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

[Willamena]

Between proving it's good and just stating that it's good?

How would one go about proving an aesthetic? I've heard of theories of taste, but I haven't looked at them yet.

 

[Koldo]

I did say the biblical GOD is NOT omnipotent, as there is something that he cannot do. He cannot force human beings to follow him.


He chose an imperfect world to test human beings if they would follow despite imperfections. the rationale behind this is SATAN holding a rebellion despite his perfect stature.

Why was there a test?
Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God create them and let them live with no tests?

This is not the absence of free will sir, but the absence of the ability to do so. but for everything else that which you have the ability to do...

you do have the ability to choose how/when/where to use them.

So, you do agree that being unable to suffer would not make our free will cease to exist, correct?

Then why does God allow us to suffer if he is omnibenevolent?

 

[Koldo]

You clearly do not have a clue as to how to put forth an argument.

Is this all you have to say?

 

[Nakosis]

How does this apply to babies though?

We conceptualize it as suffering. Whereas they along with animals I suspect are just reacting to the immediate stimulation. They are reacting to the evolutionary process that developed survival instincts. They need to react to things like pain and hunger for the physical body to survive. So it's not suffering, it's survival though as we conceptually analyzing their circumstance we see it as suffering.

We couldn't want something we didn't know of, correct?
How did the very first human beings come to know of it?
Why did God allow us to know of it?

I suspect we started out as non-physical beings. At some point in the past we chose to possess physical bodies. We wanted to feel joy and pain. Like getting on a ride at an amusement park. To feel the thrill of being scared. However part of the thrill is not being able to get off the ride once it's in motion.

 

[Koldo]

We conceptualize it as suffering.

What the word 'suffering' refers to continues to exist regardless of whether we use the word or not. We conceptualize it as suffering because it is unreasonable to not consider it as suffering.

Whereas they along with animals I suspect are just reacting to the immediate stimulation. They are reacting to the evolutionary process that developed survival instincts. They need to react to things like pain and hunger for the physical body to survive. So it's not suffering, it's survival though as we conceptually analyzing their circumstance we see it as suffering.

I don't see how survival and suffering can be mutually exclusive.
Either way, this is again just a contingent example. It just happens to be case that animals need to feel (some) unwanted pain to survive. It doesn't explain why this must be the case. In another possible world, animals wouldn't need to feel unwanted pain to survive. Why didn't God make our world like that?

I suspect we started out as non-physical beings. At some point in the past we chose to possess physical bodies. We wanted to feel joy and pain. Like getting on a ride at an amusement park. To feel the thrill of being scared. However part of the thrill is not being able to get off the ride once it's in motion.

This just sends my questions further back in the time. It doesn't truly answer them. I will adjust them accordingly:

We couldn't want something we didn't know of, correct?
How did the very first non-physical beings ( that now are humans ) come to know of it?
Why did God allow us ( as non-physical beings ) to know of it?

 

[Nakosis]

What the word 'suffering' refers to continues to exist regardless of whether we use the word or not. We conceptualize it as suffering because it is unreasonable to not consider it as suffering.

I disagree, but understand how you would see it as such.
However, you keep pushing this claim which I'm not going to agree with and I'm afraid we are not going to get past.

I don't see how survival and suffering can be mutually exclusive.
Either way, this is again just a contingent example. It just happens to be case that animals need to feel (some) unwanted pain to survive. It doesn't explain why this must be the case. In another possible world, animals wouldn't need to feel unwanted pain to survive. Why didn't God make our world like that?

A physical entity needs to perpetuate itself. (survive) You judge the mechanism as unpleasant, well something had to be put in place to trigger the survival mechanism. Whatever came to be contingent through evolution or God's plan you'd still be free to judge it unpleasant/unwanted. You don't like the world the way it is and want to complain about it.

Ok, fine no ones is going to stop you. This is silly. You stick you hand in the fire and don't want to feel pain? The your flesh is going to react to the fire and cause problems for you. Wouldn't you like to know. Wouldn't you like some signal just in case you are not paying attention?

