If God exists why does He allow suffering?

[SeekingAllTruth]

Interesting. Just the same, are you still insisting that the vast majority of humankind are in the bottom quintile?

Checking the stats I cannot get one for simple poverty. Everything is listed as "extreme poverty" and that is 9.2%. That astonishes me. I thought it much higher.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Checking the stats I cannot get one for simple poverty. Everything is listed as "extreme poverty" and that is 9.2%. That astonishes me. I thought it much higher.

Perhaps the question of poverty is more than meets the eye. It's hard to quantify. Most folks in the U.S. below the 'poverty' line have a car, a home, a microwave. cable tv, things that would definitely classify them as middle class outside the U.S. I don't want to make this a topic for a vote, iow who cares what the rest of the world says --if we think they're poor then they're poor dammit.

--but is that logical?

 

[Trailblazer]

Most folks are doing pretty good.

I cannot say that I know because I never did the research, but if that is true, what is the Baha'i mission all about?
We did not need Baha'u'llah, we would have been just fine with what Jesus accomplished.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Perhaps the question of poverty is more than meets the eye. It's hard to quantify. Most folks in the U.S. below the 'poverty' line have a car, a home, a microwave. cable tv, things that would definitely classify them as middle class outside the U.S. I don't want to make this a topic for a vote, iow who cares what the rest of the world says --if we think they're poor then they're poor dammit.

--but is that logical?

Probably not. i can't remember how the subject of poverty came up. I'm sure I raised it, but i'm vague in what context. Perhaps it was the health implications. People in poverty have a lower life expectancy than more well-off people.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Probably not. i can't remember how the subject of poverty came up. I'm sure I raised it, but i'm vague in what context. Perhaps it was the health implications. People in poverty have a lower life expectancy than more well-off people.

This whole thing started w/ your explanation for rejecting God was his:

...cruelty inflicted on the vast majority of humans...

& I argued that the "vast majority of humans" were doing just fine thank you.

As for life expectancy---

--does this mean God loves us more than ever before?

 

[Pete in Panama]

...We did not need Baha'u'llah, we would have been just fine with what Jesus accomplished.

Of course that's assuming that there's a difference between the two & I'd be reluctant to assume that.

 

[joe1776]

That is an argument you put forth but not something you can ever prove, which is why I said it is a belief.

Back in Post 135, you wrote:

I do not need a counter-argument because you have no argument to counter. At most all you have is a belief.

After I laid out the argument so that you would see your error, you shifted positions rather than admit your error. What I have offered is a logical argument for a plausible hypothesis which answers the question posed by the OP: If God exists why does He allow suffering?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post which would require more speculation. I don't feel that need to prove anything. My argument provides a plausible hypothesis. I'm not claiming I can prove it.

 

[cataway]

I was working amidst a rural community and was invited to dinner with one of my workmates and her husband. My colleague has just been diagnosed with cancer for the second time in her life. Its a tough time for her but she’s dealing with it really well. She had grown up Christian but in her twenties several people she knew died in short succession. This led her to conclude there was no God. “Why would God allow such suffering?” She feels as if she’s coping just fine now without believing in God and she certainly appears to be.

She asked me as a declared theist “If there is a God, why would He allow such suffering?” As an invited guest of a colleague with cancer I felt it best to empathise with her perspective and listen without offering a theistic view.

The belief that suffering rules out the existence of God is something I’ve heard from atheists and agnostics before. Although I’ve suffered in life from time to time, its never led me to question God’s existence. In fact I’ve just had a really tough month or so for which I’m grateful. Admittedly I’m not wrestling with a cancer diagnosis or the loss of a loved one.

So I’m curious as to how others view suffering and whether it affects their beliefs about God positively or negatively. If a Creator God exists why didn’t He do a better job of designing the universe? If we suffer, shouldn’t we see it as an opportunity to develop and attain new insights and strength?

I’ve put this in the general debates section to allow freedom of expression. I’m wanting to better understand why this is such a critical issue for so many people rather than debate. Thanks in advance for those who drop by to offer their sincere thoughts about how suffering affects their faith.

at what point did God become a servant of mankind ?

