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

[Link]

Under that hypothetical, your god is not doing his best to prevent suffering. Which goes back to my initial response to your claim that he is.

Fair point. I would argue that God is not willing to create a meaningless universe so created two. In the paradigm of two, I'm saying God is doing his best to eliminate suffering. Yes, he could've created a world and made sure no suffering is possible. But in the world he created, he is doing his best to eliminate it.

 

[ppp]

Fair point.

[gasp] Thank you.

I would argue that God is not willing to create a meaningless universe so created two

I do not accept your presumption that a universe without suffering would be meaningless.

 

[Madmogwai]

Men don’t behave now, why will they in Heaven

 

[QuestioningMind]

Salam

So how does God directly end that as oppose to being subtle and having the system and world we are in allow death?

If everyone doing a severe crime died right away, it would not be subtle and the system would not appear the way it is now. Everyone would see interference of God.

So how does God directly end that as oppose to being subtle and having the system and world we are in allow death?

The exact same way this god does now... heart attack, car crash, cancer, struck by lightening, simply pick one of the many ways that people end up dying.

If everyone doing a severe crime died right away, it would not be subtle and the system would not appear the way it is now.

If everyone who commits severe crimes died right away it would be wonderful! Just think of the amount of suffering in the world it would alleviate.

Everyone would see interference of God.

Good deal! Then we'd actually have evidence that this god being exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. Obviously, if there were an omnipotent god then he would not want to stop suffering.

No, there is no reason to believe that an omnipotent God would want to stop suffering.

God is omniscient so He knew what He was doing when he created a world full of suffering...
Stopping suffering now would be God admitting He made a mistake when He created a world full of suffering, but God is infallible so God can never make a mistake.

Atheists focus on omnipotence but seem to forget that God has other attributes.

 

[ppp]

No, there is no reason to believe that an omnipotent God would want to stop suffering.

God is omniscient so He knew what He was doing when he created a world full of suffering...
Stopping suffering now would be God admitting He made a mistake when He created a world full of suffering, but God is infallible so God can never make a mistake.

Atheists focus on omnipotence but seem to forget that God has other attributes.

I have no idea why you think you said something that is counter to my statements.

 

[Link]

[gasp] Thank you.

I do not accept your presumption that a universe without suffering would be meaningless.

Salam

Meaningless is an exaggeration and meant as hyperbola. What I meant is with very little meaning.

 

[Link]

So how does God directly end that as oppose to being subtle and having the system and world we are in allow death?

The exact same way this god does now... heart attack, car crash, cancer, struck by lightening, simply pick one of the many ways that people end up dying.

If everyone doing a severe crime died right away, it would not be subtle and the system would not appear the way it is now.

If everyone who commits severe crimes died right away it would be wonderful! Just think of the amount of suffering in the world it would alleviate.

Everyone would see interference of God.

Good deal! Then we'd actually have evidence that this god being exists.

Salam

Everyone would worship God out of fright in this case and love of God would not mean much.

 

[ppp]

Salam

Meaningless is an exaggeration and meant as hyperbola. What I meant is with very little meaning.

I do not accept your presumption that a universe without suffering would be [with very little meaning].

 

[Link]

I do not accept your presumption that a universe without suffering would be [with very little meaning].

Salam

Okay. How do you suppose God makes sure no suffering occurring is possible and with a lot of meaning?

 

[ppp]

Salam

Okay. How do you suppose God makes sure no suffering occurring is possible and with a lot of meaning?

I have no idea what reasoning you are using to conclude that either a god or suffering are necessary for "a lot of meaning." Are you using reasoning? Or is this just something you assume?

 

[Link]

I have no idea what reasoning you are using to conclude that either a god or suffering are necessary for "a lot of meaning." Are you using reasoning? Or is this just something you assume?