This just sends my questions further back in the time. It doesn't truly answer them. I will adjust them accordingly:

We couldn't want something we didn't know of, correct?
How did the very first non-physical beings ( that now are humans ) come to know of it?
Why did God allow us ( as non-physical beings ) to know of it?

That we could possess physical bodies and feel?

I don't know. I'm relying on various religious beliefs. Maybe it stared with Adam and Eve. However I suspect we've been doing this for a very long time. Long before this universe. Maybe through millions of universes.

God became aware. Them became aware that he could create. Eventually creating the other-self. God chose to be unaware that the other self was the same. So the other self could apparently act independently. This was good because God desired a companion. In continuing this, God divided himself into an infinite number of beings. All unaware of being part of the same being. All capable of creating. There is I suspect an infinite distance in time that separates us along with infinite existence and creation to get us to where we are here.

At some point in the past I believe the physical realm was created and we vested ourselves in it.

So while there no reason for you to accept any of this without some sort of personal revelation. As I see it, you are complaining about what you've done to yourself. You got on the ride and no longer remember how to get off.

 

[Koldo]

I disagree, but understand how you would see it as such.
However, you keep pushing this claim which I'm not going to agree with and I'm afraid we are not going to get past.

Do you have any reason to think the unwanted pain you go through doesn't happen to other beings?

A physical entity needs to perpetuate itself. (survive) You judge the mechanism as unpleasant, well something had to be put in place to trigger the survival mechanism. Whatever came to be contingent through evolution or God's plan you'd still be free to judge it unpleasant/unwanted. You don't like the world the way it is and want to complain about it.

It is unpleasant because i perceive it as unpleasant and i have no reason to doubt my perception. Not that only, it would be unreasonable if unwanted pain wasn't unplesant.

It is also wrong to say that something HAD to be put in place to grant our survival. This mechanism is contingent, it just happens to be the case that in our current world it is required. In another possible world, we wouldn't need to experience any unwanted pain to survive.

Ok, fine no ones is going to stop you. This is silly. You stick you hand in the fire and don't want to feel pain? The your flesh is going to react to the fire and cause problems for you. Wouldn't you like to know. Wouldn't you like some signal just in case you are not paying attention?

This could be simply solved by fire not burning the flesh. All pain in this world necessary to survival is contingent.

That we could possess physical bodies and feel?

I don't know. I'm relying on various religious beliefs. Maybe it stared with Adam and Eve. However I suspect we've been doing this for a very long time. Long before this universe. Maybe through millions of universes.

God became aware. Them became aware that he could create. Eventually creating the other-self. God chose to be unaware that the other self was the same. So the other self could apparently act independently. This was good because God desired a companion. In continuing this, God divided himself into an infinite number of beings. All unaware of being part of the same being. All capable of creating. There is I suspect an infinite distance in time that separates us along with infinite existence and creation to get us to where we are here.

At some point in the past I believe the physical realm was created and we vested ourselves in it.

So while there no reason for you to accept any of this without some sort of personal revelation. As I see it, you are complaining about what you've done to yourself. You got on the ride and no longer remember how to get off.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that we are God?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How would one go about proving an aesthetic? I've heard of theories of taste, but I haven't looked at them yet.

You've hit at the heart of the matter. Perhaps you could explain this better to Koldo that I can.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is this all you have to say?

It's hard to debate when you change the parameters with every answer.

 

[Koldo]

It's hard to debate when you change the parameters with every answer.

Once again, i ask you: Is this all you have to say?

Or do you intend to formulate an argument at some point?

 

[Nakosis]

Do you have any reason to think the unwanted pain you go through doesn't happen to other beings?

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of the question.

It is unpleasant because i perceive it as unpleasant and i have no reason to doubt my perception. Not that only, it would be unreasonable if unwanted pain wasn't unplesant.

