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

[Koldo]

Humans brought suffering upon themselves when the first human pair, Adam and Eve, rebelled against God's rulership back there in the Garden of Eden. By rejecting Jehovah God's restrictions when he told them to not eat of the forbidden fruit, they basically said to God: "We don't need you to give us guidelines because we can do better for ourselves."

Why do all humans pay for a mistake made by two?
How can this be just?

That rebellion in the Garden of Eden was a challenge against God's right to rule. In order to answer that challenge, it required time in which man would have the opportunity to self-rule without God intervening. So God decided to step back and allow humans to self-rule for the last 6,000 years of human existence.

What are you talking about?
According to the bible, God intervened multipled times.

 

[fishy]

What are you talking about?
According to the bible, God intervened multipled times

.

Now don't get sayin' that or the good lord will kick your ***.

 

[waitasec]

No, Deuteronomy 24:16 does not contradict what's written in Genesis for the following reasons:
1. The events in the Garden of Eden occurred several centuries before the Mosaic Law came into existence.

right, the garden event occured before so what was said in deuteronomy occurred after...

you seem to be having a problem differentiating between these 2 concepts...

before:
be·fore (b-fôr, -fr)
adv.
1. Earlier in time: They called me the day before.
2. In front; ahead.
before - definition of before by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

after:
af·ter (ftr)
adv.
1. Behind; in the rear.
2. At a later or subsequent time; afterward: three hours after; departed shortly after.
adj.
1. Subsequent in time or place; later; following

after - definition of after by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

sin is not about future events but what happened in the past (before)

therefore in light of the genesis account what is said in deuteronomy contradicts your very flawed understanding of these two words

before and after

 

[Nakosis]

How so? How did you come to this conclusion?
If the absence of one does not entail the presence of the other, then why would it be required to be aware of both to feel joy? It doesn't make any logical sense.

We are so used to thinking in terms of logical it's difficult to conceive/think without it.

It's the flaw of duality. Identifying something by it's opposite. For me joy and suffering are the same thing. Depends on how I choose to view it. You may have no reason to believe me but you have a choice. If you are not aware of it I don't expect you to be able to exercise it.

I'd suggest you'd seek someone to free yourself from attachments. If you are interested. Just a suggestion.

What is the point of this experience?

Why do anything? Why go to Hawaii? Why get married? Why have kids? Why struggle through life?

To win/survive against the odds. To come out on top when the deck is stacked against you. To jump in the dark pit and expect to find your way out. There is no guarantee you will but if you do, you can marvel at what you were able to accomplish.

Then you didn't understand what I said.
Suffering can NOT, by definition, be pleasant.
If it is not unpleasant then it is not suffering.

The unpleasantness is the obstacle the individual has to learn how to deal with. Once you've learn to deal with it, it is no longer unpleasant.

Do you mean in the same manner that it works with God? Yes.

I suspect God is insane. Only because that what I think transcendence would lead to. This is God's nightmare. Probably not. But if there were such a being, that's how I'd imagine it to work.

Being aware of our experience is completely different from experiencing it by himself. If God does not experience suffering, why should humans?

You care about that. I don't. I don't feel the need to judge God. I'm fine with the way things are. Life to me is a challenge. I try to make the most of every moment. If God gets something out of it or not, I don't care.

 

[Koldo]

We are so used to thinking in terms of logical it's difficult to conceive/think without it.

It is a matter of necessity.

It's the flaw of duality. Identifying something by it's opposite. For me joy and suffering are the same thing. Depends on how I choose to view it. You may have no reason to believe me but you have a choice. If you are not aware of it I don't expect you to be able to exercise it.

Joy and suffering can not be, by definition, the same thing.
If you view it as joy, you can not view it as suffering.
They are exclusive.

Why do anything? Why go to Hawaii? Why get married? Why have kids? Why struggle through life?

To win/survive against the odds. To come out on top when the deck is stacked against you. To jump in the dark pit and expect to find your way out. There is no guarantee you will but if you do, you can marvel at what you were able to accomplish.

And what if you were able to feel even better doing nothing?
The pleasure that comes from an accomplishment is contingent.
It is not a necessary truth.

