Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Koldo]

God did not go straight to the suffering-free world because He chose not to.
Instead God set it up such that suffering would be necessary in order to get to the suffering-free existence in heaven.

Why would a benevolent God do that?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you really do believe in a monstrous, evil god.

No, I don't because suffering 'can be' beneficial, and any suffering we experience in this world is only temporary.
Spoken by someone who has suffered practically her whole life and is still suffering.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is important to note that there is a multitude of ways the material world could exist.

But that is irrelevant since it does not exist that way.
We have to deal with what is, not what could be.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would a benevolent God do that?

Because He chose to.
Now it is up to us to figure out why.

 

[ratiocinator]

Now it is up to us to figure out why.

Or conclude that it's unlikely that such a god exists at all....

 

[dybmh]

But on this case, wouldn't the individual also accept the risk of malpractice (consent to the possibility of suffering caused by someone)? If he is accepting that, how can he sue?

It all depends on the situation. But basically if there are damages that could have and should have been prevented.

Informed Consent & Medical Malpractice Law | Medical Malpractice Help

Understand what informed consent is in the context of medical malpractice law. To receive a free medical malpractice case evaluation, call the Newsome | Melton law firm at 888-261-5614.

medicalmalpracticehelp.com

If he is not accepting that, on what grounds would suffering caused by others be justified?

Material existence includes randomness. At the very least, a person who consents to depart from an only-God existence, accepts that random BS could happen. Then if this random BS inspires people, helps them focus on things that are more important, helps them enjoy the moment, that justifies the random BS.

BUT! This does not justify someone else choosing to inflict harm. That is not random.

 

[Koldo]

Because He chose to.
Now it is up to us to figure out why.

If he chose that, he is not omnibenevolent.

 

[Koldo]

It all depends on the situation. But basically if there are damages that could have and should have been prevented.

View attachment 76725

Informed Consent & Medical Malpractice Law | Medical Malpractice Help

Understand what informed consent is in the context of medical malpractice law. To receive a free medical malpractice case evaluation, call the Newsome | Melton law firm at 888-261-5614.

medicalmalpracticehelp.com

But a regular patient doesn't consent to the risk of malpractice.

Material existence includes randomness. At the very least, a person who consents to depart from an only-God existence, accepts that random BS could happen. Then if this random BS inspires people, helps them focus on things that are more important, helps them enjoy the moment, that justifies the random BS.

BUT! This does not justify someone else choosing to inflict harm. That is not random.

Then harm caused by other people is not justified and should be prevented by God.

 

[sayak83]

Weren't you saying that there IS a way to have both freewill and be without suffering? I'm saying that is debatable.



I think once we start to explore what this immaterial reality would be like, I'm not sure people would want that either. At least not in perpetuity. Maybe some people would, they want to give up their personality be oblivious. I can't speak for everyone. But most, I think most agree that oblivion would not be, well, them.

So the choice is: do I want to exist? or would I rather that I was never born? The later is considered a mental illness.

It should be clear that if our ultimate state has no freewill then why would God be excused of allowing suffering in our current state for the sake of freewill now. If robots is what we would be ultimately then what is all this nonsense talk about how valuable freewill is??
Your next set of sentences is not clear to me. What sort of afterlife are you suggesting

 

[sayak83]

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.

By the way.. succint answer in our traditions
Buddhism:- There are not Triomni God
Hinduism:- God, as a distinct person, is not Tri-omni. God and the universe and us are all extensions of one Absolute, but at that level, the concepts used make no sense as there is literally nothing else apart from it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have brought up two cases where God won't prevent suffering:

1) Because without suffering, humans may/will forget God.
2) Because without suffering it is impossible to attain perfection.

Let me now evaluate them.

1) Would a benevolent person cause suffering upon someone else because he was/may be forgotten? No. Then causing suffering is not an act of benevolence on this case. And therefore God is not omnibenevolent.
2) Is God unable to create beings that attain perfection without suffering? Then God is not omnipotent.

1) What a benevolent person would do is irrelevant since God is not a person.
You are talking about God as if God was a human being. That is the fallacy of false equivalence since God is not a human being.
God does not need to remembered for His sake since God has absolutely no needs. It is only for our own benefit that we remember God.

2) God could have created beings that attain perfection without suffering thus God is omnipotent.
An omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do, not what humans think He should do.
The omnipotent God decided that suffering is necessary to attain perfection so that is how it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or conclude that it's unlikely that such a god exists at all....

It's your choice.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he chose that, he is not omnibenevolent.

