If God exists why does He allow suffering?

[Koldo]

I'm not interested in the least in the "problem of evil" as formulated by religions or those who oppose religions. I have an understanding of the problem formed by a study of human nature with a special emphasis on morality.

It is an old philosophical argument.
You can't claim that a certain interpretation of the problem is the only correct one while not knowing its' history.

 

[joe1776]

Nobody tells me what my intent is. Only I know my intent. I might be pointing out the holes I see in your argument but I am not trying to disprove anything because personal opinions can be neither proven nor disproven.

You told me that your intent was not to disprove my hypothesis. I didn't make that up. But then you ask me questions which are obviously intended to disprove my hypothesis.

Okay, how do you think that suffering with depression or anxiety leads to moral progress? Be specific.

Empathetic others try to help. They feel good about their attempts even if the fail. The habit of helping others allows moral progress.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not going to take the time to give you the long answer. Here's the short one:

Our moral judgments are based on conscience. Conscience seems to be concerned with harm. Harm always involves suffering. Empathy allows us to experience some of the suffering. Thus when legal slavery was abolished, it was because empathy allowed people to feel some of the suffering that slaves might feel in being owned as property.

But why does it have to be necessary?
If, for example, you merely wanted others to be happier that would suffice to abolish slavery too.

 

[Koldo]

Unless they come from textbooks on critical thinking, arguments rarely involve only deductive reasoning.

That's fair. However you have said as if deductive reasoning didn't exist.

Back to the point though, how have you come to the 'likely' in your conclusion? How did you measure the likelihood?

 

[joe1776]

It is an old philosophical argument.
You can't claim that a certain interpretation of the problem is the only correct one while not knowing its' history.

If the cause-and-effect explanation for dealing with evil makes sense, I 'm not at all concerned with an old philosophic argument. In fact, the overwhelming majority of ethical philosophers have reasoned that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. And science is now proving them wrong.

 

[Koldo]

If the cause-and-effect explanation for dealing with evil makes sense, I 'm not at all concerned with an old philosophic argument. In fact, the overwhelming majority of ethical philosophers have reasoned that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. And science is now proving them wrong.

The issue is bigger than that though.
I don't mind if you bring up a solution of your own to the problem of evil. That's alright.
The issue is that you don't seem to understand that all forms of evil and suffering are included on this topic. You can't limit the scope of the problem and claim to have solved it.

 

[joe1776]

But why does it have to be necessary?
If, for example, you merely wanted others to be happier that would suffice to abolish slavery too.

That's not ridiculous, but it's a very weak possibility. Empathy, as a motivator, is a much stronger, far more credible hypothesis. As scientists, this is what we'd test for..

 

[joe1776]

The issue is bigger than that though.
I don't mind if you bring up a solution of your own to the problem of evil. That's alright.
The issue is that you don't seem to understand that all forms of evil and suffering are included on this topic. You can't limit the scope of the problem and claim to have solved it.

Our problem in this thread is to provide a plausible answer for the question posed in the title to the OP. I've done that. If it doesn't satisfy you, it's not unusual to encounter hard-to-please opposition on RF..

 

[Trailblazer]

This was your claim on behalf of the Baha'i Faith:

Maybe you didn't mean it but it reads to me like you're claiming humanity's progress was due to your faith.

I never said that. I only ever said the humanity started to progress around the mid-19th century when the Bab and Baha'u'llah appeared. Was it a mere coincidence?

Your "appeal to the people" fallacy doesn't apply.

It absolutely does apply.

The converse of ad populum is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be true, and that is fallacious.

99.9 % of people in the world do not believe in the Baha'i Faith. Can they all be wrong?

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Koldo]

That's not ridiculous, but it's a very weak possibility. Empathy, as a motivator, is a much stronger, far more credible hypothesis. As scientists, this is what we'd test for..

Wait. If it is possibility then you can't claim empathy is necessary.

 

[joe1776]

Back to the point though, how have you come to the 'likely' in your conclusion? How did you measure the likelihood?

I do it as a scientist does, potential causes which explain more of the effects, with fewer assumptions, are more credible,

 

[Koldo]

Our problem in this thread is to provide a plausible answer for the question posed in the title to the OP. I've done that. If it doesn't satisfy you, it's not unusual to encounter hard-to-please opposition on RF..

Wait. Haven't you said yourself your answer only addresses suffering in general? If so, you haven't properly addressed the question in the OP.

 

[rational experiences]

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....

Science thinking for a pre owned want first was not natural.

Want is not natural. It is motivated to force.

Man's truth. Brothers.

Says energy has always existed. As a thinker thinking theories for just human science. Is conscious due to sun radiation levels that as pre formed cold energy had blasted earth and set earths gases alight.

