If God exists why does He allow suffering?

[Trailblazer]

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

That statement might have some truth to it. Baha’is believe all humans are born good, which is in sharp contrast to what Christians believe, that because of original sin we are born in sin and that sin has to be removed by the cross sacrifice of Jesus. Nevertheless I still believe we learn right from wrong after we are born.

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.

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

Assuming that all suffering is due suffering and there is no undue suffering is a false premise unless you can prove all suffering is due suffering.

If you describe something bad as undue, you mean that it is greater or more extreme than you think is reasonable or appropriate.
undue suffering definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso

Who decides what is reasonable and appropriate? Who decides if everyone deserves the suffering they have to endure? Do the families of those who were killed in the Colorado supermarket shootings deserve that suffering? Is it due suffering?

You assume all suffering is due suffering and I consider that completely lacking in compassion and reason I would expect such an attitude from a religious person who is defending their God, but I do not expect it and I usually do not see it in nonbelievers.

At the end of the day I just have a personal opinion which is what you have and your personal opinion is no more valid than mine.

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

You have the same burden of proof that I have. There's logically no way to prove your premise that P4 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate change, and there is no way to prove that all suffering is due suffering, since that is only a personal opinion. If you are asserting it it is a bald assertion, since you can never prove a personal opinion.

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.

I am not trying to disprove your hypothesis. I just had a different hypothesis so my burden is only to offer premises that are logically possible. My premises are just as logically possible as yours are.

 

[joe1776]

That statement might have some truth to it. Baha’is believe all humans are born good, which is in sharp contrast to what Christians believe, that because of original sin we are born in sin and that sin has to be removed by the cross sacrifice of Jesus. Nevertheless I still believe we learn right from wrong after we are born.

I think we humans are capable of both good and bad. The capacity for evil ranges from low to high. When it's high, the capacity for good is low. When the capacity for evil is low, the capacity for good is high.

P4 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate change.
Assuming that all suffering is due suffering and there is no undue suffering is a false premise unless you can prove all suffering is due suffering.

We already covered this ground.

Who decides what is reasonable and appropriate? Who decides if everyone deserves the suffering they have to endure? Do the families of those who were killed in the Colorado supermarket shootings deserve that suffering? Is it due suffering?

Questions like this are beyond the scope of my answer to the question in the OP. I have no basis for criticizing a Creator, if one exists.

You assume all suffering is due suffering and I consider that completely lacking in compassion and reason I would expect such an attitude from a religious person who is defending their God, but I do not expect it and I usually do not see it in nonbelievers.

Define "due suffering" in the context of your statement, please.

At the end of the day I just have a personal opinion which is what you have and your personal opinion is no more valid than mine.

I supported my opinion with an argument. All that matters to me is that you found no fault that would persuade unbiased minds that I'm wrong, IMO.

You have the same burden of proof that I have. There's logically no way to prove your premise that P4 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate change, and there is no way to prove that all suffering is due suffering, since that is only a personal opinion. If you are asserting it it is a bald assertion, since you can never prove a personal opinion.

Disagree. But this is ground we've already convered.

I am not trying to disprove your hypothesis.I just had a different hypothesis so my burden is only to offer premises that are logically possible. My premises are just as logically possible as yours are.

If that's the case, why post it in opposition to my argument? If you aren't offering a counter-argument, why should I be interested?

 

[Koldo]

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?

This is problematic because every single case of suffering must be justified. Not just suffering in general.

 

[joe1776]

This is problematic because every single case of suffering must be justified. Not just suffering in general.

The Koldo Rule?

Must be since the rules for creating universes are beyond human comprehension.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@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

So you think that people can't treat each other better without suffering? That makes no sense.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Have you never heard of deductive reasoning?

 

[Koldo]

The Koldo Rule?

Must be since the rules for creating universes are beyond human comprehension.

This is the question that started this topic: Why does suffering exist?

The question is not: Why does suffering exist, in general?

The intention of that question is to address all the suffering that exists and existed.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think we humans are capable of both good and bad. The capacity for evil ranges from low to high. When it's high, the capacity for good is low. When the capacity for evil is low, the capacity for good is high.