Certainly, I'm just saying a person can learn to control their perception to a degree. I'm not sure how extensively but enough to know it is possible.

It is also wrong to say that something HAD to be put in place to grant our survival. This mechanism is contingent, it just happens to be the case that in our current world it is required. In another possible world, we wouldn't need to experience any unwanted pain to survive.

Ok, how would the mechanics of such a world work?

This could be simply solved by fire not burning the flesh. All pain in this world necessary to survival is contingent.

The universe works as it does. You would eventually be able to trace that back to God. However life IMO determine randomly or causatively how to deal with it. It developed for all practical purpose independent of God.
There is a lot of causation between us and transient God. There is enough determined randomness in this case through evolution that God is no longer directly responsible.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that we are God?

Ultimately the only actual being would be God. However there is an infinite degree of causation between God and man so man can act independently of God's initial cause.

Some of that causation for physical existence is the evolutionary process. Life developed this mechanism independent of God. The body is physically stuck with the results of evolution. However I think the essence of life is still transcendental so that it (the self,you) can act independent of that causation. However why should you honestly try in earnest to accomplish what you don't believe is possible?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Once again, i ask you: Is this all you have to say?

Or do you intend to formulate an argument at some point?

I'm asking you to coherently justify yours. I didn't start the thread. You wish to condemn God seemingly on the premise that suffering is either wrong or bad. I'm asking you to show that suffering is either. So far you have deflected that by saying that suffering is the opposite of happiness implying that happiness is good ergo suffering is bad. I asked you to show that happiness is good and you deflected that as well. I can understand you being so jumpy in lieu of supporting your argument. I have not, nor do I need to, offer anything other than a challenge to points.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of the question.

I said that it is unreasonable to think that babies don't suffer. You said you disagree. Then i asked you: do you have any reason to doubt they go through unwanted pain just like you?

Certainly, I'm just saying a person can learn to control their perception to a degree. I'm not sure how extensively but enough to know it is possible.

Still if the individuals can change their perception to the point that unwanted pain stops being unpleasant then the survival system becomes a failure. Which means the individual has to perceive this unplesant feeling at first to then take action.

Ok, how would the mechanics of such a world work?

It wouldn't exist, because it would be unnecessary to grant our survival.

The universe works as it does. You would eventually be able to trace that back to God. However life IMO determine randomly or causatively how to deal with it. It developed for all practical purpose independent of God.
There is a lot of causation between us and transient God. There is enough determined randomness in this case through evolution that God is no longer directly responsible.

Doesn't it remain true , though, that God could interfer in this process any time he wished to ?

Ultimately the only actual being would be God. However there is an infinite degree of causation between God and man so man can act independently of God's initial cause.

Are more Gods being created every moment?
Why did God create more than one companion?

 

[Koldo]

I'm asking you to coherently justify yours.

Which i have been doing.

I didn't start the thread.

Neither did I.

You wish to condemn God seemingly on the premise that suffering is either wrong or bad.

Condemn? This is a misrepresentation of my stance.

I'm asking you to show that suffering is either. So far you have deflected that by saying that suffering is the opposite of happiness implying that happiness is good ergo suffering is bad. I asked you to show that happiness is good and you deflected that as well.

In which manner did i deflect it?
To explain why happiness is good, i explained through definitions what is to be understood as 'good' ( in the same sense that 'benevolence' is used).

By the definition of 'benevolence', i pointed that the 'disposition to do good' is directly related to the act of 'charity'. Therefore, if you are doing 'charity' you are doing 'good'.

And considering that, by doing 'charity', you are intently promoting the welfare ( and happiness ), then 'good' ( in the same sense that 'benevolence' is used) necessarily includes happiness.

I can understand you being so jumpy in lieu of supporting your argument. I have not, nor do I need to, offer anything other than a challenge to points.

However, rather than presenting your objections to my argument, at a certain point you just decided to dismiss them without any further consideration.

