Don't try and say your omnimax god has a reason to allow suffering

[methylatedghosts]

Of course I am; to do so is necessary when talking about love. Anyone who disagrees with those labels is immoral and not worthy of discussion.

Evil/good/bad... they are only relative to each other and are not an inherent part of a thing. Anything can be viewed as having a "good" or a "bad" effect, or cause.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Evil/good/bad... they are only relative to each other and are not an inherent part of a thing. Anything can be viewed as having a "good" or a "bad" effect, or cause.

I'm well aware of moral relativism, but if you have no opinion about what is good, then you can't say that god is good. In other words, you've disqualified yourself from this discussion.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Not really.
The OP is merely making the claim that to be "all" loving one has to not allow suffering.
A premise I myself do not believe holds up to scrutiny.

Unfortunately, I have not seen anyone actually try to refute this particular part very well.

Maybe because there aren't that many people here who disagree with the OP all that much.

What makes anyone think that this ISN"T heaven on earth?

[/quote]

Yep, maybe this is as good as it gets.

 

[Willamena]

I'm well aware of moral relativism, but if you have no opinion about what is good, then you can't say that god is good. In other words, you've disqualified yourself from this discussion.

The moral relativist doesn't lack for an opinion, though.

 

[Willamena]

Pantheist?

The idea of omnipresence/omniscience/omnipotence expresses a pantheistic or panentheistic monotheism, yes.

 

[Willamena]

So you agree with me that such a view of God is incorrect. I'm not sure what we're arguing about. If you do not make those statements and their underlying assumptions about your God, then this thread is not talking about you. I feel, as you do, that the Abrahamic God is storybook in nature. Theodicy illustrates that fact clearly.

It's not incorrect, it's literalized. To take the character out of the story and treat it as characteristic of "God" is to take the myth literally, and hence destroy its potential as a myth.

My image of God isn't relevant here. I'm just saying that the argument put forth is structured around invalid assumptions contained in the premises.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm well aware of moral relativism, but if you have no opinion about what is good, then you can't say that god is good. In other words, you've disqualified yourself from this discussion.

Correction

I know that good, and bad etc are merely labels, and not part of the actual thing. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion of what "good" might be relative to my understanding of a thing.

Don't try and say your omnimax god has a reason to allow suffering

And correction again

If god is omnimax (i.e. All-everything), then it would follow that God is all-good and all-bad

More to the point, however, simply holding a view of moral relativity does NOT exclude such a viewpoint from a discussion on the thread topic. In fact, good and bad doesn't even need to play into it.

I have neither argued for a good that is good, nor a god that is bad.

All I've really stated in my posts in this thread is that SUFFERING is neither good nor bad.

My 2nd point for the thread topic would be that it is people who create suffering, that it is the individual that allows for suffering to happen, and that it is each person who can choose to end suffering for themselves. (Oh, see what I did there? Neither good nor bad played a part in that point)

 

[CarlinKnew]

Correction

I know that good, and bad etc are merely labels, and not part of the actual thing. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion of what "good" might be relative to my understanding of a thing.

Then let's hear your opinion, shall we, instead of sidetracking on moral relativism.

And correction again

If god is omnimax (i.e. All-everything), then it would follow that God is all-good and all-bad

Omnimax is shorthand for the popular view of the bible god; that is, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent.

All I've really stated in my posts in this thread is that SUFFERING is neither good nor bad.

Ah, your opinion, at last! Well, do you think that pointless suffering is "bad"? In other words, would you call it "loving" for one being to inflict unnecessary suffering on another?

My 2nd point for the thread topic would be that it is people who create suffering, that it is the individual that allows for suffering to happen, and that it is each person who can choose to end suffering for themselves. (Oh, see what I did there? Neither good nor bad played a part in that point)

Mhmm, so a child born with AIDS, unable to seek treatment, merely created his own suffering. Right.

 

[Scott1]

Well, do you think that pointless suffering is "bad"?

What is "pointless" suffering?

In other words, would you call it "loving" for one being to inflict unnecessary suffering on another?

I wouldn't... but I'm not sure what you mean by unnecessary.

 

[CarlinKnew]

What is "pointless" suffering?

I wouldn't... but I'm not sure what you mean by unnecessary.

Suffering is pointless and unnecessary if whatever benefit comes from it, could've been achieved without it.

 

[Scott1]

Suffering is pointless and unnecessary if whatever benefit comes from it, could've been achieved without it.

I'm not sure exactly how the "benefit" of suffering could be "achieved" without said suffering....

.... kinda like saying the enjoyment of eating a hamburger is pointless and unnecessary if the same nutritional benefit could be obtained from a pill. If the nutritional benefit is the sole reasoning, then fine... but I don't believe the experience of actually eating the hamburger could be described as "pointless"... merely not as "efficient" ...... or "barbaric", depending on the attitude of the person sitting in judgement of the act.

I would contend that suffering is part of the human condition in which man experiences his powerlessness, his limitations, and his finitude... sure, we can grasp these concepts intellectually, but suffering allows man to glimpse death in a way that is unique( in my opinion ).... and as such, is not pointless or unnecessary.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I'm not sure exactly how the "benefit" of suffering could be "achieved" without said suffering....

