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

[Wannabe Yogi]

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

Death seems to be a importent part of the universe . Stars, Humans and Ants all grow old and die. Suffering is a part of all conscious life-forms . From the small Human position suffering seems unnecessary. Our reality is a very limited view of things. Unnecessary or necessary is not the point. Suffering is just a natural part of life. Who am I to say it is pointless. All we can do is struggle against it. To limit it as much as possible in the lives of all beings. In this way we create goodness in our selves through the exercise of love. By love we become more human by love we transcend nature.

 

[Erebus]

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?

It's not God's pain that concerns me, it's the pain and death of the millions of creatures (I'm including animals as well as humans because... I like animals) that are suffering from ailments we may not be able to cure for centuries to come.
Sure God might nudge us in the right direction and help us to help ourselves, but frankly it's not enough. Suffering and death is happening on a massive scale right now and any universal panacea mankind creates in the dim and distant future will not help those who are dying today. Again I don't believe that a responsible father would allow this to happen to his children regardless of his plan for the future.
Like I said, I can see where you're coming from, I just don't agree with you.

 

[CarlinKnew]

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

That's fine as long as you don't claim that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists.

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.

Here's the path that this debate always takes, and my final point always remains unaddressed.

atheist: Infant is born with horrible disease, lives for a month knowing nothing but pain, dies. Why would an omnimax god allow this to happen?
theist: God must have some reason, but it's beyond our understanding. It allows for some greater good.
atheist: Whatever greater good it allows for, god could make possible in some way other than suffering.
theist: Impossible, we need suffering to learn.
atheist: If we need suffering to learn, then it's only because our primate brains (or souls) are designed that way. If your god was really omnimax, he would design us in a way that we would "learn" or achieve whatever "greater good" in some way other than suffering.
theist: No, let's start over again!

Until someone tries to address that last point (I highly doubt anyone is able to) then it can be known that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator-god is a contradiction as demonstrated.

 

[TheKnight]

It's not God's pain that concerns me, it's the pain and death of the millions of creatures (I'm including animals as well as humans because... I like animals) that are suffering from ailments we may not be able to cure for centuries to come.
Sure God might nudge us in the right direction and help us to help ourselves, but frankly it's not enough. Suffering and death is happening on a massive scale right now and any universal panacea mankind creates in the dim and distant future will not help those who are dying today. Again I don't believe that a responsible father would allow this to happen to his children regardless of his plan for the future.
Like I said, I can see where you're coming from, I just don't agree with you.

I, also, see where you are coming from. And it's good that you do.

From a human perspective suffering is a tragedy, and we need to react on a human level which means being angry about the fact that there is suffering.
At the same time we need to know that there is a level of reality that is beyond the human level, and at that the suffering results in good.

I believe that God doesn't want us to understand it because He prefers that we be angry about it. At the same time, we shouldn't let it interfere with our believing in God.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I, also, see where you are coming from. And it's good that you do.

From a human perspective suffering is a tragedy, and we need to react on a human level which means being angry about the fact that there is suffering.
At the same time we need to know that there is a level of reality that is beyond the human level, and at that the suffering results in good.

I believe that God doesn't want us to understand it because He prefers that we be angry about it. At the same time, we shouldn't let it interfere with our believing in God.

Another example of CK's prediction coming true.

AND you still haven't addressed the issue that it is MY life and MY suffering. I - and I alone - decide what value if any it has.

As for not effecting belief in your all-loving fairy god-father. It does and it SHOULD!:yes:

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"At the same time we need to know that there is a level of reality that is beyond the human level, and at that the suffering results in good."


Even IF this were true - s-o-o-o wh-a-a-a-t? Who gives - or should give - a frack what happens "beyond the human level"?

 

[Scott1]

That's fine as long as you don't claim that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists.

Gotcha... I don't.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[Beaudreaux]

But it is exactly what the OP insists life should be like (according to his standards) if a "omnimax" god were to exist at all.
And if the OP is looking for heaven on earth then my question is why should such a god bother with creating life in the first place?

That makes perfect sense as well.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Until someone tries to address that last point (I highly doubt anyone is able to) then it can be known that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator-god is a contradiction as demonstrated.

I don't think you will get the answer that your looking for whatever it may be.

 

[Beaudreaux]

When people think they're as smart as God, it's so easy for them to have all the answers.

