Problem of suffering, free will, and Heaven

[ruffen]

Here's my take on the problem of evil and suffering, free will, and Heaven...

Part 1:

• Is God aware of evil and suffering, and at the same time able to stop it?
  • God does not exist
    • Okay, glad we cleared that up
  • No
    • Why call him God or pray or worship if he cannot interfere with our well-being?
  • Yes
    • Monster God wants there to be evil and suffering
  • Suffering is caused by Satan messing with the world
    • Can God destroy Satan?
      • Yes
        • Monster God wants Satan to exist and mess with the world
      • No
        • God is not the only God, Satan is his equal, God is not omnipotent
  • Humans are weak, and we have free will which inevitably leads to evil and suffering
    • Is there free will in Heaven?
      • Yes
        • Is there evil and suffering in Heaven?
          • Yes
            • Heaven is not different from Earth life
          • No
            • It is possible to combine a world of free will with no suffering or evil, Monster God could have done that on Earth but didn't
      • No
        • Monster God has created Heaven as a zombie prison without granting its inhabitants free will, in order to create a "perfect" world without evil or suffering, at least visible suffering
    • If Jesus existed, did he have free will, yet committed no evil actions?
      • Yes
        • Omnipotent Monster God could have created us all that way, with free will and no desire to do evil
      • No
        • Zombie Jesus was remote controlled!
      • Jesus didn't exist
        • Okay, glad we cleared that up
    • Why is there so much suffering from causes other than free will, such as microorganisms, natural disasters etc?
      • Punishment for original sin
        • Monster God still angry for what he should have foreseen when he put weak humans close to forbidden fruit tree and talking snake. For believers who don't literally believe this, the literal story of the fall of Adam and Eve is required for original sin. If original sin is a metaphor for our inherent weaknesses, evil Monster God is angry at us for the way he created us
      • Satan is messing with the world
        • Can God destroy Satan?
          • Yes
            • Monster God can destroy Satan but doesn't, he wants Satan to exist and mess with the world
          • No
            • Did God create Satan?
              • No
                • Satan is another God, God not omnipotent
              • Yes
                • Stupid evil Monster God created another evil Monster God which he cannot defeat!

Part 2:

• Do your choices and actions in life decide whether you go to Heaven or not?
  • God and Heaven do not exist
    • Okay, glad we cleared that up
  • No, everybody/nobody goes to Heaven
    • The afterlife is just a new life without God judging anyone. Does God even exist and what is his role in the afterlife? Why worship or call him God?
  • No, only certain clans or tribes go to Heaven
    • Racist Monster God
  • Yes
    • Monster God condemns people to eternal and infinite reward or punishment for finite crimes or actions in life. Monster God is cruel, immoral, and unjust.
    • Do people (eg. tribes in remote locations) who don't know about God and God's morality and rules, go to Heaven?
      • Yes
        • Evil Racist Monster God makes the ticket to Heaven much more difficult to obtain for people unfortunate enough to hear about his supposed existence
      • No
        • Hiding racist Monster God has been hiding from these people by making himself know only to certain people in certain parts of the world, not giving them a chance
      • Yes, if they live good moral lives
        • Monster God did not inform them about the rules of the game, the severity of punishment or reward, or what to do to gain acces to Heaven
      • Anyone should feel God's presence inside them and know that he exists and know his moral values
        • Why don't I?
          • Satan has blinded my eyes
            • Monster God has created/allowed Satan to trick me into a trap in order for me to be denied access to Heaven
          • Monster God has chosen to hide from us to "test our faith" and see what happens in a cruel and evil experiment
          • He's there but I choose not to believe
            • Hiding Monster God fools me into believing all the evidence available that points to his non-existence. Hiding Monster God does not make his presence known
          • God does not exist
            • Okay, glad we cleared that up
    • Do newborn babies go to Heaven even though they never got a chance to decide their fate?
      • Yes
        • The best one can do for a baby is to kill it and give it a free ticket to Heaven, as the only thing life can bring them is temptation, suffering, and the probability they might lose access to Heaven through their actions later in life. Monster God makes life a trap and promotes cruelty and murder
      • No
        • Monster God never gives these babies a chance, shuts them out from Heaven for eternity because they died young by no fault of their own. Horribly evil Monster God

So, how does one get out of this mess? How do believers solve these questions and still believe?

The one answer that pops out is that God does not exist. That would give a satisfactory answer to all questions.

 

[Sunstone]

The one answer that pops out is that God does not exist.

"God", conceived of in certain ways, does not exist. I think that's a better formulation of any necessary conclusion we might draw than, "God does not exist".

 

[Willamena]

So, how does one get out of this mess? How do believers solve these questions and still believe?

The one answer that pops out is that God does not exist. That would give a satisfactory answer to all questions.

Perhaps they feel that god exists regardless of all the logical problems humans have with god?

 

[1137]

"Suffering" is a subjective interpretation.

Good effort though!

 

[George-ananda]

The one answer that pops out is that God does not exist.

