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

[CarlinKnew]

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).

I've only got the brain of a primate, and I can handle this situation better than your supposedly omnimax god: design our emotional circuitry in such a way that we only experience states ranging from mildly pleasant to extremely euphoric. This way our "free will" is maintained, and we still appreciate the greatest good without ever suffering.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

When Christian apologists make comparisons like the above, do they forget, according to their own mythology, that their god is all-powerful? All-powerful means: god makes the rules. It means: there doesn't need to be suffering unless he wants it that way. To make someone suffer needlessly isn't love. So take your pick; is he all-loving or all-powerful, because he can't be both. Unless you think "love" is to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Christians insist that it must be necessary for god to make us suffer, that it must be for our own good. Well then he's not all-powerful is he? Consider this:
You say, "Perhaps x can only be achieved through suffering."
Well guess what? Your all-powerful god could make x achievable with no suffering necessary, no matter what x is. Remember: all-powerful. He makes the rules.

So don't try and say god has a good reason to allow suffering, that it's beyond our understanding, and then turn around and say he's all-loving and all-powerful. It's a contradiction.

Okay, so what's your point? The all-powerful God does allow suffering, ergo He must have a reason for it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Apparently, people are not able to fully grasp what omnipotence would entail.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Okay, so what's your point? The all-powerful God does allow suffering, ergo He must have a reason for it.

Ergo he's not all-loving.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Okay, so what's your point? The all-powerful God does allow suffering, ergo He must have a reason for it.

Indeed, but that would preclude him being all-loving.

 

[LooseEnd]

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.

I think if GOD exists this can be a case. But this is the same thing can't you see? I ask we suffer but why is GOD allowing it? You say that in GOD's point of view there's nothing called suffering, or he does not see us suffering, etc..
Again we see suffering, but GOD see something else and therefor we cannot understand what GOD see, it's beyond our logics. see below..

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

Yes I realised I have made an error. Your ideas do not support "Greater good in the end theory" . I will edit it.

 

[Erebus]

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).

This makes God sound like an egomaniac to be honest. If God is all loving and all good why would he (or she) care if we love him (or her) back? Furthermore if he's all powerful why not just create a universe without suffering in which everybody knows of God's existence and is able to make a conscious and well informed decision as to whether we do or do not want to love him? An all powerful being could create a world in which we have the freedom to stab one another if we choose to do so, but that stab wound would cause no pain and no harm.
That example of a perfect world came from my imagination... me. A simple human being. Why can't an all powerful God think of something like that?
I'll make this simple. If God is all powerful and all good he would create a world without suffering. If God is all powerful and all good AND wants people to acknowledge/love him... he would create a world without suffering AND he would reveal himself openly and obviously. Neither is the case, so what's going on?
Does God want us to suffer so that we learn to appreciate him? A good father does not beat his children so that they appreciate what he provides for them. A good lover doesn't torment their partner so that they appreciate the love they share.

If God was human, he would arrested for child abuse.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I guess god works in mysterious, inconsistent, contradictory, and logically impossible ways.

I don't think the original inventors designed or intended their creation to stand up to this type of intellectual scrutiny. That's why the whole "faith is necessary" clause is so important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It does? I've never heard that. What definition is this?

Why do you define "greatest good" this way? What is it about the "greatest good" that necessarily implies suffering?

 

[MoonWater]

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.

yes I am aware of this

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.

If I agreed with that it still would not matter. I am not an omni-max god who is making all the rules. If an omnimax god makes all the rules then that means he would define what is good and what is evil, what has a point and what is pointless, and even what constitutes being "all-loving" and what doesn't. As such what we consider to be evil or loving would be inconsequential if god had a different opinion. He is omnimax which means he makes the rules which means if he says something is for the greater good it is. And you made this a might makes right argument by bringing "omnimax" into the equation. After all if an omnimax god makes all the rules then he does in fact make right, but he can only do that if he is omnimax.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I agreed with that it still would not matter. I am not an omni-max god who is making all the rules. If an omnimax god makes all the rules then that means he would define what is good and what is evil, what has a point and what is pointless, and even what constitutes being "all-loving" and what doesn't. As such what we consider to be evil or loving would be inconsequential if god had a different opinion. He is omnimax which means he makes the rules which means if he says something is for the greater good it is. And you made this a might makes right argument by bringing "omnimax" into the equation. After all if an omnimax god makes all the rules then he does in fact make right, but he can only do that if he is omnimax.