 

[joe1776]

I've never seen Trump suffer from his bad behavior unless you're referring to the suffering he inflicts on others because of his bad behavior. It's a myth that bad people suffer from their bad behavior.

Bad people do, generally, suffer from their bad behavior. If they didn't, the survival of our species would be at grave risk. However, I don't try to judge behavior on an individual basis. I'm thinking of human nature, generally.

A world without suffering wouldn't necessitate motivation to change.

Clarify, please. I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Trailblazer]

This whole thing started w/ your explanation for rejecting God was his:& I argued that the "vast majority of humans" were doing just fine thank you.

As for life expectancy---

--does this mean God loves us more than ever before?

If humans are living longer than ever before, that can be attributed to advances in science, not to anything that God did on our behalf.

The vast majority of humans are not doing just fine, not according to Baha'u'llah, but if you believe that everything has been 'fixed' since this was written, perhaps it is time for the Baha'is to close up shop.

“…..every time the Prophets of God have illumined the world with the resplendent radiance of the Day Star of Divine knowledge, they have invariably summoned its peoples to embrace the light of God through such means as best befitted the exigencies of the age in which they appeared. They were thus able to scatter the darkness of ignorance, and to shed upon the world the glory of their own knowledge. It is towards the inmost essence of these Prophets, therefore, that the eye of every man of discernment must be directed, inasmuch as their one and only purpose hath always been to guide the erring, and give peace to the afflicted…. These are not days of prosperity and triumph. The whole of mankind is in the grip of manifold ills. Strive, therefore, to save its life through the wholesome medicine which the almighty hand of the unerring Physician hath prepared.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 80-81

“We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“How long will humanity persist in its waywardness? How long will injustice continue? How long is chaos and confusion to reign amongst men? How long will discord agitate the face of society?… The winds of despair are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divideth and afflicteth the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appeareth to be lamentably defective. I beseech God, exalted be His glory, that He may graciously awaken the peoples of the earth, may grant that the end of their conduct may be profitable unto them, and aid them to accomplish that which beseemeth their station.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 216-217

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course that's assuming that there's a difference between the two & I'd be reluctant to assume that.

That depends upon what you mean by difference. Jesus and Baha'u'llah were both Manifestations of God, but according to Baha'u'llah there was a difference in their revelations and their missions.

Their first station is the station of essential unity......

“It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor! ….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 52

Their second station is the station of distinction....

“The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation.” Gleanings, p. 52

 

[Trailblazer]

What I have offered is a logical argument for a plausible theory which answers the question posed by the OP: If God exists why does He allow suffering?

I will give you that, it is a plausible theory.

My argument supporting the claim that undue suffering is not necessary to motivate moral progress:

P1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise)
P2 We humans were created with free will and capable of both bad and good behavior.
P3 All suffering is not caused by bad behavior, as some suffering is not subject to free will, it is fated by God.
P4 There will always be suffering because that is inherent in the material world.
P5 Some suffering is part of the human condition owing to the material world which causes suffering.
P6 God adds to our suffering by determining a fate whereby people will suffer, some more than others.
P7 A world without undue suffering could still motivate change.
P8 We humans have been making moral progress.
C1 Therefore, it's possible that some suffering is necessary to motivate moral progress, but moral progress could still be achieved with less suffering than we see in the world at present.
C2 It is possible that God does not care how much individuals suffer, since there is no evidence of God's mitigation. Perhaps we are just a means to accomplish God's end.

 

[joe1776]

....P5 Some suffering is part of the human condition owing to the material world which causes suffering.

Does it matter? Our brains are wired to make us feel good when we help people who are suffering regardless of whether the suffering is caused by floods (acts of nature) or war (human acts). Moreover, our brains are wired to punish us with guilt when we intentionally harm innocent others. It's as if a Creator was using the reward and punishment method to train us morally.

P6 God adds to our suffering by determining a fate whereby people will suffer, some more than others.

