God is nice and is doing his best to eliminate suffering.

[Link]

Salam

This sermon relates to the OP: Sermon 192: Praise be to Allah who wears the apparel of Honour and Dignity… | Nahjul Balagha Part 1, The Sermons | Al-Islam.org

It's a complete theodicy for those who reflect over words.

 

[KWED]

True,

If god is interfering with kids in a way that causes suffering, then he is a monster that does not deserve respect or worship.

but not in a way, that makes the meaning of the trial of will go away.

What "trial", and what is its "meaning"?

 

[Link]

If god is interfering with kids in a way that causes suffering, then he is a monster that does not deserve respect or worship.

What "trial", and what is its "meaning"?

Salam

I've discussed this in the OP but perhaps better words than mine will explain it: Sermon 192: Praise be to Allah who wears the apparel of Honour and Dignity… | Nahjul Balagha Part 1, The Sermons | Al-Islam.org

There he talks about the fact God could've created the world no one would be misguided by making the truth invulnerable and honor of Adam etc beyond doubt for everyone to start with, but talks about how reward would be not meaningful and how humbleness could not have taken it's form as a virtue and how God by making the trial more difficult in that sense, also made the reward more intense and gave more meaning.

 

[KWED]

Salam

I've discussed this in the OP but perhaps better words than mine will explain it: Sermon 192: Praise be to Allah who wears the apparel of Honour and Dignity… | Nahjul Balagha Part 1, The Sermons | Al-Islam.org

There he talks about the fact God could've created the world no one would be misguided by making the truth invulnerable and honor of Adam etc beyond doubt for everyone to start with, but talks about how reward would be not meaningful and how humbleness could not have taken it's form as a virtue and how God by making the trial more difficult in that sense, also made the reward more intense and gave more meaning.

So the "trial" is to guess what god actually wants, based on the vague, contradictory and corrupted clues he has left.
And the "meaning" is to win a prize for guessing correctly.
Something like that?

 

[Link]

So the "trial" is to guess what god actually wants, based on the vague, contradictory and corrupted clues he has left.
And the "meaning" is to win a prize for guessing correctly.
Something like that?

Salam

Nope. You should read the sermon and reflect over it.

 

[KWED]

You should read the sermon and reflect over it.

How about you tell me, briefly, what the salient points are?

As Einstein may or may not have said, "If you can't explain an idea in simple terms, you don't understand it".

 

[KWED]

Nope.

That's what it sounds like to me. Explain why I am wrong. In your own words.

 

[Link]

How about you tell me, briefly, what the salient points are?

As Einstein may or may not have said, "If you can't explain an idea in simple terms, you don't understand it".

Salam

Here I will quote one of these (but it's repeated and paraphrased with different contexts):

When Allah, the Glorified, deputed His prophets, if He had wished to open for them treasures and mines of gold and (surround them with) planted gardens and to collect around them birds of the skies and beasts of the earth, He could have done so. If He had done so then there would have been no trial, nor recompense and no tidings (about the affairs of the next world).

Those who accepted (His message) could not be given the recompense falling due after trial and the believers could not deserve the reward for good acts, and all these words 2 would not have retained their meanings. But Allah, the Glorified, makes His Prophets firm in their determination and gives them weakness of appearance as seen from the eyes, along with contentment that fills the hearts and eyes resulting from care-freeness, and with want that pains the eyes and ears.

وَلَوْ أَرَادَ اللهُ سُبْحَانَهُ بأَنْبِيَائِهِ حَيْثُ بَعَثَهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتَحَ لَهُمْ كُنُوزَ الْذِّهْبَانِ، وَمَعَادِنَ الْعِقْيَانِ، وَمَغَارِسَ الْجِنَانِ، وَأَنْ يَحْشُرَ مَعَهُمْ طَيْرَ السَّماءِ وَوُحُوشَ الاْرَضِينَ لَفَعَلَ، وَلَوْ فَعَلَ لَسَقَطَ الْبَلاَءُ، وَبَطَلَ الْجَزَاءُ، وَاضْمَحَلَّتِ الاْنْبَاءُ، وَلَمَا وَجَبَ لِلْقَابِلِينَ أُجُورُ الْمُبْتَلِينَ، وَلاَ اسْتَحَقَّ الْمُؤمِنُونَ ثَوَابَ الْـمُحْسِنِينَ، وَلاَ لَزِمَتِ الاْسْمَاءُ مَعَانِيَهَا، وَلكِنَّ اللهَ سُبْحَانَهُ جَعَلَ رُسُلَهُ أُولِي قُوَّة فِي عَزَائِمِهِمْ، وَضَعَفَةً فِيَما تَرَى الاْعْيُنُ مِنْ حَالاَتِهِمْ، مَعَ قَنَاعَة تَمْلاُ الْقُلُوبَ وَالْعُيُونَ غِنىً، وَخَصَاصَة تَمْلاَ الاْبْصَارَ وَالاْسْمَاعَ أَذىً.

