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

[MoonWater]

IOW, what is bad might just actually be good. Hmm.

I see one big problem with this. It seems like you're effectively saying that human suffering is necessary in order to acheive some greater goal that God may have in mind. However, to an omnimax God, nothing is necessary. There exists some way for God to acheive that goal without suffering.

If an omnimax God exists, then all suffering is needless suffering.

I'm not saying it's necesary and yes an omnimax god could make things possible without suffering. But if an omnimax god makes all the rules and this omnimax god has a different perspective on pain and suffering than we do well

 

[MoonWater]

If you say that he created a system in which we benefit from pain, then he did so needlessly, and the infliction of needless suffering is evil. Considering that he is all-powerful, he could've created a system in which we benefit from, say, flying kites instead.

You said so yourself that an omnimax god makes all the rules. As such if this omnimax god did see it as good then it would be good, if he saw it as necessary then it would be necessary. Yes he could have created such a system, eh could have done anything. But if he makes all the rules then that would mean that whatever his perspective is, is in fact the "right" perspective. Making god omnimax hurts your argument just as much as it hurts the theists who believe in such a thing.

(this is one of the reasons why I don't believe in an omnimax god, or a god at all for that matter)

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Good points itwillend, though I have to say I disagree with what I bolded above. After all I don't believe in a god and I'm defending the omnimax god. But yeah, pain is only bad if we view it as such. good and bad are not absolute values but merely perspectives and as such if we stop viewing pain as bad and "oh woe is me" and instead start viewing it as an opportunity to change and evolve then pain becomes transformative rather than simply a burden. I agree that we do make more of pain than it really is.

Yeah I was uncomfortable with that one too, it was all enclusive and that makes it wrong. Not wrong all the time, but not right all the time.

I do like my plant idea though

 

[MoonWater]

Yeah I was uncomfortable with that one too, it was all enclusive and that makes it wrong. Not wrong all the time, but not right all the time.

I do like my plant idea though

So do I

 

[TheKnight]

Wow, I was able to read through all 10 pages of this in 5 minutes....lots of short responses in this thread.


In any case, I think the answer to this problem lies in the general perspective that is taken.

Most Theists will assert that God is omni-max (I like that term). I would agree with that. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving, and perfect.

For this particular "paradox", the question is asked, "If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does evil exist?"

Most Theists will respond to that by saying "God creates suffering because it is a necessary means for a greater good."

The Non-Theist will then reply "So then God is not all-powerful is He? After all, an all-powerful God would be able to create a world without evil and still have the greatest good."

The Theist will then usually reply with something inadequate like "Well, God knows better than we do." I, too, have made similar replies in the past when I was less knowledgeable. However, that answer is insufficient because it doesn't solve the problem.

God can do anything.

Can God make a square circle? Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it? Can God check mate you in chess with just His king? Can God learn something new? Can God get better at something? Can God improve Himself?

All of these questions have the fundamental problem of being illogical.The questions are invalid because the questions contradicts itself by not describing an actual action. When a person says "make a square circle" or "check mate me in a game of chess with just your king" they have contradicted themselves in an action to be preformed. Logically, any question which contradicts itself isn't a valid question.

Therefore, when someone asks "Can God reach the ends of greater good without the means of suffering", they have contradicted themselves in an action to be preformed in the same way that the person who asks about God making a stone so heavy that He can't lift it contradicts themselves in describing an action to be preformed.

So, to respond to the question "How can you call God all-powerful if He cannot reach the ends without the means" is the same as asking "How can you call God all-powerful if He cannot make a stone so heavy that He can't life it?"

Both questions belong in the category of invalid questions.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You said so yourself that an omnimax god makes all the rules. As such if this omnimax god did see it as good then it would be good, if he saw it as necessary then it would be necessary. Yes he could have created such a system, eh could have done anything.

The point of me saying that an all-powerful god makes the rules is that he could make it so x can be achieved without suffering.

But if he makes all the rules then that would mean that whatever his perspective is, is in fact the "right" perspective. Making god omnimax hurts your argument just as much as it hurts the theists who believe in such a thing.

If you agree that the infliction of pointless suffering is evil, then an omnimax god is a contradiction. If god commits evil, then he's not all-loving. If you want to start a discussion on "might makes right", then I'd be glad to start another thread.

 

[LooseEnd]

It all comes to two things in the end, no matter how far we take the debate.