The answer that pops out to me is that we should not take all the thinking of 2500 years ago so seriously and analyze it to death. There's a ton of assumptions in there many of us theists think are antiquated. There is more sophisticated thinking out there, particularly from Indian traditions.

This sounds too much like our choices are just traditional Christianity or Atheism.

 

[1137]

The answer that pops out to me is that we should not take all the thinking of 2500 years ago so seriously and analyze it to death.

The irony of you saying this is monumental.

 

[George-ananda]

The irony of you saying this is monumental.

Explain, I'm interested. Was I a known Bible thumper?

 

[1137]

Explain, I'm interested. Was I a known Bible thumper?

You're a known denier of scientific evidence and logical inference, instead prefering ancient or revival explanations. So you're really not one to talk.

 

[George-ananda]

You're a known denier of scientific evidence and logical inference, instead prefering ancient or revival explanations.

Thanks, for that appraisal:sarcastic

I deny no scientific evidence and I make what I feel are sound logical inferences too.

So you're really not one to talk.

I'll talk and if you can present calm reasonable challenges I'll respond in kind.

 

[Koldo]

"Suffering" is a subjective interpretation.

Good effort though!

I could convince you otherwise if you gave me a chance...

 

[Koldo]

The irony of you saying this is monumental.

Explain, I'm interested. Was I a known Bible thumper?

You're a known denier of scientific evidence and logical inference, instead prefering ancient or revival explanations. So you're really not one to talk.

Actually, I thought you were going to mention how those indian traditions he mentioned are FREAKING OLD too.

EDIT: Hmm... You did mention it. But, come on, you should give me more EMPHASIS to it.

 

[George-ananda]

Actually, I thought you were going to mention how those indian traditions he mentioned relies are FREAKING OLD too.

True wisdom is timeless; neither old or new-age. The Jewish concepts of 2500 years ago are antiquated in my opinion.. My opinion is the middle-eastern world never reached the depth of understanding the east (India) reached.

 

[Koldo]

True wisdom is timeless; neither old or new-age. The Jewish concepts of 2500 years ago are antiquated in my opinion.. My opinion is the middle-eastern world never reached the depth of understanding the east (India) reached.

The irony is that you mentioned how old those concepts are as if it was detrimental to their quality. You might not have meant to say it like that, but it sure came off that way.

 

[ruffen]

The answer that pops out to me is that we should not take all the thinking of 2500 years ago so seriously and analyze it to death. There's a ton of assumptions in there many of us theists think are antiquated. There is more sophisticated thinking out there, particularly from Indian traditions.

This sounds too much like our choices are just traditional Christianity or Atheism.

So... what is antiquated? The idea of a God who created us the way we are? The idea of a God that knows all and is able to interfere? The idea that God is good? The idea that there is no suffering and evil in the world?

 

[ruffen]

"Suffering" is a subjective interpretation.

Good effort though!

If suffering is a subjective interpretation, and what we perceive as suffering is important to our morality (ie. minimize suffering), and God gave us our capability to think about morality and wants us to be good (ie. minimize suffering), and yet God's idea of suffering is different from our idea of suffering, then I'm not impressed.

 

[George-ananda]

So... what is antiquated? The idea of a God who created us the way we are? The idea of a God that knows all and is able to interfere? The idea that God is good? The idea that there is no suffering and evil in the world?

Well here’s a few antiquated items in my opinion. Or instead of 'antiquated' I should have said 'not applicable to other schools of thoughts.

* That if logic of Judeo-Christian concepts fails, then ‘God does not exist’ jumps out. There are major schools of thought outside the Judeo-Christian school.

Here’s a few concepts that my school of thought (Advaitan) do not accept. Other schools can speak for themselves.

* That there is the dualism. God and creation are two separate things. Many think God and creation are not-two (non-dual).

* Suffering is random and meaningless. Many think that there is a chain of events that can’t be seen from our perspective that produces temporary suffering. There will eventually be victory for all.

* That there is only one physical life for a soul.

* The Satan of the Bible is a real being.

* The belief in an eternal heaven based on one life.


I could go on. Perhaps instead of the word ‘antiquated’, I could have said ‘not applicable to other schools of thought’. My main point was you can’t dismiss the whole God concept because of logical problems of one particular school of thought.

 

[ruffen]

Well here’s a few antiquated items in my opinion. Or instead of 'antiquated' I should have said 'not applicable to other schools of thoughts.

* That if logic of Judeo-Christian concepts fails, then ‘God does not exist’ jumps out. There are major schools of thought outside the Judeo-Christian school.

Here’s a few concepts that my school of thought (Advaitan) do not accept. Other schools can speak for themselves.

* That there is the dualism. God and creation are two separate things. Many think God and creation are not-two (non-dual).

* Suffering is random and meaningless. Many think that there is a chain of events that can’t be seen from our perspective that produces temporary suffering. There will eventually be victory for all.

* That there is only one physical life for a soul.