Agreed, it does seem unfair. However, since I haven't the mind of a Creator, I can't judge Perhaps the individual isn't a factor in the scheme.
.

P7 A world without undue suffering could still motivate change.

You've jumped to the conclusion that "undue suffering" exists on what evidence?

Based on the false premise P7 the following isn't a logical deduction:

C1 Therefore, it's possible that some suffering is necessary to motivate moral progress, but moral progress could still be achieved with less suffering than we see in the world at present.

 

[rational experiences]

God O earth.
God created its own stone spirits with space womb. Space vacuum sucked out heat.

Change not evolution is owned by creation. Cooling is not evolving.

A gas burning is historic why it can burn.
A gas cooled was magical stated by a science thinker.
We take non burning gases and set them alight. As in the past they were alight.

Reason to quote God the creator. Has a human motivated preached teaching. Preaching not science is a realisation. Only a planet and it's heavens natural owned law vacuum womb.

The creator function O body mass sitting in womb vacuum. Reasoning.
Magical a mystery a preached science status. As gases changed so did body mass in womb vacuum.

Said versus man egotism of I want first. Motivated group choice in human life based on human presence by human reasons is not any string of science. As if a man suddenly decided to theory why creation existed.

He thought for inventive science.

Another preached taught status.

Want motivated one self in a group to get status. Self noteriety. To be hero worshipped to self idolize by his thinking then design then gains in human status. The group.

Warning to self. Self by group gained over view conscious ideals that one self was never aware of. Conscious science knowledge brotherhood one self never owned visionary capacity did not own contacts. Of a nuclear vision.

Brothers aware in self life conditions group gained vision. One small radiation human communication never owned science vision.

Reasoning again why you are not God. Not historic to a string of human beliefs as if you came out of mass first as a reaction of God. As a spirit of first man scientist. Man thinking was the spirit visionary. Dusts not a human.

Yet he preached in his science thesis that life began that moment.

So states if I contact life by machine radiation mass in dusts I gave the origin connections to thesis by single self.

Based on version falsified information Jesus tells us technology.

Teaching preaching. God owned the highest support of a human. Highest self human present healthy. Lowest life of a human thinking science.

Yet it is the exact same life

To ask why does God an all man science teaching allow harm and suffering. In human life owning claim I am god. Because the preacher scientist of God caused it. Theories. Inventions. Changes to non burning gases given light we say life...science burning cold gases gives us death and sacrifice.

God only owned gas heavens sacrifice natural light. No man is God teachings. Said only spirit son of god was burning. No man is God preaching.

Science today claims hence it is Jesus. Science using correct just science terms says the constant of light sits in the vacuum.

The human argument. God never owned any son. That is a false statement of I own.

Argument we own it as we survive living by its presence.

True teaching no you don't own it vacuum womb does.

Ownership status also group human ego problem. Always was. Status natural human fully shared did not express control or ownership never had that human problem self destructive idealism.

A situation to argue.

Scientist put back together advice of first metal converter being UFO radiation mass. Not actually a machine but close enough.

His machine satanic thesis when humans went to hell burnt we were all there to death by God but due to his science machine conditions ended his machine also in a conduit as atmosphere channelled reaction blew up machine.

The UFO status.

Which Is possession visionary today allowed him to put it back physically as if it time travelled. Yet science man is doing all physical activity.

Reactive past says direct overheating reactive machine blown up. Science man taught learnt advised.

Science nuclear mind psyche always knew that advice. So said I will implement with machine extra cooling conditions as I already knew by design and reaction machine could blow up.

And it does.

Ask brother satanist scientist does science lie? Brother says surely does.

God hurts humans as science changed law God in a vacuum.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: ....P5 Some suffering is part of the human condition owing to the material world which causes suffering.

Does it matter? Our brains are wired to make us feel good when we help people who are suffering regardless of whether the suffering is caused by floods (acts of nature) or war (human acts). Moreover, our brains are wired to punish us with guilt when we intentionally harm innocent others. It's as if a Creator was using the reward and punishment method to train us morally.