This can be even better exemplified by God. He has no obstacles to reach his aims. And yet, sadness isn't one of his attributes.

The unpleasantness is the obstacle the individual has to learn how to deal with. Once you've learn to deal with it, it is no longer unpleasant.

This depends highly on each specific case.

I suspect God is insane. Only because that what I think transcendence would lead to. This is God's nightmare. Probably not. But if there were such a being, that's how I'd imagine it to work.

Doesn't this break down the attributes of the omnimax God?

You care about that. I don't. I don't feel the need to judge God. I'm fine with the way things are. Life to me is a challenge. I try to make the most of every moment. If God gets something out of it or not, I don't care.

Then your argument relies on a matter you are unable to address. An inconsistency.
"If God does not experience suffering, why should humans?"

 

[Nakosis]

It is a matter of necessity.

I don't find that to be true.

Joy and suffering can not be, by definition, the same thing.
If you view it as joy, you can not view it as suffering.
They are exclusive.

You're telling which aren't true for me. And, I imagine them to be true for you. Which is fine. You have to rely on what seems true for you until you find reason to think otherwise.

And what if you were able to feel even better doing nothing?
The pleasure that comes from an accomplishment is contingent.
It is not a necessary truth.

I don't think there are any necessary truths. Only what we accept as truth.

This can be even better exemplified by God. He has no obstacles to reach his aims. And yet, sadness isn't one of his attributes.

Maybe, however I'd argue that a transcendent being doesn't have attributes. So going down that road is just speculation.

This depends highly on each specific case.

I suspect it depends highly on the individual. Different people seems to experience things in different ways. I think it a mistake to assume all of our experiences have a common element.
Maybe some are but that is no guarantee all are.

My point is I have a lot of control over my point of view on reality. Maybe others take what view they have for granted.

Doesn't this break down the attributes of the omnimax God?

Why I said probably not. Hopefully if there is someone running things they are not insane but it would explain a few things.

Then your argument relies on a matter you are unable to address. An inconsistency.
"If God does not experience suffering, why should humans?"

Your question assumes we don't have a choice in the matter. Whereas I see that we do. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your question.
You don't want to accept it as such because, fairly, it is beyond your experience.

 

[Koldo]

I don't find that to be true.

Try to make a meaningful illogical statement.

You're telling which aren't true for me. And, I imagine them to be true for you. Which is fine. You have to rely on what seems true for you until you find reason to think otherwise.

I must say this is a rather objective matter.
Even though you would like this to not be the case.

I don't think there are any necessary truths. Only what we accept as truth.

Doesn't this also mean that God only exist if we consider it to?

Maybe, however I'd argue that a transcendent being doesn't have attributes. So going down that road is just speculation.

So, is he neither omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent?
Does he even exist? Can you dismiss his existence as being mere speculation too?

I suspect it depends highly on the individual. Different people seems to experience things in different ways. I think it a mistake to assume all of our experiences have a common element.
Maybe some are but that is no guarantee all are.

My point is I have a lot of control over my point of view on reality. Maybe others take what view they have for granted.

We can infer that MANY of our experiences have a common element.
Considering we are genetically very similar, and show similar reactions in multiple situations, it is reasonable to infer our experiences are related.
It is the same with inferring consciousness on other human beings.

Your question assumes we don't have a choice in the matter. Whereas I see that we do. I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your question.
You don't want to accept it as such because, fairly, it is beyond your experience.

A rather inacurate use of the term 'inconsistency', i must say. That question is aimed at a major flaw in your stance, because if God does not go through suffering then humans have no reason to experience it.

I deny your argument that one can have full control over suffering because it is baseless. You can't even provide evidence for it, thus I have no reason to accept it.

Can God choose to suffer? If yes, has he ever made this choice? If not, why not?
If suffering is useless to God himself, why would it be useful to humans?

 

[Nakosis]

Try to make a meaningful illogical statement.

That logic is necessary for language. Doesn't make it necessary for all things.

I must say this is a rather objective matter.
Even though you would like this to not be the case.

And you would like it to be the case. So we are at an impasse.

