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

[rojse]

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?

Christianity asserts that God created everything. I believe it is the opening account in Genesis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So... getting to the higher level is the "greater good" and we get there by climbing the stairs? Was the builder incapable of or unwilling to install an elevator?

 

[Willamena]

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?

That doesn't matter . . it sufficiently demonstrates that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Pointless suffering is bad. To inflict unnecessary suffering is evil.

Correction.

Pointless suffering is suffering that's pointless.

You giving it the label "Bad" or "evil" gives it the label "bad" or "evil".

Evil or bad is not inherent of suffering, whether pointless or not.

 

[MoonWater]

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?

in order: because we are the ones experiencing it, therefore it is up to us to deal with it; if god is omnimax than he would define "moral responsibility" and who it belongs to and thus he would only skirt it if he says he does; something is only suffering if we perceive it as such and as such we have the ability to stop all suffering as we have the ability to change our perceptions.

 

[MoonWater]

“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

I know what christian apologist is and I was refuting that I was one of them as well as christian or did you miss the part in paranthesis where I pointed out that Christians aren't the only one's who believe in an omnimax god, there are also jews, muslims bahais; just to name a few.

As for the rest I am in the same boat as you are(which was the point of my last post directed at you, so yes I was well aware of your point, I'm sorry if I was unclear.)

 

[CarlinKnew]

Correction.

Pointless suffering is suffering that's pointless.

You giving it the label "Bad" or "evil" gives it the label "bad" or "evil".

Evil or bad is not inherent of suffering, whether pointless or not.

Of course I am; to do so is necessary when talking about love. Anyone who disagrees with those labels is immoral and not worthy of discussion.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

So... getting to the higher level is the "greater good" and we get there by climbing the stairs? Was the builder incapable of or unwilling to install an elevator?

Why take the elevator when taking the stairs is a good cardio work out?

My question is would life be worth living without the pain and suffering?


One of my favorite quotes is . . .

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming- WOW what a ride!"

 

[Beaudreaux]

...theist with a shred of logical understanding ...

Must...resist...inappropriate.....comment.......

 

[Beaudreaux]

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

Well, where's the RF thread that discusses theological concepts that HAVEN'T been discussed for thousands of year already?

 

[Beaudreaux]

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.

Hey, sometimes old arguments are better the second day! When all the flavors meld and get all gooey. (Mmmmmmmmmmm!)

 

[Beaudreaux]

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

That is the whole point of theodicy. The premises and inherent assumptions in many monotheistic religions are logically contradictory. The only way to solve the -problem is to do away with one or more of the premises OR to throw logic out the window and say that it's all just a mystery.

Premise 1: God is all powerful (Can do anything)
Premise 2: God is all loving (wants the best for us)
Premise 3: Evil and suffering are real (Awful things happen to us)

Those three things cannot be put together logically. That's the whole issue. If people want to come along and say that one of those three premises is not true, that's cool, but you can't say that all three are and still be logical.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That doesn't matter . . it sufficiently demonstrates that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

How do we know this?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why take the elevator when taking the stairs is a good cardio work out?

My question is would life be worth living without the pain and suffering?


One of my favorite quotes is . . .

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming- WOW what a ride!"

This is one of the classic approaches to the problem of evil; removing the third premise (Evil and suffering are real). Here you are saying that there really is no evil in the world because everything really has a good effect. Aquinas went so far as to say that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. I think this is a bit.....optimistic. It works well in theory, but try it at the funeral of a child who has died of cancer....

 

[Danizar]

The child who died of cancer is probably in a better place. Lucky him.

 

[richardlowellt]

*throws out rubber raft and jumps on pontoon*

Your posts are always so informative and very much a joy to read!

 

[richardlowellt]

The child who died of cancer is probably in a better place. Lucky him.

"Probably" in a better place? I'm glad you did say "is" in a better place. "Lucky him" how is dying a lucky thing? In the case of someone with Cancer I guess we can say he is lucky because his suffering has ended, but since life here and now is "probably" all we get there is nothing Lucky about dying.

 

[TheKnight]

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

From a limited perspective, we may not be able to see the good that will result.

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.

Did we make a mess of things?

3. Do you mean to say this world was made perfect?

I believe that God made the world imperfect in order that we (mankind) would perfect it.

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?

I WOULD rather live in a world with no pain, no death, and no suffering. And I'm very thankful to God that He created this world in such a way that I can have a part in making that preferable world a reality.

It's like building a house. If someone gives you a house, you appreciate it less than if you build it yourself. I think it's a blessing that God, rather than just giving us the world we want, has given us the opportunity to make that world. I believe it is a beautiful gift that He has given us, to have an active part in the creation of a perfect 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?

See the above. God created this world in such a way that we have the ability to have an active part in it's creation. Your drive for Hesed (loving-kindness) is the drive that you (and all humanity) have been given in order that we might one day perfect this world. You WOULD do it for your love ones, so God says to you "I want you to do it, then. You love this world, you love the people in it, now I'm giving YOU the opportunity to make it a better place."

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.

And, as I wrote in my earlier post, asking "Why can't God reach the ends without the necessary means?" is like asking "Why can't God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?"

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.

I would turn it down in favor of this world. I would much rather have the ability and the power to build my heaven, than to have my heaven given to me. After all, who doesn't appreciate a house that they built with their own hands?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why take the elevator when taking the stairs is a good cardio work out?

Because if we're talking about an omnipotent God, he can strengthen your heart without exercise.

My question is would life be worth living without the pain and suffering?

Of course it is. This doesn't mean that life wouldn't be better without pain and suffering.

The child who died of cancer is probably in a better place. Lucky him.

Just flipping around good and bad doesn't get rid of the problem. So... when a kid dies of cancer, this is a good thing? I disagree, but say we accept it for a moment and see where it leads: if dying of cancer is better than living and God wants what's best for us, then wouldn't he kill us all with cancer? Even in your bizarro-world where terminal cancer is good, people are deprived of what is "good".

 

[CarlinKnew]

From a limited perspective, we may not be able to see the good that will result.

Even if there is a good result, the point remains: the suffering was needless, and one who makes others suffer needlessly is evil. An all-powerful being could create a universe in which that "good result" could be achieved without suffering.

From the OP (17 pages ago):

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

Respond when you grasp this concept.