I showed the reasoning. Perhaps my words don't do it justice, so a perhaps good source to explain this, is from Imam Ali (a) Sermon 192: Praise be to Allah who wears the apparel of Honour and Dignity… | Nahjul Balagha Part 1, The Sermons | Al-Islam.org

There are statements made a few times, about if God wanted to, he could've made the trial easier and make sure no one disobeys him and explains a few times why God did not do that. But those can be seen in context of everything he says as well.

 

[Link]

There's also the notion, that when Adam (a) was approaching tree- at first Angels (a) didn't let him, then God revealed to them, they must never use force on humans but must reason to them instead. This is found in tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a).

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no idea why you think you said something that is counter to my statements.

My apologies. I read that too fast as I have not been very well lately, lots going on.

I thought you said:
No. Obviously, if there were an omnipotent god then he would want to stop suffering.

But what you really said is the following, which does not run counter to what I said after that:

No. Obviously, if there were an omnipotent god then he would not want to stop suffering.
#128 Policy

No, there is no reason to believe that an omnipotent God would want to stop suffering.
#145 Trailblazer

 

[ppp]

I showed the reasoning.

Could you show where? I have read the OP and I don't see it. It helps greatly, when explaining a position, to start at place where both you and your interlocutor agree, and then build a chain of sound arguments from the point of agreement to your conclusion.

I have a lot of meaning in my life and none of it references a god. I have a lot of meaning in my life and none of it depends on suffering.

 

[ppp]

My apologies. I read that too fast as I have not been very well lately, lots going on.

I am so sorry to hear that. You have been going thru stuff for a while now. I hope that it is at least starting to get better.

 

[Link]

Could you show where?

Salam

In OP:

If he can "force" love and make us see his beauty, he would. There is no forcing love, it has to come with freewill. When truth is clear beyond possibility of doubt and there is no way to doubt it at all no matter how much we might try, it's too late to love God, because the matter is decreed now and there is no reward that be given for faith.

Later in the thread:

With time, physical pleasures get stale, so he could've created paradise to be more of a physical pleasure thing and stopped anyone trying to do crimes, and he could've made Adam body with gleaming light and of a type that Iblis would not disobey but things would be so pale, stale, boring and we would suffer in the long run.

Of course God created world without suffering and Adam was in paradise and meant to stay there, but things have gone haywire. If Adam didn't swerve perhaps this whole tragedy would've be avoided. But if he didn't allow Iblis to "misguide him", this would not be allowing creatures to misguide others, and everyone would be to afraid to disbelieve and voice their view.

And of course God doesn't want suffering but has allowed of a way of error handling and tries us by each other and trial from a fallen world. Without patience benefiting believers from their patience with regards to their enemies and trials of this world, he wouldn't have allowed it.

And God could've not tried Angels but they would be quite full of themselves and their worship almost worthless, so he created Adam and put his authority in him out of grace to them as well.

And of course it looks bad on God, but all it takes is some significant sincere amount of followers to God and his anointed Kings in any generation and we can put an end to suffering. And if the cursed Iblis remain patient and didn't fall and gave up his pride, everything would be perfect now.

So it looks bad, but it's error handling, things that were chance wise, very low chances to happen. Of course God knew the chances, but probability was on world being guided. This is a world that is not probable, so if we think it's purposely chosen to be like this, it's going to make God look bad.

 

[Link]

I have a lot of meaning in my life and none of it references a god. I have a lot of meaning in my life and none of it depends on suffering.

Salam

If there can be a lot of meaning without God, this argument would fail.

 

[ppp]

If there can be a lot of meaning without God, this argument would fail.

There can be a lot of meaning without a god.

 

[Link]

There can be a lot of meaning without a god.

Salam

Only hedonistic type meaning and value can be a lot. But even that would get pale, there is an argument by Atheist philosophers that heaven is impossible, because give it enough time, and it would get terribly boring and you would get use the pleasures and they would mean less over time. You would want to cease to exist eventually out of suffering from boredom.

I agree with them if heaven was materialistically focused it would be like that. Even the women wedded to believers in paradise to me have a role in transfusing beauty and glory from God so that God is travelled to. But sex would get boring at point to if purely physical type we know.