Also to say an all-powerful god must alleviate all pain and suffering on earth in order to be benevolent first assumes that pain is actually bad and second seeks to hold god to our own limited perspective and understanding. We cause our own suffering and while pain certainly doesn't feel good that doesn't necessarily make it bad. I highly doubt an all-powerful god would have the same perspective on pain and suffering or on good and bad, that we do. And I fail to see the point of trying to hold a god, who would obviously be so far beyond us and our understanding, to our own perspective and understanding. To me that seems like trying to fit the ocean inside of a mug, it just doesn't work.

(1) 'We cannot understand, therefor believe it' theory.



(2) All is done for a greater good in the end theory.

Both based on something we cannot understand or see logic in this life. So the question of Perfect GOD vs Suffering still remains in the frame of 'our understanding based on logics'.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Both based on something we cannot understand or see logic in this life. So the question of Perfect GOD vs Suffering still remains in the frame of 'our understanding based on logics'.

So your saying you can't understand what a seed might experience when transforiming into a tree? Than how can we conclude that what God understands about what we call suffering isn't the same thing?

 

[CarlinKnew]

So, to respond to the question "How can you call God all-powerful if He cannot reach the ends without the means" is the same as asking "How can you call God all-powerful if He cannot make a stone so heavy that He can't life it?"

The stone paradox is self-contradictory. You haven't demonstrated how a world without suffering is self-contradictory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can God make a square circle? Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it? Can God check mate you in chess with just His king? Can God learn something new? Can God get better at something? Can God improve Himself?

All of these questions have the fundamental problem of being illogical.The questions are invalid because the questions contradicts itself by not describing an actual action. When a person says "make a square circle" or "check mate me in a game of chess with just your king" they have contradicted themselves in an action to be preformed. Logically, any question which contradicts itself isn't a valid question.

Therefore, when someone asks "Can God reach the ends of greater good without the means of suffering", they have contradicted themselves in an action to be preformed in the same way that the person who asks about God making a stone so heavy that He can't lift it contradicts themselves in describing an action to be preformed.

So, to respond to the question "How can you call God all-powerful if He cannot reach the ends without the means" is the same as asking "How can you call God all-powerful if He cannot make a stone so heavy that He can't life it?"

Both questions belong in the category of invalid questions.

How is the question at hand invalid?

Analogy time!

I watched a thing on the Discovery Channel a while back about a huge cattle transporter ship. They mentioned some of the problems with moving cattle around in chutes.

For one thing, cattle get spooked easily, especially by glinting or moving objects. If a chain on a gate catches the light the wrong way, then a cow can be startled. For another, cows will panic if they don't have a good footing - if a slope is too steep or slippery, they'll freak out.

At best, these effects will just make the cows uneasy. At worst, they will cause the cows to stumble and get trampled. To prevent this, the cattle handlers now design their chutes with these sorts of things in mind.

Now... say you're on a cattle ranch. You've got to vaccinate the cattle; you do this by corralling them into a pen, then sending them down a chute where they get injected one at a time. This is good for the cows, because it means they'll be less likely to get sick. The cows probably don't know that the experience is good for them.

With all this in mind, which do you think is more benevolent on your part as the rancher?

- leaving the corral and chute like it always has been, because you realize that even if a few cows get spooked or even hurt, this is still outweighed by their getting vaccinated.

- removing anything from the corral and chute that would spook the cows and put a better floor on the chute, in order to minimize the discomfort the cattle feel while they're going through the process.

Asking why God can't eliminate human suffering is like asking why a rancher can't eliminate cattle discomfort. There's nothing inherently contradictory or paradoxical in the question, even if we take as given that God knows much, much more than we do.

 

[LooseEnd]

So your saying you can't understand what a seed might experience when transforiming into a tree? Than how can we conclude that what God understands about what we call suffering isn't the same thing?

Are you saying that what GOD understands about what we call suffering is the same thing?

 

[TheKnight]

The stone paradox is self-contradictory. You haven't demonstrated how a world without suffering is self-contradictory.

Because, the reason for the suffering is the greater good. Asking why God can't get to the end without the means is like asking why He can't make a stone so heavy that He can't life it.

How is the question at hand invalid?

Analogy time!

I watched a thing on the Discovery Channel a while back about a huge cattle transporter ship. They mentioned some of the problems with moving cattle around in chutes.

For one thing, cattle get spooked easily, especially by glinting or moving objects. If a chain on a gate catches the light the wrong way, then a cow can be startled. For another, cows will panic if they don't have a good footing - if a slope is too steep or slippery, they'll freak out.

At best, these effects will just make the cows uneasy. At worst, they will cause the cows to stumble and get trampled. To prevent this, the cattle handlers now design their chutes with these sorts of things in mind.