According to my religion we all have both those capacities because we all have two natures, a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

Questions like this are beyond the scope of my answer to the question in the OP. I have no basis for criticizing a Creator, if one exists.

In the OP Adrian said: 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?

Fine, but I don't need a basis. There is no reason why I should just accept all the undue suffering in the world and not question why it HAS to exist.

You assume all suffering is due suffering and I consider that completely lacking in compassion and reason I would expect such an attitude from a religious person who is defending their God, but I do not expect it and I usually do not see it in nonbelievers.

Define "due suffering" in the context of your statement, please.

Below is the definition for you in bold.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And WHY is man compelled to endure them? Because other than our moral choices, God determines our fate.

Now tell me why all these things are necessary in order for humanity to make moral progress. Is it necessary for millions of people to suffer and die of horrible diseases like cancer and Covid-19 in order for humanity to make moral progress? The only link I can see is that it leads to scientific progress because it leads to advancements in science, but all the innocent people who suffer and die are collateral damage. This is God’s game and I do not have to approve of it, and to say that an All-Knowing God could not have come up with another way is illogical. Clearly, God chose to create the world this way because it did not matter to God if people suffer because God knew that there would be enough people who would not even figure out who is behind all this suffering; and even if they realized it they would still accept it because they were brainwashed into believing they deserve it because they are sinners and God is All-Loving no matter what. But why should I believe that? Where is the evidence? Is God suffering? What if the shoe was on the other foot?

I supported my opinion with an argument. All that matters to me is that you found no fault that would persuade unbiased minds that I'm wrong, IMO.

You are the pot calling the kettle black because you are just as biased as anyone else.
What you all an argument is just a personal opinion, facts not in evidence. You can never prove you are right so that means you could be wrong. Do you understand what I mean?

If that's the case, why post it in opposition to my argument? If you aren't offering a counter-argument, why should I be interested?

I was only offering my personal opinion. It is not an argument because I am not trying to win anything, as that is ego.

 

[joe1776]

So you think that people can't treat each other better without suffering? That makes no sense.

You were going to give me an example of how we humans might be motivated to make moral progress without involving suffering. What did you come up with?

 

[Trailblazer]

You were going to give me an example of how we humans might be motivated to make moral progress without involving suffering. What did you come up with?

In order to prove that suffering is not necessary to make moral progress all we would have to do is find a subset of people who say they have not suffered. If those people made moral progress, then we would know it is possible to make moral progress without suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you think that people can't treat each other better without suffering? That makes no sense.

No, it makes no sense and the converse is generally true. The people who are happy and not suffering are the people who treat others better. It is those who are suffering who go on shooting rampages.
I rest my case.

 

[joe1776]

In the OP Adrian said: 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?

Fine, but I don't need a basis. There is no reason why I should just accept all the undue suffering in the world and not question why it HAS to exist.

If you want to question it, fine. But if the reasoned argument you posted on the topic was not meant to disprove my hypothesis, why did you post it in a reply to me?

Now tell me why all these things are necessary in order for humanity to make moral progress. Is it necessary for millions of people to suffer and die of horrible diseases like cancer and Covid-19 in order for humanity to make moral progress?

If, as you say, this has nothing to do with my argument, why ask me?

You are the pot calling the kettle black because you are just as biased as anyone else.
What you all an argument is just a personal opinion, facts not in evidence. You can never prove you are right so that means you could be wrong. Do you understand what I mean?

I offered a reasoned argument in support of my position. And, according to you, your reasoned argument was not intended to counter mine. So, I'm perfectly happy with my position which you haven't contested.

I was only offering my personal opinion. It is not an argument because I am not trying to win anything, as that is ego.

You offered your personal opinion supported by a reasoned argument that you say wasn't trying to disprove my reasoned argument. So, if you aren't disputing my argument, that's fine with me

 

[joe1776]

In order to prove that suffering is not necessary to make moral progress all we would have to do is find a subset of people who say they have not suffered. If those people made moral progress, then we would know it is possible to make moral progress without suffering.