 

[Nakosis]

I said that it is unreasonable to think that babies don't suffer. You said you disagree. Then i asked you: do you have any reason to doubt they go through unwanted pain just like you?

What I disagreed with the the statement that is was unreasonable to consider unwanted pain as other then suffering. You are free to consider it as being whatever you wish. I don't see any necessity of agreeing with you. Pain is pain. I don't know that any of it is wanted. However it motivates an entity to act in some fashion to deal with it. Versus not dealing with it and being left with the consequences of not doing so.

Still if the individuals can change their perception to the point that unwanted pain stops being unpleasant then the survival system becomes a failure. Which means the individual has to perceive this unplesant feeling at first to then take action.

Exactly, this is a necessary mechanism of survival for an entity which lacks the ability to observe and make an intelligent choice to promote survival. You may judge the pain unwanted and unnecessary since to have other means to comprehend and deal with the situation. Whereas a baby and or animal does not.

It wouldn't exist, because it would be unnecessary to grant our survival.

God granted life independence of his will. Sometimes an entity or element of life works at cross purposes to your survival. Because it act independently it can do so. God's blame in this is granting you the capability of independent will. If all life work in accordance with your will, then you would not suffer life's independent intrusion into your survival. These independent elements/entities don't care about your survival. Their concern is their own. It's a problem if you identify the self as a physical/material entity. If you see yourself a spiritual being, then not so much.

Doesn't it remain true , though, that God could interfer in this process any time he wished to ?

Take over your will? Supposedly. However that is apparently not God's will at this time. Do you no longer want to exist independently of God? I believe if that is what you really want it can be accomplished. However if you realized what you were asking. I don't think it's something you'd really want.

Are more Gods being created every moment?
Why did God create more than one companion?

Not Gods exactly. but independent entities capable of creation. Do you have kids?

I don't know, why do people have kids? To have someone to share existence with I suppose. To experience existence vicariously through the "reality" of someone else.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Which i have been doing.

That's an opinion.

Neither did I.

Yet you stepped into my line of posts.

Condemn? This is a misrepresentation of my stance.

Yet by saying that God allows sufferring you are saying that it contradicts God being omnibenevolent.

In which manner did i deflect it?
To explain why happiness is good, i explained through definitions what is to be understood as 'good' ( in the same sense that 'benevolence' is used).
By the definition of 'benevolence', i pointed that the 'disposition to do good' is directly related to the act of 'charity'. Therefore, if you are doing 'charity' you are doing 'good'. And considering that, by doing 'charity', you are intently promoting the welfare ( and happiness ), then 'good' ( in the same sense that 'benevolence' is used) necessarily includes happiness.

This is at best a convoluted chain of logic. You took a narrow definition of benevolence that included the word "good" in it and extrapolated it forward without allowing for the varying influences of the alternate usages. For example there are times when allowing someone to suffer with a high fever is more "benevolent" than reducing it, therefore being "good" for the "welfare" of the patient. Also the definition of suffering, since you like to go there, means to endure. Are you also, using your system of stringing definitions together, going to suggest that enduring is also bad?

However, rather than presenting your objections to my argument, at a certain point you just decided to dismiss them without any further consideration.

You just can't stay in one place can you? Muddying the waters is not a winning debate technique.

 

[Koldo]

What I disagreed with the the statement that is was unreasonable to consider unwanted pain as other then suffering. You are free to consider it as being whatever you wish. I don't see any necessity of agreeing with you. Pain is pain. I don't know that any of it is wanted.

If you want to go along that line, then:
If God exists, why does God allow so much unwanted pain to exist?

However it motivates an entity to act in some fashion to deal with it. Versus not dealing with it and being left with the consequences of not doing so.

I wonder why you are making mention to a contingent matter.

Exactly, this is a necessary mechanism of survival for an entity which lacks the ability to observe and make an intelligent choice to promote survival. You may judge the pain unwanted and unnecessary since to have other means to comprehend and deal with the situation. Whereas a baby and or animal does not.