Don't be so sure of this. You're getting into the Euthyphro Dilemma here, and what you're suggesting is definitely not automatically true.

 

[MoonWater]

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



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

scratch out the "therefore believe it part" No one here has argued that.

(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'.

These two sentences seem to contradict eachother. First you say we cannot understand or see the logic in it and then you say that it IS in our frame of understanding and logic.

Oh and you missed a third one which is the argument I have been posting that if an omnimax god makes all the rules then in the end he defines what is "right" and "good" and our own opinions on the matter would be of no consequence.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.



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.

1. I think it is fair to say that people on earth do not experience exactly the same amount of suffering. Some suffer moderate to light suffering (Bill Gates) others suffer enormously (Elie Wiesel).
2. I also think it is fair to say that suffering does not correlate directly with personal growth or improvement. Some people do not suffer very much yet are quite fine people (Bill Gates and his charitable fund), others suffer quite a bit and turn out quite poorly (most child abusers were abused themselves).
3. Given that we all experience vastly differing amounts of pain and sufferring, and given that said pain and suffering does not directly correlate with personal growth and the "greater good", it seems clear that God permits vast amounts of human suffering that are not necessary for the greater good.

Why is this?

 

[MoonWater]

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

Okay first off, I am not a "christian apologist"(as this concept of omnimax doesn't apply only to Christianity) heck I'm not even Christian. If you were to take a look at my religion as stated next to my avatar you would see I'm actually Taoist. Second I don't believe in an omnimax god, I don't even believe in god period, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. And while I may not take as cynical a view as you do i certainly am also not concerned with what any god's perspective is nor do I bother with any sort of divinity or "right". I'm just here to have a fun friendly debate. There is no need to get so defensive or high and mighty about it.

However I do stand by what I have said... That IF there is an omnimax god then he would be beyond our understanding and as such we would have no business judgeing him as we cannot accurately judge that which we do not understand. However I don't believe in an omnimax god.

 

[MoonWater]

I've only got the brain of a primate, and I can handle this situation better than your supposedly omnimax god: design our emotional circuitry in such a way that we only experience states ranging from mildly pleasant to extremely euphoric. This way our "free will" is maintained, and we still appreciate the greatest good without ever suffering.

And knowing human nature we would likely just end up complaining about the "mild pleasantries" instead and call that "pain, suffering and evil"

 

[MoonWater]

Don't be so sure of this. You're getting into the Euthyphro Dilemma here, and what you're suggesting is definitely not automatically true.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that dilemma and yes I'm aware that what I say may not necessarily be true, as stated before I'm merely playing devil's advocate here.

 

[MoonWater]

1. I think it is fair to say that people on earth do not experience exactly the same amount of suffering. Some suffer moderate to light suffering (Bill Gates) others suffer enormously (Elie Wiesel).
2. I also think it is fair to say that suffering does not correlate directly with personal growth or improvement. Some people do not suffer very much yet are quite fine people (Bill Gates and his charitable fund), others suffer quite a bit and turn out quite poorly (most child abusers were abused themselves).
3. Given that we all experience vastly differing amounts of pain and sufferring, and given that said pain and suffering does not directly correlate with personal growth and the "greater good", it seems clear that God permits vast amounts of human suffering that are not necessary for the greater good.

Why is this?

perhaps because it is up to us to make a "greater good" out of that suffering instead of having god do it for us.

 

[Quagmire]

And knowing human nature we would likely just end up complaining about the "mild pleasantries" instead and call that "pain, suffering and evil"

Lol!

"I ordered a half-caf, soy mochachino Latte with carob sprinkels and caramel syrup, and the stupid bistro used butterscotch syrup instead!! WHY GOD WHY"?????

Actually, I know people like this already.

 

[MoonWater]

Lol!

"I ordered a half-caf, soy mochachino Latte with carob sprinkels and caramel syrup, and the stupid bistro used butterscotch syrup instead!! WHY GOD WHY"?????

Actually, I know people like this already.

Exactly, we humans will always find something to complain about

 

[Beaudreaux]

perhaps because it is up to us to make a "greater good" out of that suffering instead of having god do it for us.

Why is it up to us only? How does God skirt around this moral responsibility? And what about the suffering that only He could stop?