If the prophets possessed authority that could not be assaulted, or honour that could not be damaged or domain towards which the necks of people would turn and the saddles of mounts could be set, it would have been very easy for people to seek lessons and quite difficult to feel vanity.

They would have then accepted belief out of fear felt by them or inclination attracting them, and the intention of them all would have been the same, although their actions would have been different. Therefore, Allah, the Glorified decided that people should follow His prophets, acknowledge His books, remain humble before His face, obey His command and accept His obedience with sincerity in which there should not be an iota of anything else; and as the trial and tribulation would be stiffer the reward and recompense too should be larger.

 

[Link]

That's what it sounds like to me. Explain why I am wrong. In your own words.

Salam

Don't need to when you are not making effort but purposely blabbering nonsense you know is nonsense.

 

[ppp]

My understanding is God is doing his best to eliminate suffering, evil and guide us.

If your god were both real and omnipotent, then that statement would be obviously and necessarily false.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would seem so, yes.
After all, he isn't even human so how would he know what's best for us. Pretty much every action he takes seems to show a complete lack of understanding of reality or reason or logic.

God does not have to be human in order to know what is best for humans. God created humans so God alone knows what we were created for. Also, God is all-knowing and as such God knows everything, including what is best for humans.

What actions do you think God is taking that lacks reason or logic?

 

[Trailblazer]

If your god were both real and omnipotent, then that statement would be obviously and necessarily false.

How do you think you can know what a 'real and omnipotent' God would do to best eliminate suffering and evil and guide us.

 

[KWED]

Salam

Here I will quote one of these (but it's repeated and paraphrased with different contexts):

When Allah, the Glorified, deputed His prophets, if He had wished to open for them treasures and mines of gold and (surround them with) planted gardens and to collect around them birds of the skies and beasts of the earth, He could have done so. If He had done so then there would have been no trial, nor recompense and no tidings (about the affairs of the next world).

Those who accepted (His message) could not be given the recompense falling due after trial and the believers could not deserve the reward for good acts, and all these words 2 would not have retained their meanings. But Allah, the Glorified, makes His Prophets firm in their determination and gives them weakness of appearance as seen from the eyes, along with contentment that fills the hearts and eyes resulting from care-freeness, and with want that pains the eyes and ears.

وَلَوْ أَرَادَ اللهُ سُبْحَانَهُ بأَنْبِيَائِهِ حَيْثُ بَعَثَهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتَحَ لَهُمْ كُنُوزَ الْذِّهْبَانِ، وَمَعَادِنَ الْعِقْيَانِ، وَمَغَارِسَ الْجِنَانِ، وَأَنْ يَحْشُرَ مَعَهُمْ طَيْرَ السَّماءِ وَوُحُوشَ الاْرَضِينَ لَفَعَلَ، وَلَوْ فَعَلَ لَسَقَطَ الْبَلاَءُ، وَبَطَلَ الْجَزَاءُ، وَاضْمَحَلَّتِ الاْنْبَاءُ، وَلَمَا وَجَبَ لِلْقَابِلِينَ أُجُورُ الْمُبْتَلِينَ، وَلاَ اسْتَحَقَّ الْمُؤمِنُونَ ثَوَابَ الْـمُحْسِنِينَ، وَلاَ لَزِمَتِ الاْسْمَاءُ مَعَانِيَهَا، وَلكِنَّ اللهَ سُبْحَانَهُ جَعَلَ رُسُلَهُ أُولِي قُوَّة فِي عَزَائِمِهِمْ، وَضَعَفَةً فِيَما تَرَى الاْعْيُنُ مِنْ حَالاَتِهِمْ، مَعَ قَنَاعَة تَمْلاُ الْقُلُوبَ وَالْعُيُونَ غِنىً، وَخَصَاصَة تَمْلاَ الاْبْصَارَ وَالاْسْمَاعَ أَذىً.

If the prophets possessed authority that could not be assaulted, or honour that could not be damaged or domain towards which the necks of people would turn and the saddles of mounts could be set, it would have been very easy for people to seek lessons and quite difficult to feel vanity.

