Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Koldo]

God has no moral responsibilities and that is why you never see God in a court of law

This means you are mixing up moral responsability with legal accountability. Being judged by a court of law doesn't require being morally responsible. Likewise, being morally responsible doesn't mean you will be judged by a court of law.

And so?

You were saying that God allows suffering but doesn't enable it. To enable is to allow.

Comparing human spirituality to painting a wall is the fallacy of false equivalence.
God has no desire to MAKE humans achieve anything. Whatever humans achieve has to be achieved by the humans, not by God.
Did you never hear that God is patient? That means that God is not in a hurry. We have our whole lives to achieve spirituality.

This got me pondering how to reply to this part, because there are multiple points to address, but I am going straight to where it matters the most: If God has no desire to make humans achieve anything, then God has no desire for humans to achieve perfection. Meaning that this entails there is no purpose for suffering since it doesn't achieve anything that God wants.

That can only be proven if you interview people and ask them about their pain and gain. You might also be able to find studies on the internet.

You didn't quite understand what I said. I am not saying there is never any gain to be had from pain. I am asking you to show there is a logical necessity between pain and gain, in the form that gain necessitates pain, as you were saying.

Suffering maximizes well-being if it causes is to turn to God. It is good for anyone to turn to God.

What does 'good' mean here?

Your answers imply you are not talking about an omnipotent God because an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do.
That means that whatever God has chosen to do is what an omnipotent God would do.
That means that any of your ideas about what God could have done 'differently' would never be done by an omnipotent God because God has chosen not to do them.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 209​

Logic tells us that if God does what He chooses that means that God would not do what God does not choose to do.
Since God chose to create a world that has suffering, that means that God would not create a world that has no suffering.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that since God did not choose to disallow suffering God did not want to disallow suffering.
I am not saying that God could not have chosen to disallow suffering, but that could only have happened if God had wanted to do that.

If God could have chosen to disallow suffering but didn't want to then God is not omnibenevolent.

It doesn't matter if God 'could have' chosen to replace suffering with something else that also aids human development since God did not choose to do that.

It does matter because choosing suffering when something else could be chosen entails that God is not omnibenevolent.

No, it does not mean that.

Explain how so then.

 

[Trailblazer]

This means you are mixing up moral responsability with legal accountability. Being judged by a court of law doesn't require being morally responsible. Likewise, being morally responsible doesn't mean you will be judged by a court of law.

Moral responsibility and legal accountability go hand in hand because one does not have legal accountability unless one is morally responsible.
If a man is declared innocent by reason of insanity then that man is not legally accountable since he cannot distinguish between right and wrong.

You were saying that God allows suffering but doesn't enable it. To enable is to allow.

To enable is to allow, but so what.

This got me pondering how to reply to this part, because there are multiple points to address, but I am going straight to where it matters the most: If God has no desire to make humans achieve anything, then God has no desire for humans to achieve perfection. Meaning that this entails there is no purpose for suffering since it doesn't achieve anything that God wants.

I guess you missed my point. It is God's desire for humans that they achieve perfection but God does not want to make them achieve it.
The existence of suffering in the world achieves what God wants for humans since it helps them achieve perfection.

You didn't quite understand what I said. I am not saying there is never any gain to be had from pain. I am asking you to show there is a logical necessity between pain and gain, in the form that gain necessitates pain, as you were saying.

If there is ever any gain to be achieved by pain that means gain sometimes necessitates pain.
Gain does not always necessitate pain, but since it sometimes does that means the potential to gain from pain exists.

What does 'good' mean here?

Beneficial for our life in this world and our life in the next world.

If God could have chosen to disallow suffering but didn't want to then God is not omnibenevolent.

No

It does matter because choosing suffering when something else could be chosen entails that God is not omnibenevolent.

No

Explain how so then.

Since this is your claim, you explain why the first method is more benevolent than the second method and how choosing the second method means the being in question is not omnibenevolent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what? Choosing to allow good and evil comes with allowing free will.

Except it doesn't.

 

[Koldo]

Moral responsibility and legal accountability go hand in hand because one does not have legal accountability unless one is morally responsible.

That is incorrect. The law per se doesn't require moral responsibility to establish legal accountability. A very simple example: A company might be held legally accountable and yet have no moral responsibility. The law may or may not incorporate aspects of moral responsibility but it is not required to.

To enable is to allow, but so what.

You said it is not: "God allows suffering but God does not enable suffering".

I guess you missed my point. It is God's desire for humans that they achieve perfection but God does not want to make them achieve it.
The existence of suffering in the world achieves what God wants for humans since it helps them achieve perfection.

Ah, yes, I did miss that point.
Then my reply is: If God has the desire/will for humans to attain perfection, how wouldn't the best method to attain perfection be the one that is the fastest and most cost effective?

If there is ever any gain to be achieved by pain that means gain sometimes necessitates pain.

That doesn't follow. If that same gain can be achieved by some other way, other than pain, then it follows that such gain doesn't necessitate pain. Do you mean to say there are certain gains that necessarily require pain? If so, show this relation is logically necessary, rather merely logically contingent. (I mean 'contingent' as in modal logic, I can elaborate if you need)

Beneficial for our life in this world and our life in the next world.

Ok. But how do you figure what is beneficial? Let me provide you my answer so you understand what I am talking about: Beneficial is that which increases well-being, meaning leading to a happier life overall. Now, it is your turn: How do you figure if something is beneficial?