What you knew by heavenly light.

Big bang theory itself. Not what you claimed you were thinking about. As conscious awareness exists first naturally. Thinking owned want.

Earth however was owned by spatial law evolution cooling immaculate. No atmospheric burning.

Exactly how it was taught.

So who is God?

Father.

Reasoning humans know once reaction and a space hole never existed.

Science even theories that belief itself.

Who formed God. Who says they will find God and invent God as a copy,?

Science.

We are consciousness.
We use memories.
We say who in spirit caused change to inherit change as once change never existed

As we are a spirit in the eternal and they left that body.

Answer you have to include who you first were with self to be conscious.

So a being in spirit eternal owned forced change. Motivated.

Spiritual explanation said to me language was separate to the eternal being. It was a lesser presence that via communication passed into and out of each eternal spirit.

Which is explained as curios.

A spirit using language held language instead of it free flowing and O God masses formed. How a balanced spiritual body owned forced change.

A new language

How God was released from eternal. By changed language.

Believe it or not.

But then God O owned burning. O God blasted released its mass in space once held O and you scientist use O God a theory to copy removal O mass into scattering yourselves as reaction. Then you use your own proof. What you already knew.

Memory always exists first advice.

You were the eternal spirit self that understood change and forced it. Do it was man's karma who stated I am the creator. Yet he invented change. Your own spirit history and recorded.

You inherited life's karma stating I created God. As a man human. So you intended to time shift it back. You did not want to own life. You said it was unfair.

So you say God is our father as a human is higher than God logically. And father is higher spiritually than yourself. otherwise you would not believe self safe when persuing change to God. Earth. That you conscious self spiritually named.

All life proven destroyed in science via a coal mass human artefact found. Machine parts inside instant frozen stone mass.

Burning we quantified as satanism.

You got electricity out of coal once nature.

A truth of using memory to form a fake theory.

Theme I want to go back into spirit form by a time shifting mechanism a human want.

From God O evil language now manifests evil spirits. Proving eternal was a known loss to have God presence. Was once truly a spirit language when creation never existed.

We came out eternal body each time the atmospheric pre formed natural mass changed. As it filled in empty space where pre existing eternal once existed. As a heavens.

Heavens became lowest form of eternal the burnt part. Why we say we were forced out of a higher spirit body into manifestation. That body was never burnt is not alight.

Even the immaculate was burnt historic. Spirit is real history.

How after ice age new spirit animals and humans parent were released again. When history owns evidence all nature and life previously first origin living were destroyed.

God O cold mass.
Dusts on God earth already separated from God mass so is not considered to be God.

God earth sealed.

Why your psyche said if I convert separated dusts the reaction won't change earth mass.

Yet earth owned large pre formed sun nuclear orbital bodies not of earth that owned separation of mass. Destruction of previous mass.

UFO presence is science virtually assessing destroyed pre existing mass to the dusts presence.

So they exist to finish off God mass as invention saying dusts as beginnings did not include what form owned presence of cause of a dust in spatial conversion.

When you say I will copy natural history it includes why earth owned dusts.

The sun did it.

 

[joe1776]

Wait. If it is possibility then you can't claim empathy is necessary.

Sure I can. Moral progress must have a dominant cause. If empathy is the most likely cause, then it is necessary.

 

[Koldo]

I do it as a scientist does, potential causes which explain more of the effects, with fewer assumptions, are more credible,

None of that is included in your argument. You haven't shown how you have evaluated the likelihood.

 

[joe1776]

Wait. Haven't you said yourself your answer only addresses suffering in general? If so, you haven't properly addressed the question in the OP.

Why not?

 

[Koldo]

Sure I can. Moral progress must have a dominant cause. If empathy is the most likely cause, then it is necessary.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. If you disagree, show me you are using a valid argument form.

 

[Koldo]

Why not?

Because the question in the OP is related to all sufferings as I have explained before. If you had read about the problem of evil, you would know.

 

[Trailblazer]

You told me that your intent was not to disprove my hypothesis. I didn't make that up. But then you ask me questions which are obviously intended to disprove my hypothesis.

You can never know my intentions unless I tell you what they are.

Empathetic others try to help. They feel good about their attempts even if the fail. The habit of helping others allows moral progress.

So it is just a-okay for people to suffer with anxiety and depression just so other people can make some moral progress. Gotcha.
That is very indirect and not a very good way to make moral progress because it only helps a small subset of society.

 

[joe1776]

None of that is included in your argument. You haven't shown how you have evaluated the likelihood.

Add it in if you like. It isn't necessary to the basic understanding of the argument.