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

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Well, if I were an all powerful, all loving being, I would not allow my creation to suffer at all. Pain, suffering, unhappiness and death, if I can prevent them, are unnecessary.

 

[shortfade2]

Right, even if your creation denied you, called you evil for not giving them everything that you wanted, and constantly mocked those who actually believed in you.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

But how can one get up if one is not knocked down? Shouldn't I be knocking people down so they can get the benefit of getting up?

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

If God loves us and wants the best for us, and he does so by providing suffering (the first time I've heard that, BTW) then why would we try to subvert God by alleviating suffering? That suffering allows people to "get the benefit of getting up".

 

[Beaudreaux]

Right, even if your creation denied you, called you evil for not giving them everything that you wanted, and constantly mocked those who actually believed in you.

Well, I am an all loving God, not a petulant 5 year old who throws rocks at people who don't worship me.

 

[TheKnight]

But how can one get up if one is not knocked down? Shouldn't I be knocking people down so they can get the benefit of getting up?

No. God made this world imperfect in order that we would perfect it. Our job is to make things better, to improve them. When we hear of suffering, it is supposed to anger us. It is supposed to make us question God. We're not supposed to be able to explain it away. Our job is to do all we can to alleviate suffering. As my favorite quote (which I cannot put in my signature because of the size restrictions--I have tried numerous times) from Elie Wiesel says:

I swear never to be silent whenever wherever human beings are enduring suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must —at that moment — become the center of the universe.
~Elie Wiesel~

If God loves us and wants the best for us, and he does so by providing suffering (the first time I've heard that, BTW) then why would we try to subvert God by alleviating suffering?

It's not trying to subvert God. You have to realize that the suffering is much like the resistance you provide your muscles. Your muscles are not trying to subvert the pressure you put on them when you work out. It's simply an exercise to make you stronger.

In essence, a better perfect world is the goal, and God is our trainer to get us to that goal.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No. God made this world imperfect in order that we would perfect it. Our job is to make things better, to improve them.

Oh, so things are not so good now?

BTW, I love your quotation from Elie Wiesel:

Originally Posted by Elie Wiesel
I swear never to be silent whenever wherever human beings are enduring suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must —at that moment — become the center of the universe.
~Elie Wiesel~

Do you find it at all disturbing that when Elie describes the person who is "silent" and "neutral" that he is describing God?

 

[TheKnight]

Do you find it at all disturbing that when Elie describes the person who is "silent" and "neutral" that he is describing God?

Disturbing? Not at all. I find it motivating. I find God's silence to be an encouragement to act. After all, if I couldn't do it, He would not be silent.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Oh, so things are not so good now?

BTW, I love your quotation from Elie Wiesel:



Do you find it at all disturbing that when Elie describes the person who is "silent" and "neutral" that he is describing God?

High five!!:clap

Fruballs due and paid.:yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, even if your creation denied you, called you evil for not giving them everything that you wanted, and constantly mocked those who actually believed in you.

Sounds like you're switching the scenario from one with a god who is universally loving to one who's only loving to people who are nice to him/her/it/them.

However, this way of resolving the contradiction is just one form of what's already been discussed: suffering can be compatible with an omnipotent god if that god is not all-loving. The god you suggested here is not all-loving, so that answers the problem just fine.

BTW, though: I do notice that even people who are lifelong devout believers, who worship God every day, truly love Him with all their heart and never say an ill word about Him still suffer horribly quite frequently.

 

[Stellify]

I'm not asking why god can't get to the end without the means. I'm asking why he chose those means to be necessary. He created the rules. Why couldn't he have created a system in which flying kites achieves a greater good instead of suffering?

Just to use this quote as an example.....
If there really was an omnimax God...wouldn't ANYTHING really be unnecessary? If flying kites was the system, as you said, then wouldn't we just say he wasn't all-loving anyways? Why make us go to the effort of flying kites? Why not just make us "one" with Him, or create us already in heaven or whatever? Any kind of effort would be rendered completely unnecessary, right?