Doesn't this also mean that God only exist if we consider it to?

It means what we accept as truth doesn't really matter to anyone other then ourselves.

So, is he neither omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent?
Does he even exist? Can you dismiss his existence as being mere speculation too?

As soon as you conceptualize something, you miss the target of a transcendent being. Existence is a concept based on our experience of it. Concepts by their nature are not objective.

Imagine existence without perception. What would your basis for reality be? Sight, sound, taste, touch, smell. None of this would apply to a transcendent being. A state were nothing, not even the self exists to be aware of.

We can infer that MANY of our experiences have a common element.
Considering we are genetically very similar, and show similar reactions in multiple situations, it is reasonable to infer our experiences are related.
It is the same with inferring consciousness on other human beings.

It's reasonable. Not guaranteed though.

A rather inacurate use of the term 'inconsistency', i must say. That question is aimed at a major flaw in your stance, because if God does not go through suffering then humans have no reason to experience it.

Humans have no necessity to go through it but it is a result of what they choose.

I deny your argument that one can have full control over suffering because it is baseless. You can't even provide evidence for it, thus I have no reason to accept it.

I accept you have no experience with which to trust that claim. Maybe someday you will. I can't control what you experience in life.

Can God choose to suffer? If yes, has he ever made this choice? If not, why not?
If suffering is useless to God himself, why would it be useful to humans?

Yes, God can choose to suffer but not while also remaining transcendent. I don't know that suffering is useless to God. Just not something that a being, while transcendent can experience.

Has God made that choice? Yes, you are here. Everything that happens to you is because of choices you've made. You've yet to realize how much control you really have.

If you no longer want to suffer, you might seek someone to help you transcend your material state. Personally I prefer immanence while still being able to understand that suffering is the cost of it. You can stop paying the price whenever you want except that you don't believe that you can.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

ALTER2EGO -to- YADDOE:

Humans brought suffering upon themselves when the first human pair, Adam and Eve, rebelled against God's rulership back there in the Garden of Eden. By rejecting Jehovah God's restrictions when he told them to not eat of the forbidden fruit, they basically said to God: "We don't need you to give us guidelines because we can do better for ourselves."

That rebellion in the Garden of Eden was a challenge against God's right to rule. In order to answer that challenge, it required time in which man would have the opportunity to self-rule without God intervening. So God decided to step back and allow humans to self-rule for the last 6,000 years of human existence.

Humans have tried every type of government imaginable during that time span: monarchies, aristocracies, communism, dictatorships, democracy, theocracies, etc. And what has been the result of man ruling other men? Dismal failure!

"I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23)


Jehovah intends to end human suffering in his own appointed time, by means of his heavenly kingdom--which will rule over obedient mankind on the earth, as follows:

"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;" (Daniel 2:44)

Its time to play find that assumption.

The only one I care to point out here is Adam and Eve saying ""We don't need you to give us guidelines because we can do better for ourselves."
They never said that, and the Bible never said that they said that.

 

[Koldo]

That logic is necessary for language. Doesn't make it necessary for all things.

Would that mean you are unable to give any example to support your argument because you would have to make use of language ? If this is the case, this is a helpless unreasonable position. If you want someone to accept your argument, you need to provide a reason to do so.

And you would like it to be the case. So we are at an impasse.

I wish this was the case. It would make things more simple.
You are pointing to a car and saying it is boat, and using the excuse the terms 'car' and 'boat' are subjective and therefore you may use them as you wish.
That won't work.

It means what we accept as truth doesn't really matter to anyone other then ourselves.

That is not what you were talking about at all.

As soon as you conceptualize something, you miss the target of a transcendent being. Existence is a concept based on our experience of it. Concepts by their nature are not objective.

Isn't it still required for a transcendent being to exist?

Imagine existence without perception. What would your basis for reality be? Sight, sound, taste, touch, smell. None of this would apply to a transcendent being. A state were nothing, not even the self exists to be aware of.

The bolded part describes something that does not exist.
So it is a self-defeating.

It's reasonable. Not guaranteed though.

Certainly.

Humans have no necessity to go through it but it is a result of what they choose.

If it is not necessary, why is the choice available?

