Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?

[Koldo]

If this form of logic prevents a sadistic person from being happy from sadism, you'd be wrong?

If the sadist is performing something in detriment to someone else's happiness to get his own then he is using the wrong method to be happy.

As i said: "And then again it would only be right if it didn't destroy/prevent happiness from someone else..."

 

[Koldo]

How much more clear facts and evidence do I need than God literally telling me it is true?

Do you really claim that God literally spoke to you?
How did you know it was God?

 

[PolyHedral]

Without suffering, how does one appreciate the opposing experience?

By imagining it.

“It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

So the man is crippled so that God/Jesus had someone to use as an exemplar? That seems very unfair on the man.

 

[Willamena]

By imagining it.

The empiricist in me says it's not possible to compose a mental image of something whose bits have not been experienced. What are the "bits" of "opposite of suffering" by which someone might compose a mental image of its opposite?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Without suffering, how does one appreciate the opposing experience?

Without suffering, why would we need the opposing experience?

The only good things that come from suffering are means of evading or ignoring suffering. If there was no suffering, there would be no need for such things to exist in the first place, so why would the absence of them be a negative?

 

[meddlehaze]

By imagining it.

Do you suppose that your imagination is your reality?

So the man is crippled so that God/Jesus had someone to use as an exemplar? That seems very unfair on the man.

Maybe unfair to you, but how can you really judge what is fair and unfair without some form of transcendent objective morale?

Without suffering, why would we need the opposing experience?

Well, our brains require both experiences. We don't have enough endogenous serotonin to have continual happiness.

The only good things that come from suffering are means of evading or ignoring suffering. If there was no suffering, there would be no need for such things to exist in the first place, so why would the absence of them be a negative?

We would be ignorant of how glorious the experience of happiness is without suffering.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, our brains require both experiences. We don't have enough endogenous serotonin to have continual happiness.

But then couldn't God have just made us so that we do?

We would be ignorant of how glorious the experience of happiness is without suffering.

Again, couldn't God have just made us so that our experience of happiness is infinitely greater?

 

[PolyHedral]

Do you suppose that your imagination is your reality?

Why does that matter?

Maybe unfair to you, but how can you really judge what is fair and unfair without some form of transcendent objective morale?

I can't think of anything more objective than game theory, which is what I base my morality on.

 

[meddlehaze]

But then couldn't God have just made us so that we do?

Again, couldn't God have just made us so that our experience of happiness is infinitely greater?

Sure, but He didn't so there's really no point in bringing up possibilities of this nature

 

[Koldo]

Sure, but He didn't so there's really no point in bringing up possibilities of this nature

Surely there is.

The question becomes: If he could, why didn't he do it?

 

[meddlehaze]

Surely there is.

The question becomes: If he could, why didn't he do it?

Him being perfect and humans being imperfect, even in our logic; His way is the perfect way.

 

[Koldo]

Him being perfect and humans being imperfect, even in our logic; His way is the perfect way.

This doesn't answer the question.

"If he could, why didn't he do it?"

 

[meddlehaze]

This doesn't answer the question.

"If he could, why didn't he do it?"

It does, indeed. Before responding so quickly, ponder it. I'll repeat myself once more. He could do a lot of things, but the way He does it is the best way.

 

[PolyHedral]

It does, indeed. Before responding so quickly, ponder it. I'll repeat myself once more. He could do a lot of things, but the way He does it is the best way.

But that is not a given. You must demonstrate it.

 

[meddlehaze]

But that is not a given. You must demonstrate it.

It can only be demonstrated by the definition and proceeding logic. I can't prove to you through empiricism that it's true.

 

[Koldo]

It does, indeed. Before responding so quickly, ponder it. I'll repeat myself once more. He could do a lot of things, but the way He does it is the best way.

Let's do it like this: Define 'best'.

 

[meddlehaze]

Let's do it like this: Define 'best'.

Best; accomplishes what He had intended (fellowship with His children) with absolute and full effectiveness and appropriateness.

 

[PolyHedral]

Considering a fair chunk of the world fail to believe that He even exists, it cannot possibly be true that this is the best possible way to do that.

 

[meddlehaze]

Considering a fair chunk of the world fail to believe that He even exists, it cannot possibly be true that this is the best possible way to do that.

Those who disbelieve cannot possibly be His children then.

 

[godnotgod]

And how do you justify humans being born into this condition?
Why don't we perceive absolute joy from the start?

Perhaps it is we who chose to be born into this condition, and we continued to see the rope as a snake. The rope can be a metaphor for True Reality, while the snake a metaphor for Illusion. We live the Illusion, having mistaken it for True Reality. Remember Plato's Cave Allegory?