.....Although, I guess, if He really is to be considered omnimax, and He makes all the rules...Then if He says that the suffering isn't needless or evil, and that He IS all-loving, etc.....Well, those are the rules, aren't they? Maybe being loving involves the allowance of pain, according to Him.
Although I think that does sound a bit ridiculous.


Edit: Sorry this post isn't exactly eloquent. I'm really, really tired.

 

[McBell]

Would someone please define "All Loving" for me.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Just to use this quote as an example.....
If there really was an omnimax God...wouldn't ANYTHING really be unnecessary?

:yes: Yes.

If flying kites was the system, as you said, then wouldn't we just say he wasn't all-loving anyways?

Not if we enjoyed flying kites

Why make us go to the effort of flying kites? Why not just make us "one" with Him, or create us already in heaven or whatever? Any kind of effort would be rendered completely unnecessary, right?

:yes:

.....Although, I guess, if He really is to be considered omnimax, and He makes all the rules...Then if He says that the suffering isn't needless or evil, and that He IS all-loving, etc.....Well, those are the rules, aren't they?

Here's the contradiction:
1. He makes the rule that "he is all-loving"
2. He gives me the independent mind to recognize that, it is not an expression of love to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.
3. He inflicts unnecessary suffering on me.
Something's wrong here.

Maybe being loving involves the allowance of pain, according to Him.
Although I think that does sound a bit ridiculous.

That doesn't sound too ridiculous. Pain might be useful in some ways, so it might be loving to allow it right? The problem is when that pain is unnecessary. Then it is not an expression of love.

 

[Willamena]

If there really was an omnimax God...wouldn't ANYTHING really be unnecessary?

And everything necessary. :yes:

(Including suffering.)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's also pretty well accepted that the Great Wall of China can be seen from outer-space, that George Washington had wooden teeth, and that people thought the world was flat before 1492.

And this is relevant because...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And this is relevant because...

I figure it had the same relevance as your response.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And everything necessary. :yes:

(Including suffering.)

.Why?

 

[McBell]

1. He makes the rule that "he is all-loving"

Source?

2. He gives me the independent mind to recognize that, it is not an expression of love to inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

the subjectivity of this one is just off the charts.

3. He inflicts unnecessary suffering on me.

Here we see a continuation of the subjectivity.

though I would be most interested in what God himself has done to make you suffer. Can you offer an example?

That doesn't sound too ridiculous. Pain might be useful in some ways, so it might be loving to allow it right? The problem is when that pain is unnecessary. Then it is not an expression of love.

Seems your argument is based upon the word "un-necessary".
So who gets to determine what is and is not necessary?

No surprise, but seems we are right back to subjectivity....

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Would someone please define "All Loving" for me.

Well for this thread, it is to me that all-loving is something that does not include or inflict any type of suffering. Thus Carlin's framework to say God can not be. To me his impressive position only stands as long as Carlin believes suffering is the same thing for him as it is God.

I haven't seen him work around that yet.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Source?

You could ask my opposition for a source (the bible, I assume).

the subjectivity of this one is just off the charts.

As is necessary when talking about the concept of love. If you don't consider it an act of love for one being to inflict unnecessary suffering on another, then you can't logically call a god who does just that, loving.

Here we see a continuation of the subjectivity.

Now this is not subjective. If x can be accomplished by means other than z, then z is unnecessary.

though I would be most interested in what God himself has done to make you suffer. Can you offer an example?

He created me. We've all experienced pain, so you can pick any example from your life.

Seems your argument is based upon the word "un-necessary".
So who gets to determine what is and is not necessary?

Logic.

 

[McBell]

You could ask my opposition for a source (the bible, I assume).

So you do not know if god has actually made this claim about himself?

Seems that you are running rampart with an assumption, no?

As is necessary when talking about the concept of love. If you don't consider it an act of love for one being to inflict unnecessary suffering on another, then you can't logically call a god who does just that, loving.

And those who do consider suffering an act of love?

If x can be accomplished by means other than z, then z is unnecessary.

This is just plain out right false.

He created me. We've all experienced pain, so you can pick any example from your life.

Are you going to answer my question or not?

Logic.

Then it would be a good idea to actually start using some.