That is nothing more than a personal opinion, we all have those.

 

[Kenny]

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 would, off the top, find that the principle offered is flawed.

If I would to accept you premise, then God would have to stop people from having wars. Then He would have to go further and stop people from abusing political power. After that He would have to stop people from getting drunk and letting them drive. Once these were off the table He would have to stop anger between people. And, to completely stop suffering, He would have to prevent a child from falling from a tree and breaking a bone, a football player from hitting the opposing team, a bicycle from tumbling and breaking a nose and so on and so on to prevent all suffering.

We would be robotic in nature with no free will.

So, really, what you are presenting is a simple victim mentality trying to blame God for what man is doing. IMV

 

[Trailblazer]

If I would to accept you premise, then God would have to stop people from having wars. Then He would have to go further and stop people from abusing political power. After that He would have to stop people from getting drunk and letting them drive. Once these were off the table He would have to stop anger between people. And, to completely stop suffering, He would have to prevent a child from falling from a tree and breaking a bone, a football player from hitting the opposing team, a bicycle from tumbling and breaking a nose and so on and so on to prevent all suffering.

These atheists would say God could stop them from doing all this because God us omnipotent, and God should stop them from doing all this if God is omnibenevolent. These atheists love to ignore that God is omniscient, which means that God knows more than they do about how to create a world.

We would be robotic in nature with no free will.

That's true, but they either blame God for the free will too or say we have no free will.

So, really, what you are presenting is a simple victim mentality trying to blame God for what man is doing. IMV

That's about it. Make God the fall guy since God is not here to defend Himself.

 

[dybmh]

1) Random, chaos and change doesn't entail suffering necessarily.

If the random chaos is the source for illness, and genetic deformaties, it does entail suffering. Now, one could say that God magically waves its magic wand and people start enjoying a flesh eating virus. But that would be a very strange world. I'm not sure people would want to live in that sort of world. A world where people enjoy being hurt? I light you on fire, and that's fun for you?

) Let's assume that God is absence of suffering too, along with order, structure, and constant. The degree of suffering we experience would still required an explanation, for it could be more or less.

Putting a limit on the suffering is order and structure. That is not OTHER any longer.

 

[dybmh]

Don't you believe we are all immortals?

I am arguing that, at least, there is the potential.

I don't, however I have watched/taken care of children before and nope, we just don't keep our eyes glued to the children all time, which is exactly why walkers posit a higher risk of accidents to children.

Right! But you could. You could, but you don't. And that is why there is no compromise on God's omnipotence simply because it doesn't intervene.

Sure, but it is one thing to do something with the purpose of teaching and yet another to do something that as a by-product teaches.

All I have said is that there is a purpose. And actually there are many purposes. Each person's suffering is NOT IN VAIN. The highest purpose of suffering is creation. And then God established creation so that the suffering would have potential to do good, just like everything else.

 

[an anarchist]

We would be robotic in nature with no free will

Tangent: do you believe there will be free will in heaven?

So, really, what you are presenting is a simple victim mentality trying to blame God for what man is doing. IMV

That's about it. Make God the fall guy since God is not here to defend Himself.

Not really... More like I'm making a case for the nonexistence of your God.

I do agree that man is responsible for our suffering. I just do not agree that your God exists, because of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Beautiful. You said, "I am not" That's it! Its as simple as that. You know you. So, you can automatically identify "not".

Yes, but that is empty as other than not-me. Objective reality in itself is not my experience of it, it is what it is in itself. I don't know that nor for God. "Otherness" or "diffentness" is that other than or different than me and nothing else.
Not me is that, not me. What is other than no me, I don't know.

 

[dybmh]

You didn't address the point and this is just a bare assertion.

Yes, the intention was to elaborate in the next part of the reply.

Non sequitur. Other doesn't mean opposite.

It does mean opposite in this context. If God is order. Let's start there. Then let's say that God creates 50/50 order/chaos. That's still order. There's still order there. The 50/50 mix is order. It's just diminshed order. For it to be different than order, it needs to the potential to be chaos. A little chaos is not chaos.

So let's continue with this...

Here is order. here is order&chaos. If order is immediately next to order&chaos, the result is order&order&chaos. Still, the result is order/chaos. So the otherness, chaos, the opposite, is still created. If it's combined differently, order combined with chaos&order. The result is order&chaos&order. Still, the opposite is created. Other-ness in this context IS opposite. The only way to have otherness here is to have opposite. That's the only way to have a true difference.