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

[Paraprakrti]

The problem of suffering contains an unspoken premise or assumption that God creates upon solely His own consideration. This assumption follows from the idea that God is alone in eternity or, in other words, that God is initially alone prior to creating. If, rather, God is eternally accompanied by His part and parcel souls, then an argument can be made that God creates according to the whims of these eternal but inferior souls. If that be the case, then whatever apparent defects exist in the world can be attributed to those souls rather than to God.

In short, if God doesn't make the sole consideration for what is created or that anything is created at all, then the supposed problem of evil or problem of suffering dissipates.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“In short, if God doesn't make the sole consideration for what is created or that anything is created at all, then the supposed problem of evil or problem of suffering dissipates.”​

“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.”

Apparently some of us read quickly but not deeply. Perhaps a reflection of the thought processes (?)

An omni-everything or MAXX god would have NO other thing or soul or baby sitter to answer to, by definition.

As for not being a Christian I NEVER said you were. And if you actually READ the 1st paragraph of the post in question that fact might – MIGHT I say- become apparent to you.

The rest of your argument it quite misses the point. I DON’T care if this god thing IS right. It is what is right for ME that matters. Even if it were true that my suffering actually resulted in some greater good and that fact could be firmly established.

I chose NOT to suffer - good be D*! :no: And since it is MY suffering that is going on I am the sole judge of whatever value it may have.:shout

 

[Paraprakrti]

“In short, if God doesn't make the sole consideration for what is created or that anything is created at all, then the supposed problem of evil or problem of suffering dissipates.”​

An omni-everything or MAXX god would have NO other thing or soul or baby sitter to answer to, by definition.

Straw man argument. I neither said nor implied that God would have someone else to answer to. If God creates according to the whims or desires of inferior beings, that is not to say that God is forced to do it and thus must "answer to" said beings.

 

[TheKnight]

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.

You make the incorrect assumption that pleasure and euphoric states are the best states for us to exist in. God designed the system in such a way that suffering has the potential to lead us to a greater good than could be reached without that suffering.

Why did he do that? Who knows.

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?

Did I say anything about loving Him 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?

Because that's not what He wanted. "God created the world imperfect so that we would prefect it." Why? Because He desires that we share in creating the finished product of this world.

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?

Who is to say He hasn't? Your logic goes like this:

1. I don't like the way this world currently operates.
2. If there is a God, He would agree that this form of operation is not optimal for existence.
3. Because the world does not fit how I would make it, the God who exists must not be a good, all-powerful God because surely an all-loving all-powerful God would think like me and make the world how I think it should be made.

What you fail to consider is that maybe, just maybe, the world is created in such a way that there is potential for the maximum amount of good to be actualized. It is not logical to say "I think things should be like X, but things are like Y, therefore if there is a God who made everything, I am smarter than He is."

I'll make this simple. If God is all powerful and all good he would create a world without suffering.

Why? Because you, who are not all-powerful, nor all-knowing, nor all-good would do it that way? And God would, of course, be exactly how you want Him to be?

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.

I'm fairly certain that God doesn't care about us acknowledging/loving Him. At least not primarily. The primary purpose of His creating us as He did was so that we would have a share in being like God. And the best way to be like God is to share in attributes that God has. Like creating and changing the very nature of things.

Neither is the case, so what's going on?

The purpose of our suffering is not for appreciation. The purpose of our suffering is so that by overcoming our suffering we can experience the maximum amount of growth. Suffering for us is like resistance to our muscles. Whereas resistance to our muscles makes us stronger, suffering to our nature refines our character and also changes the world.

That's why the whole "faith is necessary" clause is so important.

That Faith is necessary is a Christian concept. Judaism is an ethical religion first and a theological religion second. One could be entirely righteous in Judaism and not believe a single word of the Torah.

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

The definition that Judaism has. Obviously, the definition of "greatest good" changes depending on who you ask.

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

Suffering is the means to the greater good. For instance, I can stay down on the bottom floor. Or I can climb the stairs to the higher floor where things are better. Suffering, in this case, would be the stairs to a higher level. It's like lifting weights. Providing resistance to our spiritual muscles.

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).

1. 
   
   Each person experiences the amount of suffering that they can handle in order to produce the maximum amount of good from their character.
   
   

   [*]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).

   So some people are successful at it, and some people are not.
   
   

   [*]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?

All suffering that exists is necessary for the greater good. The suffering allows the potential for the greater good. Whether or not that greater good is actualized depends on our ability/willingness to bring out that potential.

 

[Willamena]

what is bad might just actually be good. Hmm.

I see one big problem with this.