.... kinda like saying the enjoyment of eating a hamburger is pointless and unnecessary if the same nutritional benefit could be obtained from a pill. If the nutritional benefit is the sole reasoning, then fine... but I don't believe the experience of actually eating the hamburger could be described as "pointless"... merely not as "efficient" ...... or "barbaric", depending on the attitude of the person sitting in judgement of the act.

Let's say that your son needs some nutrition, and you could either give him a hamburger or a rusty-nail-sandwich, (for purposes of this example they both have the same nutritional value). Wouldn't you say that you'd be inflicting unnecessary suffering on your son by giving him the rusty-nail-sandwich when you could've just as easily given him the hamburger?

 

[Scott1]

Wouldn't you say that you'd be inflicting unnecessary suffering on your son by giving him the rusty-nail-sandwich when you could've just as easily given him the hamburger?

While our examples certainly lack the true depth of the topic... I can see what you mean... and would agree that if nutrition were the ONLY desired outcome, the nails would certainly be unnecessary.... but it's easy to push aside the "teaching value" intent of eating the nails because it is such a simple concept. Death and our mortality are certainly a bit more complex than what we've both offered.

I just still don't see any way (other than intellectually) for man to TRULY confront his/her certain death.... and think you would agree that the intellectual concept of eating a nail-sandwich (rusty or otherwise ) would NOT impart the same benefit of teaching that actually eating the sandwich would.

So, I still can't grasp the "pointless" part of your argument.

Sheesh... now I'm hungry for a sandwich... how wierd is that? Hehe

 

[CarlinKnew]

While our examples certainly lack the true depth of the topic... I can see what you mean... and would agree that if nutrition were the ONLY desired outcome, the nails would certainly be unnecessary.... but it's easy to push aside the "teaching value" intent of eating the nails because it is such a simple concept. Death and our mortality are certainly a bit more complex than what we've both offered.

I just still don't see any way (other than intellectually) for man to TRULY confront his/her certain death.... and think you would agree that the intellectual concept of eating a nail-sandwich (rusty or otherwise ) would NOT impart the same benefit of teaching that actually eating the sandwich would.

So, I still can't grasp the "pointless" part of your argument.

What if the "teaching value" was equal in either case? We have to remember that an omnimax creator could design us in such a way that we would receive the same "teaching value" either way.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Then let's hear your opinion, shall we, instead of sidetracking on moral relativism.

Done already.

Ah, your opinion, at last! Well, do you think that pointless suffering is "bad"? In other words, would you call it "loving" for one being to inflict unnecessary suffering on another?

I do not believe that suffering is necessarily pointless - even though you might call it so. And no, I wouldn't call that loving - but I also do not believe that god inflicts suffering on anyone - many people do just fine doing that themselves without needing god's help in that.

Mhmm, so a child born with AIDS, unable to seek treatment, merely created his own suffering. Right.

Suffering is a reaction to a situation, not being in a situation.

 

[Willamena]

What if the "teaching value" was equal in either case? We have to remember that an omnimax creator could design us in such a way that we would receive the same "teaching value" either way.

I look forward to the day you realize the pearl.

 

[Scott1]

What if the "teaching value" was equal in either case? We have to remember that an omnimax creator could design us in such a way that we would receive the same "teaching value" either way.

Well.... we can "what if" ourselves to death on this... bit boring if you ask me.

Truth is, all things are not equal... and I would prefer to hear more about why suffering is, in your opinion, still pointless in this universe and not a hypothetical one.

 

[Peggy Anne]

God/ nature made laws. Gravity for example. If you drop a rock on your foot, it is going to hurt. Should we expect 'sky daddy' to fix everything, or do we like the challenge of preventing pain, and suffering through common sense, and applied science ?

 

[Scott1]

God/ nature made laws. Gravity for example. If you drop a rock on your foot, it is going to hurt. Should we expect 'sky daddy' to fix everything, or do we like the challenge of preventing pain, and suffering through common sense, and applied science ?

Well said.... but to be clear, this fellow seems to take issue with those rare Bible literalists who claim that God is all powerful and loving but then can't quite explain evil/suffering etc.

Faith without reason is superstition.

 

[TheKnight]

If you believe that, and you believe your god is all-powerful, then you are deluding yourself in order to believe a contradiction. Nothing is necessary for an omnipotent being.

How so? I believe that the good that results from the suffering is necessary. Getting to an end without the necessary means to get there is the same thing as God making a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it.

The best good is that which results from suffering. The best good is the good that necessitates that we suffer. I believe that God wants the best good for us.

I can see where you're coming from... I don't agree with you but I think I understand your point a little better.
I still maintain though that there are too many horrors in this world that are beyond our control that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God has no reason to allow to happen. While I can understand the notion that we can create a world we feel we have earned, it seems that the process is too slow. How many Billions have died to natural disasters and incurable diseases? Things that we may lack the technology to prevent for centuries to come. In my eyes an all loving God wouldn't allow this to happen, simply because these deaths are needless.

Do you not think that, knowing the end result, God would be willing to put Himself through the pain of not acting in order that we can eventually reach that end result?