It just happens to be the case it is necessary in our current world.

God granted life independence of his will. Sometimes an entity or element of life works at cross purposes to your survival. Because it act independently it can do so. God's blame in this is granting you the capability of independent will. If all life work in accordance with your will, then you would not suffer life's independent intrusion into your survival. These independent elements/entities don't care about your survival. Their concern is their own. It's a problem if you identify the self as a physical/material entity. If you see yourself a spiritual being, then not so much.

It is not strictly a matter of will, but also a matter of capacity.
God could restrict the abilities of various entities and elements to don't influence our lives. Yet he does not.

Take over your will? Supposedly. However that is apparently not God's will at this time. Do you no longer want to exist independently of God? I believe if that is what you really want it can be accomplished. However if you realized what you were asking. I don't think it's something you'd really want.

Taking over my will is unnecessary.
He could change the universe to exclude us from suffering by changing multiple other things.

Not Gods exactly. but independent entities capable of creation. Do you have kids?

This is not what you said before. Did you change your mind?

I don't know, why do people have kids? To have someone to share existence with I suppose. To experience existence vicariously through the "reality" of someone else.

But there were already other "people" to share existence with. And they weren't divided between groups, nor there were any instincts of procreation playing any role.

 

[nekoboy]

The reason there is so much suffering is because we need it to progress. What doesn't kill you (spiritually or physically) will make you stronger. If there was no suffering or struggling, we wouldn't mature, physically, mentally, or spiritually. Instead of complaining about our problems, we can consider it a blessing in disguise, and overcome them, becoming a better person in the process.

I don't know if that solves any questions, but yeah. This life isn't the only thing we will experience, and I personally believe that God wants us to become the best we can be in the space of our lives.

 

[Koldo]

That's an opinion.

This is your opinion.

Yet you stepped into my line of posts.

Yes, so?

Yet by saying that God allows sufferring you are saying that it contradicts God being omnibenevolent.

I did say that there is a contradiction in God allowing suffering and being omnimax. That is far from saying i 'condemn' God though.

This is at best a convoluted chain of logic. You took a narrow definition of benevolence that included the word "good" in it and extrapolated it forward without allowing for the varying influences of the alternate usages. For example there are times when allowing someone to suffer with a high fever is more "benevolent" than reducing it, therefore being "good" for the "welfare" of the patient.

First of all, benevolence has always involved the term 'good', or related words. This is the standard. You may want to check the following information:

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin benevol

ns, benevolent- : bene, well; see deu-2 in Indo-European roots + vol

ns, present participle of velle, to wish; see wel-1 in Indo-European roots.]

Second, your example does NOT disagree with my definitions. In fact, what your example tries to do is to show a situation where suffering is acceptable within my definitions without posing a contradiction.

You are correct when you say there are ( contingent ) situations where it may be more 'benevolent' to make someone endure 'suffering', and go through a painful healing procedure, because that act is going to promote the 'welfare' of another individual, however, this is only the best option if you don't have the power to promote the 'welfare' of someone without making this person endure suffering. In the case you have the power to heal the patient while dropping the fever then it is more 'benevolent' to do so.

With that said, it is important to mention that , in your example, it is not the suffering that is promoting the welfare of the individual. But rather it is the healing process the individual is going through, that just happens to involve suffering. The healing procedure, when successful, generates more welfare than what is lost with the suffering caused by it. This healing process is contingent though, which means it just happens to be the case it exists and that it may involve suffering. It could very well be the case that it didn't involve any sort of suffering.

Also the definition of suffering, since you like to go there, means to endure. Are you also, using your system of stringing definitions together, going to suggest that enduring is also bad?

The definition of suffering means to endure? Mind if i ask you what is your source?

You just can't stay in one place can you? Muddying the waters is not a winning debate technique.

Are you going to stop with this at some point? I wonder.

 

[nekoboy]

I also believe that God has a better perspective than we do. This life is temporary, eternity is forever.