Archie Campbell didn't.
YouTube - Tribute to Archie Campbell

 

[CarlinKnew]

You make the incorrect assumption that pleasure and euphoric states are the best states for us to exist in.

They're among the most preferred. The point is that any sane creature would not want his loved ones to suffer needlessly.

God designed the system in such a way that suffering has the potential to lead us to a greater good than could be reached without that suffering.

Let's say child gets infected with the ebola virus, is unable to seek treatment, and suffers an agonizing death. What greater good might've come from that?

Why did he do that? Who knows.

If he did, then as an all-powerful being, he did so needlessly. And the infliction of needless suffering is evil.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Straw man argument. I neither said nor implied that God would have someone else to answer to. If God creates according to the whims or desires of inferior beings, that is not to say that God is forced to do it and thus must "answer to" said beings.

If God is not forced to do it, then it is his choice and is no different than if the other beings whims did not exist.

Uh oh.....problem of evil just undisolved again.

 

[Erebus]

1.Did I say anything about loving Him back?


2.Because that's not what He wanted. "God created the world imperfect so that we would prefect it." Why? Because He desires that we share in creating the finished product of this world.



3.Who is to say He hasn't? Your logic goes like this:

1. I don't like the way this world currently operates.
2. If there is a God, He would agree that this form of operation is not optimal for existence.
3. Because the world does not fit how I would make it, the God who exists must not be a good, all-powerful God because surely an all-loving all-powerful God would think like me and make the world how I think it should be made.

What you fail to consider is that maybe, just maybe, the world is created in such a way that there is potential for the maximum amount of good to be actualized. It is not logical to say "I think things should be like X, but things are like Y, therefore if there is a God who made everything, I am smarter than He is."




4.Why? Because you, who are not all-powerful, nor all-knowing, nor all-good would do it that way? And God would, of course, be exactly how you want Him to be?


5.I'm fairly certain that God doesn't care about us acknowledging/loving Him. At least not primarily. The primary purpose of His creating us as He did was so that we would have a share in being like God. And the best way to be like God is to share in attributes that God has. Like creating and changing the very nature of things.



6.The purpose of our suffering is not for appreciation. The purpose of our suffering is so that by overcoming our suffering we can experience the maximum amount of growth. Suffering for us is like resistance to our muscles. Whereas resistance to our muscles makes us stronger, suffering to our nature refines our character and also changes the world.

1. I apologise for that one, I was confusing various posts.

2. He is our creator in your beliefs is he not? He must have had an inkling that we'd make a mess of things.

3. Do you mean to say this world was made perfect? The example I gave was admittedly crude, but surely you can see that a world without suffering is preferable to one with suffering? My point is that an omnipotent God does not need to create a world like this when he has the option of creating paradise straight away. I don't think I'm alone in my idea that death and destruction are negative aspects of the world and that we'd be better off without them.
As for the "maximum potential", I have considered this back when I still believed in the Abrahamic God, the thing I could never answer was "why not START the world at it's maximum potential? He is supposedly omnipotent after all.
Now answer me honestly. Would you rather live in the world I suggested with no pain, no death and no suffering or do you prefer this world?

4. Why not? He's omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he could make me perfectly contented with everything without any effort whatsoever. I know that if I had that power I would do this for my loved ones, why won't he do it for us?

5. I have to agree with you on this one, we are just as violent and angry as God and we do smite and destroy our enemies... what happened to omnibenevolence? I can accept that the Abrahamic God and humans share the best and worst qualities of one another, but this means that God is not all loving. Incidently that would end the "problem of evil" to simply say that God is NOT all good.

6. Again an omnipotent God can overcome this. Yes I agree with you, as the world is now we do need suffering in order to strengthen ourselves, but this is also the reason I don't believe in your God. If he's omnipotent he can create a world where we are already at our maximum potential with no need for trial and torment.

Remember that the limit of omnipotence is the limit of your imagination, If I or anyone else can think of it, then an omnipotent God can do it. There's been a lot of simple examples of how an omnipotent God can improve the world, but here's another for you:
You've seen The Matrix yes? How about a universe where everybody lives in their own personal heaven. The people who want peace will have peace, the people who want war will have war. If you want to fly, you get to fly. The power of creation within your own world. How does that sound? Would you honestly turn that down in favour of this world? God could do all of this and more, but chooses not to.

 

[rojse]

By all means, feel free to settle this silly debate rather than whining.

There isn't any way of settling the debate. You believe what you believe, and won't change your opinions regardless of what anyone else posts. Theists believe what they believe, and won't change their opinions regardless of your posts.

As I said, I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards. Everyone is just reheating old arguments from the last debate of this nature.