Now... say you're on a cattle ranch. You've got to vaccinate the cattle; you do this by corralling them into a pen, then sending them down a chute where they get injected one at a time. This is good for the cows, because it means they'll be less likely to get sick. The cows probably don't know that the experience is good for them.

With all this in mind, which do you think is more benevolent on your part as the rancher?

- leaving the corral and chute like it always has been, because you realize that even if a few cows get spooked or even hurt, this is still outweighed by their getting vaccinated.

- removing anything from the corral and chute that would spook the cows and put a better floor on the chute, in order to minimize the discomfort the cattle feel while they're going through the process.

Asking why God can't eliminate human suffering is like asking why a rancher can't eliminate cattle discomfort. There's nothing inherently contradictory or paradoxical in the question, even if we take as given that God knows much, much more than we do.

Right. But the reason that Theists pose for the existence of suffering is the good that comes from suffering. The greatest good is the end and suffering is the means to that end. Asking why God can't reach the end without the means is like asking why He can't make a stone so heavy that He can't life it.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Asking why God can't get to the end without the means is like asking why He can't make a stone so heavy that He can't life it.

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. But the reason that Theists pose for the existence of suffering is the good that comes from suffering. The greatest good is the end and suffering is the means to that end. Asking why God can't reach the end without the means is like asking why He can't make a stone so heavy that He can't life it.

No, it's not the same thing. You're assuming that there's only one means to that end, but there can never be for an omnimax God.

Is it also self-contradictory to ask why someone would take a plane to their destination instead of a car, train or ship?

 

[TheKnight]

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?

Because the greatest good without suffering is a contradiction. It's like trying to describe a square circle.

No, it's not the same thing. You're assuming that there's only one means to that end, but there can never be for an omnimax God.

I'm not assuming that there's only one means. I'm simply saying that in order to have the greatest good, suffering is necessary.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Because the greatest good without suffering is a contradiction. It's like trying to describe a square circle.

No, it's not. You keep citing examples of contradictions and then linking them to your lack-of-an-argument, but it's not working. Why is suffering necessary for the greatest good to exist?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Are you saying that what GOD understands about what we call suffering is the same thing?

I am saying, you don't loose any sleep over a seed horrifically transforming and disfiguring into something else. That poor seed!

So I am saying for God it couldbe the same thing. So, to answer your questions, God may not view it like we do, much like how we view the seed.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

One of our resident Christian apologists has attempted to answer this paradox on another thread. And while his answer is insufficient - even pitiful - in its logic it exceeds the logic in this absurd example of a failed idea.

"And I fail to see the point of trying to hold a god, who would obviously be so far beyond us and our understanding, to our own perspective and understanding.""

I simply DO NOT CARE what this god thing's perspective is. Nor do I care to assign any "right" or "superior" or "divine" understanding to it. It matters not.

Its OUR lives involved here. WE are the ones who live and suffer and die. This god thing watches the entire spectacle, bemused. Rather like a Roman Emperor at the games. (One wonders if this entire hideous idea wasn't hatched in response to observing that.)

If this omni-everything creature exists it is at best indifferent to us. Perhaps openly hostile.

What it most certainly is NOT is benevolent.

And I don't give a F*F* what it thinks is "best" for me. I and I alone decide that. Right wrong or indifferent. My decision. No god thing need apply for consideration.:shout

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not assuming that there's only one means. I'm simply saying that in order to have the greatest good, suffering is necessary.

Okay... tell us why you think so.

 

[TheKnight]

No, it's not. You keep citing examples of contradictions and then linking them to your lack-of-an-argument, but it's not working. Why is suffering necessary for the greatest good to exist?

Because the definition of greatest good requires suffering as a necessary means.

I mean, one could also ask "Why didn't God define circles and squares in such a way that a square circle could exist?

That, in essence, is what you're asking.

The answer to that is that God created this world in order to express His loving-kindness. In order for that to happen their needs to be a recipient. Well, what would be the greatest thing God could give to someone? Technically, He would be the greatest good that He could give.

However, He wouldn't be able to make more gods because the definition of a God requires self-sufficiency. So, the best thing He could do would be to allow us the ability to become as much like Him as possible.

Well, God is an independent and self-sufficient being. Therefore, the only way He could make us like Him would be to give us independent self-sufficiency. This is done by allowing us to have free will. In order for our free will to exist, there has to be a dichotomy. We have to perceive a dichotomy between two options in order for it to be free will.

That being said, suffering/evil acts as a way to contrast good in order for our free-will to be maintained. In essence, suffering is the necessary means for the greatest good (which is our being able to make our own decisions and as a result being like God).