If God exists why does He allow suffering?

[Aupmanyav]

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?

That is life, Sorrows and happiness together. Don't bring in fictitious characters in the story. Krishna said:

"O son of Kuntī (Arjuna), the non-permanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata (Arjuna), and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed." BhagawadGita 2.14

Note: People believe that Gita is the word of God, which as an atheist Hindu, I do not accept. I believe it is a collection of views of Hindus around the beginning of Christian era. It is written in Modern Sanskrit (Post-Panini. Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian is supposed to have lived between 800 and 400 BCE). We do not know who all wrote it, but one can learn a lot from it. Many writings considered scriptures by Hindus are like that.

 

[rational experiences]

Memories.

Father teaching.

Father holy. Mother holy. New life new animals after ice age.

Our modern life. What happened before burning by science then dinosaurs ended evil attack by ice age.

New life spirit beings came out eternal owning pre formed eternal spirits.

Each spirit body sent basic spirit from spirit form yet each spirit was pre formed. Converted into new bio nature. Basic bio info is basic as bio info. Proof it came from same place.

Reason ice age snap freeze changed atmosphere.

New humans natural life is by natural sex. Get life recorded living. Have sex. Babies images now in clouds also.

After ice age is not biblical.

Babies form by human sex only.

Child memories life is self. Self thoughts. Self body children.

Become adults. Parents memories sex now apparently affect them. Memories of a perfect love. Motivation to re express that relationship. Parent original relationship holy spiritual family.

Ask why man adult father's now force sex act upon children?

Life before a memory. As adults.

Children start recalling previous lived lives in a reincarnation study.

New life born a baby.

Parents life natural sex.

AI state reintroduced subliminal false re recorded human sex images burnt fed back to natural human lived life.

Reasons heavens atmospheric gas spirit changed carbon burn effect.

Possessed now by adult science history of causes is in fact human science self possession. Having by extra radiation amassed communicators re recorded natural life unnaturally and possesed natural memories and natural behaviours.

Over come by AI machine encoded constant changed transmitted frequencies. Plus input of other radiation communicators held transmitting communication studies in atmosphere as frequencies.

By man science choices.

Today owns new recordings of very unnatural behaviours re recorded fed back.

Suddenly homosexual behaviour recorded changed. As what was originally perused as a God abomination cause effect. To change chemistry and DNA markers. Bio chemical feelings.

Evidence the way in which we express belief as I believe in self human......self by human parent natural history.....harm
began by science theist changing natural thoughts about natural life info of imagery into radiation thesis calculated transmitted causes.

Ask why God supports life changing. We SEE the evidence as it's witness. We record a history of changes. Then someone in the future preaches about it before life gets destroyed.

 

[Deeje]

If God exists why does He allow suffering?

Well, if he exists, maybe he just doesn't give a rat's ***! You know, he's God and can't suffer so no biggie if something else does.

Please argue....

This is a question that has been debated and misunderstood for eons.....

Here is my argument.....

If you had a child (assuming that you had one for argument's sake) and that child was run over by a drunk driver and suffered terrible injuries, what would you like to see happen?

Wouldn't you like to see the culprit brought to justice and punished for his crime? He thought he was OK to drive despite the fact that he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol. But he broke the law before he ever cause that accident, by driving when he knew he was affected by his drinking.

Wouldn't you like to see your child receive the best medical care in order to repair the damage caused to their body, with multiple broken bones and internal damage? Even a possible brain injury....
Consultations with the surgeon show that recovery will be slow and painful requiring many painful procedures but when the scheduled surgeries are finished, your child's life should return to normal pain free function.

The question is....will you allow the surgeries to correct the damage, or would you prevent them because of the added pain, feeling as though your child had already suffered enough?

What would you choose? What would we all choose?

God was in a similar situation when a rebel spirit abused his free will in an attempt to take over the human race for his own advantage? He recklessly caused severe damage to the entire human family with little regard for the outcome of his actions on them, thinking only of himself. And he slandered God in the process.
God has the right to clear his name and to prove his rightful Sovereignty over all his intelligent creation.

