believe, I'm just not sure exactly what I believe.

Life without struggle is still life. Why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I confess I struggle with that.

What is life without struggle? I still believe, I'm just not sure exactly what I believe.

If you said challenge, I'd agree with you.

Challenge does not necessarily require suffering. It certainly doesn't require suffering imposed on us without our consent.

The fact that people can sometime use the experience of struggle as an opportunity to grow does not mean that growth requires struggle. Especially not when struggle is just likely to wear a person down or weaken them as it is to spur them to growth or strength.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Life without struggle is still life. Why?

I'm not sure that's true tbh. We are born in blood and trauma, we are sustained by love. If our mothers didn't love us - however flawed at times that love may have been - we wouldn't have made it past infancy. But struggle is inevitable, I think.

So I suppose, for me as a believer in God, I do accept that it's all God's will, part of a divine purpose constantly unfolding within us and without us

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you said challenge, I'd agree with you.

Challenge does not necessarily require suffering. It certainly doesn't require suffering imposed on us without our consent.

The fact that people can sometime use the experience of struggle as an opportunity to grow does not mean that growth requires struggle. Especially not when struggle is just likely to wear a person down or weaken them as it is to spur them to growth or strength.

Actually, I agree. Eventually it comes time to stop struggling, admit your weakness, give up the fight. Surrendering to win, this is sometimes called.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not sure that's true tbh. We are born in blood and trauma, we are sustained by love. If our mothers didn't love us - however flawed at times that love may have been - we wouldn't have made it past infancy. But struggle is inevitable, I think.

So I suppose, for me as a believer in God, I do accept that it's all God's will, part of a divine purpose constantly unfolding within us and without us

It just happens to be the case that life involves struggles. That doesn't mean it had to be the case.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It just happens to be the case that life involves struggles. That doesn't mean it had to be the case.

Either way. It is what it is (a neat palindrome, when initialised).

 

[InChrist]

Who cares what He commanded? What can He do, apart from sending me to Hell? As a loving Christian mother I can think like this: I will abort as many children as possible, because I want all of them to spend eternity with Jesus. I don't want to send them to a war on this fallen world in which they can only lose. I know it is wrong, but I just love my kids too much, and I offer my soul to pay for that.

That would be a sacrifice comparable to what your Jesus did, with the bonus of being a real sacrifice. And not just a mockery of the word "sacrifice", in which victims come back alive and kicking after three days.

And why do you care what I believe? What is relevant is what you believe. You must believe that all those souls go to Heaven, risk free; so what is all this abortion fuss about? You should rejoice at every abortion. You should rejoice that a soul will live forever with Jesus vs. risking that destiny if it lives long enough on this broken world.

Now, back to my metaphysical position, once we have addressed the contradictions in yours. What do I have to lose? Nothing. I will go to Hell, anyway, if Christianity is true. And if it is not, then what you say is irrelevant. That reminds me of that condemned blasphemer in "the life of Brian", who sinfully mentioned the name of Jehovah, who can now freely scream "Jehovah! Jehovah!", lol.

On the other hand, the foetus inside of me can only win, if I destroy it, and Christianity is true.

At the end of the day, the average return is positive. That foetus, if it gets the chance to be born, and it gets old enough to die after 100 years, cannot possibly go to a better place than it will go to with certainty if I terminate it immediately. It will just be required, additionally, to go through a 100 years long minefield of temptations, sins, possible influences from false prophets, and all the risks involved in living in this fallen world. Is it worthy? Why?

A sort of abortion promoting Pascal wager, don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

If you don’t care about what God, the Creator of life, thinks then it makes sense that you would not care about life; even your own. I appreciate the insight your post provides.

 

[InChrist]

Actually, if I were a theist and religious person I would ask myself before: "If God didn't get rid of suffering, why should I do anything about it? If God doesn't bother, I definitely won't."

Yet, God does have a plan in the works to permanently end suffering for anyone interested.