I accept you have no experience with which to trust that claim. Maybe someday you will. I can't control what you experience in life.

Is the burden of proof too heavy for you to carry?

Yes, God can choose to suffer but not while also remaining transcendent. I don't know that suffering is useless to God. Just not something that a being, while transcendent can experience.

A good question would be : What can God do while being transcendent?
Also, where do you infer the existence of this being from?
How did you come to find it reasonable?

Has God made that choice? Yes, you are here.

Do you mean to say my existence means that God suffered at a certain point?

Everything that happens to you is because of choices you've made. You've yet to realize how much control you really have.

Not really. You are giving more praise to our control than it deserves. Our ability to control our lives is considerably limited. We didn't ever choose to have any of the initial conditions of our existence, and they are definitely a deciding factor on what happens to us.

If you no longer want to suffer, you might seek someone to help you transcend your material state. Personally I prefer immanence while still being able to understand that suffering is the cost of it. You can stop paying the price whenever you want except that you don't believe that you can.

I wish it was so simple as you make it seem to be.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Rajiv, you're going to get banned. Speak all these single lines in one post. You're spamming

 

[Nakosis]

Would that mean you are unable to give any example to support your argument because you would have to make use of language ? If this is the case, this is a helpless unreasonable position. If you want someone to accept your argument, you need to provide a reason to do so.

I provided an example.
For a person which has none of the five senses, what meaning would logic have for them?

I wish this was the case. It would make things more simple.
You are pointing to a car and saying it is boat, and using the excuse the terms 'car' and 'boat' are subjective and therefore you may use them as you wish.
That won't work.

Actually you looking at the same thing but because you can see it from different angles(POVs) you want to call it something different. We are talking about how you view it not what you view. Joy and suffering aren't objects you can view like a car or boat. They refer to how you feel about what you are viewing.

That is not what you were talking about at all.

You were asking about God's existence. It seems to me you created the tangent.

Isn't it still required for a transcendent being to exist?

Required by who or what?

The bolded part describes something that does not exist.
So it is a self-defeating.

Yes, that is the point. Trying to describe or assign attributes to a transcendent being becomes self-defeating.

If it is not necessary, why is the choice available?

Because we became aware of the option. I suspect the story of Adam and Eve tries to express man becoming aware of his options. Freewill, such as it is, allows us to choose. However a person can't make a choice they are not aware of. The option is always there for an intelligent being to choose.

You chose to be attached to material things which causes you to suffer. You might be aware that you can choose to not be attached. What you seem to not be aware of is being able to choose not to suffer. You believe the option to, to not exist so for you it doesn't.

Is the burden of proof too heavy for you to carry?

You asking me to prove the sun exists while you stare at shadows on the wall. No one is going to be able to convince you otherwise while all you can see is shadows. You have to find your way out into the open so you can see it for yourself. Difficult for you at this point since you seem to believe that the shadows you do see is the entirety of reality.

A good question would be : What can God do while being transcendent?

"God" has the potential to do anything however can't actually do anything and remain transcendent by definition. That's why God is viewed as both transcendent and immanent.

Also, where do you infer the existence of this being from?

Found/discover/met/ran into "God".

How did you come to find it reasonable?

I don't find it reasonable at all. However I have to deal with what is apparently real regardless if I find it reasonable.

Do you mean to say my existence means that God suffered at a certain point?

Immanently yes, transcendentally no. Lets say you had a dream in which you were tortured. While in the dream the torture seemed real to you. Did you actually physically suffer?

Not really. You are giving more praise to our control than it deserves. Our ability to control our lives is considerably limited. We didn't ever choose to have any of the initial conditions of our existence, and they are definitely a deciding factor on what happens to us.

Perhaps, but I am not sure where the line is drawn between what we can control and what we can't. I find we have more control then I first suspected and I'm not sure how far we can go. Are you?

I wish it was so simple as you make it seem to be.

Answers always seem simpler once you know the solution.

 

[Koldo]

I provided an example.
For a person which has none of the five senses, what meaning would logic have for them?

The meaning the concept of logic has to a person is of no avail.
One does not need even to know what logic is to use logic.

