Questions that believers cannot answer

[Trailblazer]

But an omnibenevolent god would choose to do that, if he had to pick between that and people undergoing a ton of suffering to grow. That's the thing.

You cannot know what an omnimax God would do from your limited human perspective since you cannot know what God knows. Let's not forget that omniscience is one of the omnis.

Moreover, if God exists and God created the world the way He created it, then we have to assume that was the *best way* it could have been created in order to accomplish what God wanted to accomplish, since an all-knowing God would have to know the best way out of all the options that were available to Him.

But I have to agree that suffering sucks, since I am God's poster child for suffering.

 

[KWED]

How’d you come up with that?

If I said, “Please prove that Yeti and the Cookie Monster are real things”, how would I be admitting they exist?
Only as concepts in people’s minds.

So you claim that your version of god infallibly knows the future, and determines events by his will and decree - when he wants to.
Are you now admitting that your version of god, and what he does, is just a concept in your mind?

I’m sorry, but the Bible doesn’t agree.
Jehovah’s attempt to reason with Cain, the outcome of the Ninevites in the book of Jonah, God being “hurt at His heart” by the rebellious nature of the Israelites, etc…… it all leads to one conclusion: that Jehovah doesn’t know. He respects our use of the Free Will that He created us with.

Oh, I agree that the Bible is often contradictory.
However, if your god does not know the future, and does not control events, either now or in the future - then he isn't much of a god. He has similar powers to me.

 

[KWED]

Any evil? If you prevent moral evil you prevent free will...

No you don't. If I have a free choice between five different good acts, then I have free will.

By your argument, every imaginable action must be available to us at all times or we don't have free will. Which is obvious nonsense.

 

[KWED]

The Problem of Evil
A perfectly powerful being can prevent any evil.
A perfectly good being will prevent evil as far as he can.
God is perfectly powerful and good.
So, if a perfectly powerful and good God exists, there will be no evil.
There is evil.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

But if god has limits, or doesn't care, or enjoys causing suffering, this argument doesn't apply.

 

[KWED]

... and moral good.

How does the non existence of evil mean there can be no good?

 

[Koldo]

You cannot know what an omnimax God would do from your limited human perspective since you cannot know what God knows. Let's not forget that omniscience is one of the omnis.

We can not know what exactly what an omnimax god would do, but we can know what he would not do.
He would not act counter to his own benevolence. And creating humans to undergo suffering just to grow definitely runs counter to benevolence. Assuming omnipotence and omniscience, of course.

Moreover, if God exists and God created the world the way He created it, then we have to assume that was the *best way* it could have been created in order to accomplish what God wanted to accomplish, since an all-knowing God would have to know the best way out of all the options that were available to Him.

But I have to agree that suffering sucks, since I am God's poster child for suffering.

That's a reasonable assumption if and only if the world appears to be compatible with an omnimax god.
If the world (as in what is and exists) is contradictory to an omnimax god, the reasonable conclusion is that such god doesn't exist (and just to be clear I mean a god that has the 3 qualities together: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence). Let me give you a more extreme example: If someone claimed to be omnibenevolent, it would be contradictory to such a claim if such being decided to rip off the limbs of every living creature, wouldn't you agree? Meaning that if what people (or God) do directly contradict the premise of being benevolent, it would be reasonable to drop the premise of benevolence, rather than trying to find a way to justify how benevolence is compatible with such heinous actions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh, I agree that the Bible is often contradictory.

Only because what you’ve been taught, was inaccurate to begin with.

So was my understanding at first.

No one can understand it, unless they have the Father’s help. (Luke 10:21) Who is Jehovah/Yahweh.

You don’t even believe he exists… so you shouldn’t expect to understand His Word accurately. — Hebrews 11:6

But then, neither do the sects of Christendom, since they attribute to Jesus the position that really belongs to Yahweh / the Father. — 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 ; John 4:23-24 ; John 17:3 etc.


IMO.

 

[Trailblazer]

We can not know what exactly what an omnimax god would do, but we can know what he would not do.
He would not act counter to his own benevolence. And creating humans to undergo suffering just to grow definitely runs counter to benevolence. Assuming omnipotence and omniscience, of course.

The problem is that you only have a personal opinion based upon what YOU consider benevolent, and you are stating your personal opinion as if it was a fact. In your opinion, humans having to undergo suffering is not benevolent, but others have different opinions. Why is YOUR opinion better than the opinions of other people?

That's a reasonable assumption if and only if the world appears to be compatible with an omnimax god.
If the world (as in what is and exists) is contradictory to an omnimax god, the reasonable conclusion is that such god doesn't exist (and just to be clear I mean a god that has the 3 qualities together: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence).

Again, the same problem exists as I noted above. YOU do not believe that the world as it exists is compatible with what *you believe* an omnimax God would create.