I asked The Penguin for an example. An example would demonstrate a logical, realistic cause, other than suffering, that would motivate moral progress. Can you offer such an example?

 

[Koldo]

I asked The Penguin for an example. An example would demonstrate a logical, realistic cause, other than suffering, that would motivate moral progress. Can you offer such an example?

The feeling when you make someone else happy.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you want to question it, fine. But if the reasoned argument you posted on the topic was not meant to disprove my hypothesis, why did you post it in a reply to me?

I already answered that. I was only offering my personal opinion. It is not an argument because I am not trying to win anything, as that is ego.

Now tell me why all these things are necessary in order for humanity to make moral progress. Is it necessary for millions of people to suffer and die of horrible diseases like cancer and Covid-19 in order for humanity to make moral progress?

If, as you say, this has nothing to do with my argument, why ask me?

It is your argument. Why are you obfuscating?

I offered a reasoned argument in support of my position. And, according to you, your reasoned argument was not intended to counter mine. So, I'm perfectly happy with my position which you haven't contested.

I am also perfectly happy with my reasoned argument.

You offered your personal opinion supported by a reasoned argument that you say wasn't trying to disprove my reasoned argument. So, if you aren't disputing my argument, that's fine with me.

I disagree with your argument for reasons I already gave. I could disprove it by giving examples that don’t support it.

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

All I would have to do is find people who have not suffered but have nevertheless changed to disprove your premise. Many people change without suffering and in fact many people who are suffering find it difficult to change. The people who are making all the positive changes in the world are happy people, not depressed people. In fact, they are most likely people who have never even been depressed. The following quote explains why that is the case.

“In this world we are influenced by two sentiments, Joy and Pain.

Joy gives us wings! In times of joy our strength is more vital, our intellect keener, and our understanding less clouded. We seem better able to cope with the world and to find our sphere of usefulness. But when sadness visits us we become weak, our strength leaves us, our comprehension is dim and our intelligence veiled. The actualities of life seem to elude our grasp, the eyes of our spirits fail to discover the sacred mysteries, and we become even as dead beings.” Paris Talks, pp. 109-110

 

[Trailblazer]

I asked The Penguin for an example. An example would demonstrate a logical, realistic cause, other than suffering, that would motivate moral progress. Can you offer such an example?

Religion is the best example. Religious people make moral progress because they follow the teachings and laws of the Messengers of God. These people are not suffering, they are smiling ear to ear. Just go to any Baha'i meeting and you'll see. They are disgustingly happy.

 

[joe1776]

The feeling when you make someone else happy.

Sure, I mentioned that earlier, but that alone isn't going to motivate people who aren't already very good people. For example, people weren't motivated to abolish legal slavery to feel good about making the slaves happy. They were motivated by empathy. They imagined themselves as slaves and felt the suffering one might endure as the property of others.

 

[joe1776]

Religion is the best example. Religious people make moral progress because they follow the teachings and laws of the Messengers of God. These people are not suffering, they are smiling ear to ear. Just go to any Baha'i meeting and you'll see. They are disgustingly happy.

The religions talk a good game, but the evidence tells a different story. Humanity has made moral progress over the past few centuries by abolishing slavery and giving equal rights to women and homosexuals. Religious leaders have been dragged along, kicking and screaming, because their sacred texts don't support these advances.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, I mentioned that earlier, but that alone isn't going to motivate people who aren't already very good people.

So are you saying that bad people become good people from suffering?
Are you saying that is the only way bad people can become good people?

 

[Koldo]

Sure, I mentioned that earlier, but that alone isn't going to motivate people who aren't already very good people. For example, people weren't motivated to abolish legal slavery to feel good about making the slaves happy. They were motivated by empathy. They imagined themselves as slaves and felt the suffering one might endure as the property of others.

You don't need to be a very good person to feel motivated to make others happy. You only need to be able to feel good about making others happy.

When we see someone suffering it is normal to feel empathy but that by itself doesn't mean that empathy is necessary for moral progress. There is a distinction to be made between sufficient and necessary here.