No

No

Since this is your claim, you explain why the first method is more benevolent than the second method and how choosing the second method means the being in question is not omnibenevolent.

Sure. A method to cure diseases is more benevolent than some other if it inflicts less harm than the other. Method 1 involves inflicting no harm, Method 2 involves inflicting harm. Therefore, Method 1 is more benevolent. An omnibenevolent being would always choose the most benevolent method if possible and therefore never choose method 2. What part do you disagree with if any?

 

[an anarchist]

God is not accountable to anyone for the consequences of His actions because God has no moral responsibilities.

Curious... Do you think that a parent has a responsibility towards their children?

 

[Bird123]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

You have a very very very narrow view. Mankind's goal is to have it made. That is all you see. If you can not have it made there just must be something wrong with God. Right?

Could more exist outside this little box? Could there be good reasons to allow suffering? How does suffering change things? Could the path through suffering be the path to paradise? Maybe by the time you are able to create a heavenly state for yourself and others it will be easy because you would have learned what not to do.

All the secrets of God and the universe stare us all in the face. God is High Intelligence. You are going to have to look beyond the mere surface of things. When you come to really understand what God is doing with this universe, this world, and people, you will look at these things and see what things truly are, This world is not a mess. It's a Masterpiece!!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[an anarchist]

I thought we were finished with what God could have done differently, and since God did not do it in some other way God is not omnipotent?
That is completely illogical.

You really don't understand, do you? It is BECAUSE God is omnipotent that God did not choose another way.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not some other way that He did not choose.

Well, I'm sure that you don't realize that you are coming up with a conclusion based on the preconceived notion that God is omnipotent before the question is considered.

It is not illogical. Imo, what you said was. You are just assuming god is omnipotent therefore suffering has to exist. Do I need to explain in further detail the logical error?

 

[Trailblazer]

Except it doesn't.

Why not?

 

[Trailblazer]

Curious... Do you think that a parent has a responsibility towards their children?

Yes, of course.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I'm sure that you don't realize that you are coming up with a conclusion based on the preconceived notion that God is omnipotent before the question is considered.

It is not illogical. Imo, what you said was. You are just assuming god is omnipotent therefore suffering has to exist. Do I need to explain in further detail the logical error?

That God is omnipotent is not a preconceived notion, it is a belief based upon scripture.

Suffering has to exist since in some cases there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

 

[an anarchist]

Yes, of course.

Then is it a far leap to say that your God has a responsibility to us, His creation? Is it even a leap at all?

 

[an anarchist]

That God is omnipotent is not a preconceived notion, it is a belief based upon scripture.

So, you are bringing your belief in the Baha'i scriptures into the argument? You are still relying on a preconceived notion when you start to consider the PoE. That preconceived notion is that your scripture is from God. You think that, and then you consider the PoE. Do I have that right?

Suffering has to exist since in some cases there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

So, this belief comes from scripture, right? (Rather than logical deduction)

 

[Trailblazer]

Then is it a far leap to say that your God has a responsibility to us, His creation? Is it even a leap at all?

I do not believe that God has a responsibility to us since God is not accountable to us.
A painter creates a painting. Is the painter responsible to the painting?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not?

I doubt you're going to pay any more attention this time than the half dozen other times I've explained this to you, but for the benefit of any new lurkers in this thread:

Free will is about choosing between our desires; it isn't about choosing what those desires are.

If God were to exist, design humanity, and grant people free will, this would only result in humans committing evil acts if God had created humans with evil desires that they could choose to act on.

Personally, I have no desire to murder anyone. You agree that I have free will, right?

 

[an anarchist]

I do not believe that God has a responsibility to us since God is not accountable to us.
A painter creates a painting. Is the painter responsible to the painting?

A parent creates a kid. Is the parent responsible to the kid?

I am not a mere painting.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, you are bringing your belief in the Baha'i scriptures into the argument? You are still relying on a preconceived notion when you start to consider the PoE. That preconceived notion is that your scripture is from God. You think that, and then you consider the PoE. Do I have that right?

I do not have a preconceived notion is that the scripture is from God. I believe it is based upon my own independent investigation of Baha'u'llah.
My argument is based upon Baha'i scripture which I believe came from God.

So, this belief comes from scripture, right? (Rather than logical deduction)

It does not come from my scripture, it comes from logical deduction.
Suffering exists since in some cases there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

 

[Trailblazer]

A parent creates a kid. Is the parent responsible to the kid?

I am not a mere painting.

Your parents created you so they are responsible for you till you come of age.

 

[an anarchist]

I do not have a preconceived notion is that the scripture is from God. I believe it is based upon my own independent investigation of Baha'u'llah.

Your missing the point

My argument is based upon Baha'i scripture which I believe came from God.

This is the point. You have answered my question on whether you are using your beleifs in the Baha'i scripture when you consider the PoE.

 

[an anarchist]

Your parents created you so they are responsible for you till you come of age.

And supposedly your God created all of us. Sheesh He fails many before they "come of age".

 

[Trailblazer]

Free will is about choosing between our desires; it isn't about choosing what those desires are.

Correct.

If God were to exist, design humanity, and grant people free will, this would only result in humans committing evil acts if God had created humans with evil desires that they could choose to act on.

God did not create humanity with any desires. We accumulate desires as we go through life.
We were all created in God's image so we are all have the potential to be good but since humans have free will some people choose evil over good.

Personally, I have no desire to murder anyone. You agree that I have free will, right?

I agree.