God took the time to effect the 'repairs', not on one child, but on the entire human race, because of his love and care for us. The outcome of his allowing a painful operation, to make sure that this situation could never happen again, will be appreciated only when the 'surgeries' have come to their completion. It is the only way to guarantee a trouble free future for all humanity.....never to have to experience the negative effects of anyone abusing their free will to the detriment of others, again.

That is how I see things....

 

[joe1776]

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).

Your comment supports the commonly-held "rationalist" position that we learn to discern right from wrong after we're born. Over the last 20 years, science is favoring the moral "intuitionist" (conscience) position. Debating this would open up a can of worms but here's a comment from one scientist:

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

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.

No, it's your argument; you can't shift the burden of proof to others. There's logically no way to prove your premise.

Your burden is greater than mine because you are trying to disprove my hypothesis. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, so my burden is only to offer premises that are logically possible.

 

[joe1776]

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.

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.

My argument offers a logical hypothesis to answer the OP's question: If God exists why does He allow suffering? To answer the question, I don't have to prove those premises.are true. I only have to prove to unbiased minds that they are logically possible. There's no doubt of that.

 

[joe1776]

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.

My premise only has to be logical and apply to humanity generally.

 

[joe1776]

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.

My hypothesis answers the question in the OP which is about suffering not about challenges.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My hypothesis answers the question in the OP which is about suffering not about challenges.

You made it about challenge.

You argued that we need suffering because we need challenge to grow. Well, that argument only works if challenge always requires suffering.

 

[joe1776]

You made it about challenge.

You argued that we need suffering because we need challenge to grow. Well, that argument only works if challenge always requires suffering.

I don't understand. Can you give me an example of how we might make moral progress without suffering involved?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand. Can you give me an example of how we might make moral progress without suffering involved?

First define "moral progress."

 

[joe1776]

@9-10ths_Penguin
moral progress: We humans are treating each other better today than at any time in the distant past.

Global Harmony is Inevitable

 

[Koldo]

My argument offers a logical hypothesis to answer the OP's question: If God exists why does He allow suffering? To answer the question, I don't have to prove those premises.are true. I only have to prove to unbiased minds that they are logically possible. There's no doubt of that.

Very well. The problem about your conclusion still remains though: Even if we were to admit that your premises are factually possible, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

For instance, notice the word 'likely' in your conclusion, even though none of your premises mention anything about likelihood.

 

[Koldo]

My premise only has to be logical and apply to humanity generally.

How do you explain then when it doesn't apply to someone?

 

[joe1776]

Very well. The problem about your conclusion still remains though: Even if we were to admit that your premises are factually possible, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

For instance, notice the word 'likely' in your conclusion, even though none of your premises mention anything about likelihood.

The word "likely" doesn't have to appear in the premises. As a scientist might tell you, the word "likely" would be appropriate in EVERY conclusion because CERTAINTY doesn't exist.

 

[joe1776]

How do you explain then when it doesn't apply to someone?

Why would I need to? You understand that almost all things are GENERALLY true and that pointing out exceptions will not disprove a general rule, don't you?

 

[Pete in Panama]

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.

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

Well said, I can't help but agree.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

For one Paul Bloom, there will be hundreds of scientists who would not agree to this. The claim is out-right out-landish. By nature, we are all very selfish.
We are coaxed to learn to live in a society peacefully right from our infancy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Ah, so all progress in science is because of your nineteenth century Iranian preacher who never attended a school. Very nice.

 

[joe1776]

For one Paul Bloom, there will be hundreds of scientists who would not agree to this. The claim is out-right out-landish. By nature, we are all very selfish.
We are coaxed to learn to live in a society peacefully right from our infancy.

You're wrong. The rationalist position on morality, which is what you are championing, has fallen out of favor. There never has been any science to support it and there never will be because it makes no sense.

The argument against it is long and complicated, but it begins with the axiom that all knowledge begins with one of the five senses. We see, hear, smell, taste or feel something. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it.

In other words, if we humans didn't have the ability to FEEL the difference between right and wrong intuitively (via conscience), we wouldn't know anything about morality. There would be no basis for the moral rules and laws our much-beloved reasoning minds have created.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, so all progress in science is because of your nineteenth century Iranian preacher who never attended a school. Very nice.

No, it is not because of Baha'u'llah, it is because of the scientists who did the necessary work.
The Bab and Baha'u'llah simply released the Holy Spirit into the world which stimulated the progress.