Is God a real *********?

[lunakilo]

I was at work code reviewing other peoples code when I stumbled onto the youtube video shown below

Here are some of the points in the video:

She points out that there is so much suffering in the in the world and then argues:
"If god is all powerfull and all loving and god gives a ****** about us and has the ability to do something about that then this world doesn't make sense"

Also since God dosn't want to get rid of pain then:
"Either he is an ********* or he is not real"

Thoughts?

[youtube]0pPoRnjFC6E[/youtube]
Would you still be an atheist if... - YouTube

 

[Madhuri]

That's why I believe in panentheistic Hinduism. It's the only way that God can exist and make sense based on this argument.

 

[Willamena]

She points out that there is so much suffering in the in the world and then argues:
"If god is all powerfull and all loving and god gives a ****** about us and has the ability to do something about that then this world doesn't make sense"

Also since God dosn't want to get rid of pain then:
"Either he is an ********* or he is not real"

Thoughts?

We don't have enough threads about the problem of suffering, we have to suffer one more?

It's an aesthetic problem, not a logical one.

 

[Karl R]

"If god is all powerfull and all loving and god gives a ****** about us and has the ability to do something about that then this world doesn't make sense"

Which would you say is the more loving parent:

Parent #1 makes his child eat healthy foods which the child dislikes and forces his child to complete his homework and studying before doing any recreation.

Parent #2 feeds his child a steady diet of the fast food, junk food and candy which the child prefers, and allows the child to spend every afternoon and evening playing video games.

Is the loving parent supposed to do the things that makes the child immediately happy, or is the loving parent supposed to do the things that will allow the child to grow and mature?

Pain and suffering are unpleasant, but they also offer unmatched opportunities for growth, not only for the person experiencing the suffering, but also for those around.

 

[Breathe]

Various alternatives:

Suffering is not real and it is only egotistic grasping of senses that causes one to believe otherwise
God doesn't care
God is not omnibenevolent
God does not intervene
God is not omnipotent
The Demiurge
Problem of suffering is usually human centric
Karma
God's left it up to us
Spiritual Growth

 

[PolyHedral]

Is the loving parent supposed to do the things that makes the child immediately happy, or is the loving parent supposed to do the things that will allow the child to grow and mature?

What does "growth" mean in this context?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

She points out that there is so much suffering in the in the world and then argues:
"If god is all powerfull and all loving and god gives a ****** about us and has the ability to do something about that then this world doesn't make sense"

Also since God dosn't want to get rid of pain then:
"Either he is an ********* or he is not real"

Thoughts?

What is wrong with suffering?

 

[Oneatatime]

The problem of suffering is a simple consequence of beneficient theistic God being a rubbish concept. It's not suprising that we then see equally rubbish rationalisations such as this one from Karl R.

Which would you say is the more loving parent:

Parent #1 makes his child eat healthy foods which the child dislikes and forces his child to complete his homework and studying before doing any recreation.

Parent #2 feeds his child a steady diet of the fast food, junk food and candy which the child prefers, and allows the child to spend every afternoon and evening playing video games.

Is the loving parent supposed to do the things that makes the child immediately happy, or is the loving parent supposed to do the things that will allow the child to grow and mature?

Pain and suffering are unpleasant, but they also offer unmatched opportunities for growth, not only for the person experiencing the suffering, but also for those around.

Comparing all the terrible things which happen to people in the world to a parent who makes their child eat healthy is a pretty weak comparison in my opinion. If Karl R said that a mother gave her child a debilitating horrible disease in order for that to grow both intellectually and emotionally that would be closer to the mark and I don't think that particular comparison has the same ring to it as the first one. This also reminds of the comment someone made a few years back that the holocaust gave the Jews the oppurtunity to grow which as you can imagine didn't go down particularly well with many people.

The beneficient theistic God is a rubbish concept and the problem of evil is a good example of why this is the case.

 

[Noaidi]

What is wrong with suffering?

It is disproportionate in its distribution and severity across the world.