I do not believe that our brains are ‘wired’ like that; I believe these behaviors are learned. That explains why some people feel good when they help people who are suffering whereas some people don’t feel anything at all. Moreover, some people feel guilty when they do something to intentionally hurt others and some people feel no guilt at all; in fact, some people derive pleasure from hurting others although some people only hurt others as a means to an end (e.g., murder for monetary gain).

P6 God adds to our suffering by determining a fate whereby people will suffer, some more than others.

Agreed, it does seem unfair. However, since I haven't the mind of a Creator, I can't judge.

I am not judging; I am just making an observation. You can draw your own conclusions.

P7 A world without undue suffering could still motivate change.

You've jumped to the conclusion that "undue suffering" exists on what evidence? Based on the false premise P7 the following isn't a logical deduction:

C1 Therefore, it's possible that some suffering is necessary to motivate moral progress, but moral progress could still be achieved with less suffering than we see in the world at present.

P7 A world without undue suffering could still motivate change.

That is not a false premise unless you can prove there is no undue suffering.

You are assuming that no suffering is undue (that all suffering is warranted) but you don’t know that. You've jumped to the conclusion that no "undue suffering" exists on what evidence?

My conclusion was just as logical as your conclusion which was based upon P4 and P5.

P4 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate change.
P5 We humans have indeed been making moral progress.
C1 Therefore, it's likely that suffering was created as a necessary challenge to motivate moral progress.

 

[Pete in Panama]

If humans are living longer than ever before, that can be attributed to advances in science, not to anything that God did on our behalf...

Right, so if life expectancy had fallen from 80 years to 40 years, would everyone say that was because of that terrible science? Of course not. Remember the subject came up because God was being blamed for the alleged falling life expectancy.

Now look, I'm not saying the rising life-expectancy is somehow proof of God's rescuing a helpless humanity. My take is that mankind was created to carry forth an ever advancing civilization. Sure, lots of clowns on these threads are going to say we were so much better off a hundred years ago but that's a crock.

 

[Koldo]

The argument supporting the claim that suffering was created as a necessary challenge to motivate moral progress:

P1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise)
P2 We humans were created with free will and capable of both bad and good behavior.
P3 Bad behavior adds to suffering
P4 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate change.
P5 We humans have indeed been making moral progress.
C1 Therefore, it's likely that suffering was created as a necessary challenge to motivate moral progress.

Oh, I didn't see this before.

P2: Free will is not a given. Since you don't even attempt to establish its' existence there is no need to accept this premise.

P4: This is also not a given. Since you haven't proven that suffering is necessary to motivate change, there is no need to accept this premise either.

P5: This is also not a given. Much of the 20th century is full of atrocities.

C1: Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

 

[Koldo]

Does it matter? Our brains are wired to make us feel good when we help people who are suffering regardless of whether the suffering is caused by floods (acts of nature) or war (human acts). Moreover, our brains are wired to punish us with guilt when we intentionally harm innocent others. It's as if a Creator was using the reward and punishment method to train us morally.

Erm...
I am afraid it depends on the person. You shouldn't assume that everyone has the exact same moral compass, not even on this regard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

P4 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate change.

If all of the challenge you've ever faced in your life came from suffering, then I'm truly sorry.

Just know that it doesn't have to be that way. Edit: and it isn't that way for everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right, so if life expectancy had fallen from 80 years to 40 years, would everyone say that was because of that terrible science? Of course not. Remember the subject came up because God was being blamed for the alleged falling life expectancy.

No, I would say that is was due to lack of advances in science. That lack could have something to do with God, if God failed to send a Messenger who would stimulate progress in the sciences.

Now look, I'm not saying the rising life-expectancy is somehow proof of God's rescuing a helpless humanity. My take is that mankind was created to carry forth an ever advancing civilization. Sure, lots of clowns on these threads are going to say we were so much better off a hundred years ago but that's a crock.

It is not proof but it is evidence that God intervened in some way which caused a rising life-expectancy, just as God intervened and influenced the whole creation when He sent Jesus.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86