They would have then accepted belief out of fear felt by them or inclination attracting them, and the intention of them all would have been the same, although their actions would have been different. Therefore, Allah, the Glorified decided that people should follow His prophets, acknowledge His books, remain humble before His face, obey His command and accept His obedience with sincerity in which there should not be an iota of anything else; and as the trial and tribulation would be stiffer the reward and recompense too should be larger.

Nope. Still none the wiser. If anything, I don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore. The surfeit of platitudes is addling my brain. I kinda know how you must feel now. My sympathies.

 

[KWED]

Salam

Don't need to when you are not making effort but purposely blabbering nonsense you know is nonsense.

If you look back over my recent posts, I am merely asking you to explain your argument in simple terms, in your own words, without referring to platitudes and scriptural quotes.
If you consider such requests to be "blabbering nonsense", then I think we can conclude that neither of us have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[KWED]

God does not have to be human in order to know what is best for humans.

Until he has lived as a human, experiencing what humans experience, he cannot know. He is merely guessing or assuming.

God created humans so God alone knows what we were created for.

Indeed. "Only to worship him" apparently - which seems a bit needy. Imagine creating an entire universe, including trillions of hours of unnecessary suffering for your creation, just so you could have your ego massaged.

Also, God is all-knowing and as such God knows everything, including what is best for humans.

That is a mere assertion that is not supported by the evidence.
Firstly, his revelation contains inconsistencies and errors. Second, it is certain that dying in agony from a congenital condition is not what is best for an infant. Now, I admit that it might be what is best for god if god is a sadistic psychopath.

What actions do you think God is taking that lacks reason or logic?

Creating the universe for a start.
Actually, tbh I can't really think of anything that god has done that seems reasonable or logical. How about you give an example of him being reasonable and logical?

 

[Trailblazer]

Until he has lived as a human, experiencing what humans experience, he cannot know. He is merely guessing or assuming.

I consider what you said to be illogical. God is all-knowing so of course God knows what it is like to be a human. God does not ever have to guess or assume anything because God knows everything about everything. That is what it means to be all-knowing.

When you say that God has to guess or assume, you are turning God into a human and that is the fallacy of false equivalence because God is in a category of His own and is not equivalent to a human being.

Indeed. "Only to worship him" apparently - which seems a bit needy. Imagine creating an entire universe, including trillions of hours of unnecessary suffering for your creation, just so you could have your ego massaged.

God does not want our worship for His sake, He only enjoins us to worship Him for our own benefit. God is completely self-sufficient and completely self-sustaining, so God has no needs at all.

AGAIN, you are turning God into a human when you suggest God has an ego. Only humans have egos, so that is the fallacy of false equivalence to suggest that God has an ego.

That is a mere assertion that is not supported by the evidence.
Firstly, his revelation contains inconsistencies and errors. Second, it is certain that dying in agony from a congenital condition is not what is best for an infant. Now, I admit that it might be what is best for god if god is a sadistic psychopath.

Some of the older scriptures have inconsistencies and errors because they were written by men, but the Writings of Baha'u'llah have no inconsistencies or errors.

When I say God knows what is best for humans I meant best in general. Why humans have to suffer is because this material world is a storehouse of suffering, so suffering is unavoidable.

How do you think it could possibly benefit God for humans to suffer? It benefits God in no way because God does not need any benefits since God is completely self-sufficient.

A sadistic psychopath? Again you are turning God into a human being, but God is not a human being so God cannot be a psychopath.

Creating the universe for a start.
Actually, tbh I can't really think of anything that god has done that seems reasonable or logical. How about you give an example of him being reasonable and logical?

Why would God creating the universe be unreasonable or illogical?
God creating the universe is reasonable and logical because otherwise there would be no universe. God sending Messengers to humanity to guide us is also reasonable and logical because otherwise we would have no guidance from God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Salam

True, but not in a way, that makes the meaning of the trial of will go away.

This god being ending someone's;' life would in no way make the meaning of the trial of free will go away. If that were the case then the meaning of the trial of free will goes away each and every time this god being ends any person's life.

 

[ppp]

How do you think you can know what a 'real and omnipotent' God would do to best eliminate suffering and evil and guide us.

The statement that Link made was 'doing his best' not 'would do to best'.

 

[Trailblazer]

The statement that Link made was 'doing his best' not 'would do to best'.

Okay, then how do you know that God is not 'doing His best' to eliminate suffering?

 

[ppp]

Okay, then how do you know that God is not 'doing His best' to eliminate suffering?

I don't know that there is a god that is doing anything. Including existing. You don't seem to be able to hold onto that understanding.

Moreover, godhood is irrelevant. An omnipotent being, god or otherwise, who is doing her "best" at a task would be able to instantly succeed at that task. That is what it means to be able to do anything.