Actually you looking at the same thing but because you can see it from different angles(POVs) you want to call it something different. We are talking about how you view it not what you view. Joy and suffering aren't objects you can view like a car or boat. They refer to how you feel about what you are viewing.

Although they aren't physical objects, they are terms as well defined as those.

You were asking about God's existence. It seems to me you created the tangent.

Allow me to clarify: You said, at first, that truth depends on the person, and at later moment you said that the acceptance of a truth only matters to each one.

You are talking about different things when giving an answer to related questions.

Required by who or what?

By necessity. If something lacks the attribute of existing then it doesn't exist.

Yes, that is the point. Trying to describe or assign attributes to a transcendent being becomes self-defeating.

You missed the point. It is self-defeating to say there is a state where there is nothing to be aware of. If there is nothing to be aware of, then nothing exists.

Because we became aware of the option. I suspect the story of Adam and Eve tries to express man becoming aware of his options. Freewill, such as it is, allows us to choose. However a person can't make a choice they are not aware of. The option is always there for an intelligent being to choose.

You missed the point once again.
Why is this option available to be aware of?

You asking me to prove the sun exists while you stare at shadows on the wall. No one is going to be able to convince you otherwise while all you can see is shadows. You have to find your way out into the open so you can see it for yourself. Difficult for you at this point since you seem to believe that the shadows you do see is the entirety of reality.

An argument that can not be shown to be (likely) true should not be brought into a debate. It is fruitless to think someone would bluntly accept a statement.

"God" has the potential to do anything however can't actually do anything and remain transcendent by definition. That's why God is viewed as both transcendent and immanent.

Does this mean God is inactive?

Found/discover/met/ran into "God".

You just said it is transcendent. How did you meet him?

I don't find it reasonable at all. However I have to deal with what is apparently real regardless if I find it reasonable.

And do you want others to accept an unreasonable position?
In this case you would be better off showing that it is real then.

Immanently yes, transcendentally no. Lets say you had a dream in which you were tortured. While in the dream the torture seemed real to you. Did you actually physically suffer?

God is not dreaming. So?

 

[Nakosis]

The meaning the concept of logic has to a person is of no avail.
One does not need even to know what logic is to use logic.

Alright, then how would such a individual use logic?

Although they aren't physical objects, they are terms as well defined as those.

They are terms you apply to something. An event an happening. Do you see yourself as having no choice in how you feel about an event?

I suspect we are just back to saying I see a choice where you see none...

Allow me to clarify: You said, at first, that truth depends on the person, and at later moment you said that the acceptance of a truth only matters to each one.

You are talking about different things when giving an answer to related questions.

Ok, then maybe restate your specific question and I will try to respond specifically to it.

By necessity. If something lacks the attribute of existing then it doesn't exist.

Lets see... What do you see as necessary for something to possess in order to fulfill your concept of existing?

You missed the point. It is self-defeating to say there is a state where there is nothing to be aware of. If there is nothing to be aware of, then nothing exists.

So you're saying awareness is required for something to exist?

You missed the point once again.
Why is this option available to be aware of?

I thought I made it clear, the option is always available. You are free to judge an experience as suffering. there's nothing stopping you. Except were one is not aware of the concept which which to fit ones experience to.

An argument that can not be shown to be (likely) true should not be brought into a debate. It is fruitless to think someone would bluntly accept a statement.

Certainly when one lacks experience in such matters. However your lack of such an experience doesn't change the answer. In any case this is not a debate, this is me answering your questions according to my experiences. If you are not going to accept the answers then why ask the questions?

Does this mean God is inactive?

It means God couldn't act unless God were both transcendent and immanent. However if you just take the view of God as transcendent there's no activity.

You just said it is transcendent. How did you meet him?

Lets say for a brief moment I became one with God to where I didn't exist any more. I'm not ready to not exist so I didn't stay. Actually just before existence completely faded there was enough of me left to choose not to stay. Loosing one's self identity scares the hell out of me to be honest. I still have attachments I'm not ready to let go of.

And do you want others to accept an unreasonable position?