* The Satan of the Bible is a real being.

* The belief in an eternal heaven based on one life.


I could go on. Perhaps instead of the word ‘antiquated’, I could have said ‘not applicable to other schools of thought’. My main point was you can’t dismiss the whole God concept because of logical problems of one particular school of thought.

First of all, this is the way most interpretations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam practice their faith. For example the Catholic Church which likes to boast about the hundreds of millions of people who believe in their doctrine, do believe in these things. They believe in eternal Heaven with access based on actions in life. They believe in Satan and the almighty deistic/theistic God.

And for any other faith, if you make God impotent enough so that God is not one mind with capability to interfere with our physical world, or that God has no responsibility in the matter, then we're back to "why call him God" question. If God is basically a metaphor for the Universe, maybe some other word than God would be more appropriate.

And if suffering is not random but follows some sort of "plan", that is consciously planned by an intelligence with power to cause or stop suffering (if it has no way of actually physically affecting suffering, it can plan all it wants to with no consequences), then I don't care what that plan is, I'd like to punch that deity right on the nose, if it has a nose.

Random suffering that is not alleviated by a deity that knows that it happens, can do something about it, and yet doesn't, is bad. Planned suffering by that same deity is worse. It's evil. If there is a "plan" behind a child having terminal cancer and suffering horribly before dying, there is no plan that could possibly justify this. And if this is caused by anything else than "***** happens", it is evil, and the intelligence behind it is evil. In this case you don't need Satan, as God is evil enough for us all.

So it's not about the Judeo-Christian concept of God that fails, but any concept of God, where God is powerful enough to earn the name "God".


Of course, you can say that "there are people who don't believe in God the way you described, therefore your argument is invalid", but then again one could say "I'm an atheist so your argument is invalid". Yes there are people who use the word God to describe something else than an intelligent mind that created the Universe, who knows we are here, and cares about us. You can use God as a metaphor for nature, or say that creator and creation are the same thing (still a metaphor for nature). You can say that "my God has a big hammer wich causes lightning and is not responsible for suffering". But then that's not really the faith I directed my OP at. I directed it to the kind of faith that billons upon billions believe in.

 

[George-ananda]

First of all, this is the way most interpretations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam practice their faith. For example the Catholic Church which likes to boast about the hundreds of millions of people who believe in their doctrine, do believe in these things. They believe in eternal Heaven with access based on actions in life. They believe in Satan and the almighty deistic/theistic God.

And for any other faith, if you make God impotent enough so that God is not one mind with capability to interfere with our physical world, or that God has no responsibility in the matter, then we're back to "why call him God" question. If God is basically a metaphor for the Universe, maybe some other word than God would be more appropriate.

And if suffering is not random but follows some sort of "plan", that is consciously planned by an intelligence with power to cause or stop suffering (if it has no way of actually physically affecting suffering, it can plan all it wants to with no consequences), then I don't care what that plan is, I'd like to punch that deity right on the nose, if it has a nose.

Random suffering that is not alleviated by a deity that knows that it happens, can do something about it, and yet doesn't, is bad. Planned suffering by that same deity is worse. It's evil. If there is a "plan" behind a child having terminal cancer and suffering horribly before dying, there is no plan that could possibly justify this. And if this is caused by anything else than "***** happens", it is evil, and the intelligence behind it is evil. In this case you don't need Satan, as God is evil enough for us all.

So it's not about the Judeo-Christian concept of God that fails, but any concept of God, where God is powerful enough to earn the name "God".


Of course, you can say that "there are people who don't believe in God the way you described, therefore your argument is invalid", but then again one could say "I'm an atheist so your argument is invalid". Yes there are people who use the word God to describe something else than an intelligent mind that created the Universe, who knows we are here, and cares about us. You can use God as a metaphor for nature, or say that creator and creation are the same thing (still a metaphor for nature). You can say that "my God has a big hammer wich causes lightning and is not responsible for suffering". But then that's not really the faith I directed my OP at. I directed it to the kind of faith that billons upon billions believe in.

Dualistic approaches to an understanding of the universe can be shown to have illogical ramifications. I think the problem came when they tried to put concepts we can grasp on that which ultimately can't be grasped.

That's why non-dualism is called not-two when one can say 'why not just call it the One'. It's because dualistic thinking is more graspable by the average person. Non-dual implies going beyond dualistic thinking. Non-dual thinking took me a long time before I got my modest grasp on the concept.

So, to show logical problems that derive from dualistic concepts is possible, but that does not imply Atheism.

Plus my study of paranormal phenomena and eastern spiritual masters has convinced me that there are things that make the Atheist-Materialist worldview, as it currently exists, implausible. Non-dualism best explains the evidence I have encountered.

 

[Willamena]

"Suffering" is a subjective interpretation.

Good effort though!

I could convince you otherwise if you gave me a chance...

I'd like to hear your arguments.

 

[Willamena]

• Why call him God or pray or worship if he cannot interfere with our well-being?

Why call him God if he is doing that?