Watch the merry-go-round go round...

 

[CarlinKnew]

There isn't any way of settling the debate. You believe what you believe, and won't change your opinions regardless of what anyone else posts. Theists believe what they believe, and won't change their opinions regardless of your posts.

As I said, I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards. Everyone is just reheating old arguments from the last debate of this nature.

Watch the merry-go-round go round...

There is a way of settling the debate: any theist with a shred of logical understanding can recognize the contradiction staring them in the face.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"As I said, I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards"

I've learned something.

I've learned that some of us are even duller and denser than I imagined.:thud:

 

[rojse]

You missed the part where someone comes along late in the thread and criticizes everyone for being unoriginal.

:biglaugh: Frubals!

To be fair, how many threads do you actually read here where people change their opinions? Have you changed any of yours while on RF? I don't mean during the time you've been posting here, but actually the moment you read something here?

I have changed my opinions a great deal since joining RF. I have more respect for theists, for religion, and for organised religion. I have also learnt a variety of basic theological ideas from a variety of religions.

Most relevant to this thread is when I started a thread asking why people presumed God to be benevolent. I found out that a majority of theists believe that God allows pain and suffering so that we can have free will. Although I do not necessarily agree with this view, I can respectfully allow others to their opinion. Personally, having understood the other side's opinion (while not necessarily agreeing) is enough for me. To argue over whether the ontological arguments are true or not is just silly.

By the way, the thread I started, having had theists explain their reasons for presuming God's benevolence (and having some rather cynical atheistic responses mixed in) then descended into this exact argument:

"God is benevolent."
"No, God is not benevolent"
"Yes he is!"
"No he isn't!"
"Yes!"
"No!"
"Yes!"
...

And it's not like there actually ARE many new ideas in the world of religion and philosophy. Dialogue in this domain has been going on for thousands of years by some of the greatest thinkers mankind has ever seen. I think it's asking a lot for people who post here as a hobby to come up with truly original ideas. BUT...I will honor your post by trying:

God allows bad things to happen as retribution for man's continuing move toward independent thought. Details to come.
​

So, are we just here to reheat ontological arguments that historical figures originally devised centuries ago?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

I don't understand how anyone can possibly conclude that god even exists, let alone that he is omnibenevolent, while children are born with aids, 8 year olds are being raped by their uncles, innocent people are conviced and executed in various countries. It doesn't make sense at all. Anyone can rationalize anything after it's already happend.

You forgot dogs and cats living together . . . sorry I couldn't resist. :drool:

 

[Willamena]

To argue over whether the ontological arguments are true or not is just silly.

Bravo.

 

[rojse]

There is a way of settling the debate: any theist with a shred of logical understanding can recognize the contradiction staring them in the face.

Their theological beliefs lead them to an answer you are unable to accept.

:biglaugh:

 

[rojse]

"As I said, I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards"

I've learned something.

I've learned that some of us are even duller and denser than I imagined.:thud:

I have an idea on what I am going to do - I'm going to get my old thread, and paste quotes from that, juxtaposed with statements in this thread. We'll see how many people are reheating old arguments.

 

[Willamena]

There is a way of settling the debate: any theist with a shred of logical understanding can recognize the contradiction staring them in the face.

Logic is only as good as its premises, and their inherent assumptions.

 

[McBell]

Logic is only as good as its premises, and their inherent assumptions.

Not to mention the fact that something can be 100% logically sound and still be completely wrong.

 

[Erebus]

There is a way of settling the debate: any theist with a shred of logical understanding can recognize the contradiction staring them in the face.

A lot of the people arguing in favour of God have a very different view of what constitutes good and evil. A lot of religions hold suffering to be necessary to spiritual development, believing that it's preferable to achieve happiness than to simply be handed it on a platter.
It's like a jogger or a body builder often isn't satisfied to simply "have" their ideal body, they want to work for it and feel as though they've accomplished something.

I'm well aware I've just argued against both sides of the debate and even against myself... any problems?

 

[richardlowellt]

The problem of suffering contains an unspoken premise or assumption that God creates upon solely His own consideration. This assumption follows from the idea that God is alone in eternity or, in other words, that God is initially alone prior to creating. If, rather, God is eternally accompanied by His part and parcel souls, then an argument can be made that God creates according to the whims of these eternal but inferior souls. If that be the case, then whatever apparent defects exist in the world can be attributed to those souls rather than to God.

In short, if God doesn't make the sole consideration for what is created or that anything is created at all, then the supposed problem of evil or problem of suffering dissipates.

And now show us that you didn't just pull this out of your ---, is this simply your own premise or is there a particular religion that supports this rather foolish premise?