Nope, I'm not really concerned about what others decide to accept. however I do feel an obligation to answer someone's questions according to my experience as honestly as I can.

In this case you would be better off showing that it is real then.

How can you see whether my experience was real unless you were there with me, experiencing what I experienced?

As you stumble around looking at shadows, you might find your way outside and see the sun for yourself. Then you will know what I know. I suspect at some point you will become dissatisfied with shadows and ask for help. Then help will come.

I'm not one to guide you into the light. I've only just discover it myself with a lot of help along the way. I'm still trying to make sense out of it myself.

Your belief, acknowledgement, acceptance is not necessary. There are enough around who have been here before me I've been made aware of. This provides a confidence a certainty. I'm just answering questions.

God is not dreaming. So?

It is the best way according to man's experience to understand the mechanics.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

For those complaining about the other thread being in Comparative Religion...
Have at it.

God obviously decided that suffering should be part of human existance on earth. Why do you want to know?

 

[fishy]

God obviously decided that suffering should be part of human existance on earth. Why do you want to know?

Now how funny is that?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Now how funny is that?

I'll bite...How funny is that?

 

[fishy]

I'll bite...How funny is that?

Very.......:biglaugh:

 

[Koldo]

Alright, then how would such a individual use logic?

If it ever performed any action ( even think ) it would use logic.

They are terms you apply to something. An event an happening. Do you see yourself as having no choice in how you feel about an event?

I suspect we are just back to saying I see a choice where you see none...

Let me put it this way: Imagine you have full control over how you feel. You can not choose to suffer and to feel joy at the same time, because not only they aren't same thing, they are contradictory.

Ok, then maybe restate your specific question and I will try to respond specifically to it.

If truth is only what we accept as truth, then doesn't this also mean that God only exist if we consider it to?

Lets see... What do you see as necessary for something to possess in order to fulfill your concept of existing?

The attribute of existing in itself.

So you're saying awareness is required for something to exist?

No. I am saying that if nothing exists to be aware of, then nothing exists.
NOT that if no one exists to be aware of anything, then nothing exists.

I thought I made it clear, the option is always available. You are free to judge an experience as suffering. there's nothing stopping you. Except were one is not aware of the concept which which to fit ones experience to.

Why is it available?
This is the central point.

Certainly when one lacks experience in such matters. However your lack of such an experience doesn't change the answer. In any case this is not a debate, this is me answering your questions according to my experiences. If you are not going to accept the answers then why ask the questions?

This IS a debate. Check the section this topic is posted in. Actually, just check the topic name...
I am not asking all my questions simply out of curiosity, rather i ask them to understand the position you defend in this debate.

It means God couldn't act unless God were both transcendent and immanent. However if you just take the view of God as transcendent there's no activity.

You said he can not remain transcendent while taking action. If he is, at this moment, transcendent, doesn't this mean he is inactive?

Lets say for a brief moment I became one with God to where I didn't exist any more. I'm not ready to not exist so I didn't stay. Actually just before existence completely faded there was enough of me left to choose not to stay. Loosing one's self identity scares the hell out of me to be honest. I still have attachments I'm not ready to let go of.

How did you determine it was God?

Nope, I'm not really concerned about what others decide to accept. however I do feel an obligation to answer someone's questions according to my experience as honestly as I can.

Then i am afraid i don't understand why you posted in a debate.

How can you see whether my experience was real unless you were there with me, experiencing what I experienced?

As you stumble around looking at shadows, you might find your way outside and see the sun for yourself. Then you will know what I know. I suspect at some point you will become dissatisfied with shadows and ask for help. Then help will come.

I'm not one to guide you into the light. I've only just discover it myself with a lot of help along the way. I'm still trying to make sense out of it myself.

Your belief, acknowledgement, acceptance is not necessary. There are enough around who have been here before me I've been made aware of. This provides a confidence a certainty. I'm just answering questions.

So it is also impossible to provide evidence that it is real.

It is the best way according to man's experience to understand the mechanics.

Do you mean to say our dreams are akin to what God experiences?

 

[Koldo]

God obviously decided that suffering should be part of human existance on earth. Why do you want to know?

Mainly because it is contradictory to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.