 

[Willamena]

The problem of suffering is a simple consequence of beneficient theistic God being a rubbish concept. It's not suprising that we then see equally rubbish rationalisations such as this one from Karl R.

Karl's argument is sound, as is Poly's question to it. I await responses with curiosity.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It is disproportionate in its distribution and severity across the world.

This still doesn't address what is inherently wrong with suffering in and of itself.

 

[Noaidi]

This still doesn't address what is inherently wrong with suffering in and of itself.

If you take a detached, dispassionate view of suffering, then there is no right or wrong. However, can we take such a stance? Can we stand in the refugee camps of East Africa and think "there is nothing wrong here"?

I don't know. I think most people couldn't.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If you take a detached, dispassionate view of suffering, then there is no right or wrong. However, can we take such a stance? Can we stand in the refugee camps of East Africa and think "there is nothing wrong here"?

I don't know. I think most people couldn't.

All I'm asking is for someone to state what is wrong with suffering. It's wrongness is the basis of the discussion.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stuart who said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

 

[gnomon]

Which would you say is the more loving parent:

Parent #1 makes his child eat healthy foods which the child dislikes and forces his child to complete his homework and studying before doing any recreation.

Parent #2 feeds his child a steady diet of the fast food, junk food and candy which the child prefers, and allows the child to spend every afternoon and evening playing video games.

Is the loving parent supposed to do the things that makes the child immediately happy, or is the loving parent supposed to do the things that will allow the child to grow and mature?

Pain and suffering are unpleasant, but they also offer unmatched opportunities for growth, not only for the person experiencing the suffering, but also for those around.

This analogy might make sense if parents created the physical laws that describe the universe and possessed absolute control over the cosmos.

Breaking down the analogy and looking at the reality there are many parents in certain parts of the world seeing their families split apart, incapable of finding basic necessities to see that their children can survive, watch as gangs of armed men come by and take their young teen children in to be soldiers, kill off their fathers and rape their mothers before shooting them in the head.

A God could simply will such a thing not to happen. Actual human parents lack such omniscient and all powerful capabilities.

Bad analogy.

 

[Noaidi]

All I'm asking is for someone to state what is wrong with suffering. It's wrongness is the basis of the discussion.

I'm reminded of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stuart who said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

Perhaps the suffering itself isn't wrong (biologically, suffering is an emotional or physical state), but what could be considered wrong is the fact that it can be alleviated but it isn't.

The preventable continuation of suffering would be considered by most as being wrong. This is what I took the OP to be addressing.

This probably doesn't answer your question!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Perhaps the suffering itself isn't wrong (biologically, suffering is an emotional or physical state), but what could be considered wrong is the fact that it can be alleviated but it isn't.

If suffering isn't wrong then why does it need to be eliminated?

 

[Noaidi]

If suffering isn't wrong then why does it need to be eliminated?

Have you ever suffered, Sandy? If so, how did it make you feel? Would you rather it continued or would you prefer it to have stopped? Biologically, we have an aversion to suffering. If it can be eliminated, then it makes our lives more pleasant.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Have you ever suffered, Sandy? If so, how did it make you feel? Would you rather it continued or would you prefer it to have stopped? Biologically, we have an aversion to suffering. If it can be eliminated, then it makes our lives more pleasant.

I'm going to assume you can't answer the question and wait for someone else to.

 

[Oneatatime]

Karl's argument is sound, as is Poly's question to it. I await responses with curiosity.

Karls arguement is not sound by any stretch of the imagination for the reason I've already stated.

Not only that but there are far better explanations for why suffering exists which are rooted in our understanding of the natural world based on science. A God which sits back and lets people suffer in order for them to 'grow' is indistinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

That's why I believe in panentheistic Hinduism. It's the only way that God can exist and make sense based on this argument.

Is the fact that a belief system makes sense to our limited brains the standard we should use to judge whether our faith is in the right place? Or let me put it another way. If a revelation from God blows our mind and we can't even completely fathom it, should we discard it simply because we can't wrap our mind around it the way we want to?