If I may be so bold as to speak for the people bringing this problem up; none of us thinks they're smarter than God. We think this problem demonstrates that no such God exists. (BTW, eye rolls are not arguments)

I can't believe this topic is coming up AGAIN!

Yeah. It would be nice if it would just go away, wouldn't it.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

So then, no one is really "good" or "bad". Hitler, for instance, produced the Volkswagen. Am I right?

 

[Beaudreaux]

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

True, but that opinion cannot claim to be better or worse than ANY other opinion.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Would you point out the assumptions you feel are invalid?

 

[Beaudreaux]

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

frubals!

 

[Beaudreaux]

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 ?

I don't think we're talking about toe stubbing here, or touching a hot stove to learn about the dangers of fire. We're talking about the massive amounts of suffering humans endure with no redeeming value. The diseases and natural disasters in human history have inflicted such suffering on millions who died in pain and terror and had no opportunity to "grow" from the expecience. Take smallpox alone. Millions, many of them children, died in agony and fear. Not quite the same thing as dropping a rock on one's foot.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.


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?

If suffering is such a good thing, i.e. it's necessary for growth and improvement, then why do we spend so much of our time trying to reduce or eliminate it. In fact, according to your views, isn't it the best thing I can do to my fellow man to make hims suffer?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I, also, see where you are coming from. And it's good that you do.

From a human perspective suffering is a tragedy, and we need to react on a human level which means being angry about the fact that there is suffering.
At the same time we need to know that there is a level of reality that is beyond the human level, and at that the suffering results in good.

I believe that God doesn't want us to understand it because He prefers that we be angry about it. At the same time, we shouldn't let it interfere with our believing in God.

I ask again, if suffering results in good, shouldn't we strive to make our neighbors suffer? Isn't it a good thing for me to break my neighbor's leg? Steal his money? Think of how he/she will grow as a result.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think we're talking about toe stubbing here, or touching a hot stove to learn about the dangers of fire. We're talking about the massive amounts of suffering humans endure with no redeeming value. The diseases and natural disasters in human history have inflicted such suffering on millions who died in pain and terror and had no opportunity to "grow" from the expecience. Take smallpox alone. Millions, many of them children, died in agony and fear. Not quite the same thing as dropping a rock on one's foot.

Gotcha. So where do you draw the line? Dropping a rock on one's foot is okay, but being buried alive when an earthquake causes a mountainside to crumble is not. I am seriously curious to know where the line should be drawn. What constitutes a "massive amount" of suffering? Is a natural disaster no big deal if it kills only three or four people but unfair if it kills three or four thousand. We suffer individually, regardless of whether a single event affects many of us at the same time or not. And let me tell you, a couple of broken toes caused by a rock falling on them can be pretty painful.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Gotcha. So where do you draw the line? Dropping a rock on one's foot is okay, but being buried alive when an earthquake causes a mountainside to crumble is not. I am seriously curious to know where the line should be drawn. What constitutes a "massive amount" of suffering? Is a natural disaster no big deal if it kills only three or four people but unfair if it kills three or four thousand. We suffer individually, regardless of whether a single event affects many of us at the same time or not. And let me tell you, a couple of broken toes caused by a rock falling on them can be pretty painful.

Cute way to (deliberately??) miss the point.

WHY cancer? The plague? What "noble learning experience" is there in those illnesses?

Why child abuse? What can a 5 yr old "learn" from that experience? If you are honest you very well KNOW what he/she "learns" and it ain't got nuttin to do wit no lovin god thingy.

 

[TheKnight]

AND you still haven't addressed the issue that it is MY life and MY suffering. I - and I alone - decide what value if any it has.

It is your life and it is up to you to decide what value suffering has. I'm simply trying to explain to you how I see it. You don't have to see the same way, I would prefer that you didn't.

Even IF this were true - s-o-o-o wh-a-a-a-t? Who gives - or should give - a frack what happens "beyond the human level"?

It's a matter of intellectual understanding.

If suffering is such a good thing, i.e. it's necessary for growth and improvement, then why do we spend so much of our time trying to reduce or eliminate it. In fact, according to your views, isn't it the best thing I can do to my fellow man to make hims suffer?

Because suffering itself isn't good. Going through suffering is not what produces the good, it's getting over the suffering that does. Handling the suffering, eliminating it for others, that's the good that comes from it.

It's like getting knocked down. Getting knocked down isn't the good thing, getting up is.

I ask again, if suffering results in good, shouldn't we strive to make our neighbors suffer?

God's job is to provide the suffering. Our job is to provide the relief.