You have a personal opinion as to what constitutes omnibenevolence, what an omnibenevolent God would do, but that is not a fact, it is just a personal opinion. It is in effect a projection of your ego expectations: If God does not eliminate suffering, God is not omnibenevolent.

Let me give you a more extreme example: If someone claimed to be omnibenevolent, it would be contradictory to such a claim if such being decided to rip off the limbs of every living creature, wouldn't you agree? Meaning that if what people (or God) do directly contradict the premise of being benevolent, it would be reasonable to drop the premise of benevolence, rather than trying to find a way to justify how benevolence is compatible with such heinous actions.

In my opinion, it would not be omnibenevolent for anyone to rip off the limbs of every living creature.

 

[Koldo]

The problem is that you only have a personal opinion based upon what YOU consider benevolent, and you are stating your personal opinion as if it was a fact. In your opinion, humans having to undergo suffering is not benevolent, but others have different opinions. Why is YOUR opinion better than the opinions of other people?

Again, the same problem exists as I noted above. YOU do not believe that the world as it exists is compatible with what *you believe* an omnimax God would create.

You have a personal opinion as to what constitutes omnibenevolence, what an omnibenevolent God would do, but that is not a fact, it is just a personal opinion. It is in effect a projection of your ego expectations: If God does not eliminate suffering, God is not omnibenevolent.

In my opinion, it would not be omnibenevolent for anyone to rip off the limbs of every living creature.

Words have a shared meaning, don't they?
What is the meaning of 'benevolence' then?
If averting unnecessary suffering is not benevolent, what is?

 

[Trailblazer]

Words have a shared meaning, don't they?
What is the meaning of 'benevolence' then?
If averting unnecessary suffering is not benevolent, what is?

benevolence: the quality of being well meaning; kindness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=benevolence+definition

That is what benevolence is. Whether we believe that God is benevolent or not all depends upon what we consider well-meaning and kind.

Is it well meaning and kind to create a world in which God knew humans would suffer, often through no fault of their own?

Is suffering necessary for humans to attain a goal that God had in mind for humans?
What is unnecessary suffering?

Why do some people have to suffer so much more than other people?
Will those who suffered more be better off in the end?
Can people still attain spiritual qualities without suffering?

Imo, we cannot just say God is not benevolent just because humans suffer. We need the answers to these questions. We can get some answers if we talk to people who have suffered a lot and look at their lives.

 

[ppp]

Is suffering necessary for humans to attain a goal that God had in mind for humans?

No. The answer is, No.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. The answer is, No.

How would you know?
You are not God.

 

[ppp]

How would you know?
You are not God.

You can't know I am not God. You are not God.

 

[Koldo]

benevolence: the quality of being well meaning; kindness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=benevolence+definition

That is what benevolence is. Whether we believe that God is benevolent or not all depends upon what we consider well-meaning and kind.

Is it well meaning and kind to create a world in which God knew humans would suffer, often through no fault of their own?

Do you mean that whether God is benevolent is just a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact?
So, for example, if God considers himself to be benevolent it is just his opinion, and not a fact, is that correct?

Is suffering necessary for humans to attain a goal that God had in mind for humans?
What is unnecessary suffering?

Unnecessary as in unnecessary to achieve any given goal.
Omnipotence entails that no steps must be taken to achieve any goal.
For instance, if I were to bake a cake I would need to buy the ingredients beforehand then proceed to mix them in a certain order and then wait some time until it takes. Someone more powerful than me would be able to skip one of those steps (imagine someone that is able to bake cakes instantly with the power of their minds, for example), and someone that happens to be omnipotent would be able to skip all of those steps and just create the cake instantly.

Why do some people have to suffer so much more than other people?
Will those who suffered more be better off in the end?

Does it matter as far as this topic is concerned?
I mean, an uneven degree of suffering would still be unjust no matter the outcome, wouldn't it?

Can people still attain spiritual qualities without suffering?

Why not? What's the logical constraint?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

When Jesus says that he is "the first and the last", (Revelation 1:11) he is applying to himself a title of the Almighty God. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and Israel's Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

The word God is a title, and Isaiah 9:6 is referring to Jesus and Jesus is referred to as Mighty God (Not Almighty God)
John in writing about Jesus wrote at John 1:18 that No man as seen God..... people saw Jesus.
People saw Jesus and lived - Exodus 33:20; 1 John 4:12 A
Any thoughts about John 6:46 ___________

I find at Isaiah 44:6 the Tetragrammaton appears (KJV LORD) for LORD God.
( At Rev. 1:11 the words 'first and last ' is Not in the ancient manuscripts but a later added on )
At Psalms 110 there are two (2) LORD/Lord's mentioned.
The KJV LORD, in all Upper-Case letters, stands for LORD God (Tetragrammaton YHWH)
The other Lord, in some lower-case letters, stands for Lord Jesus. (Tetragrammaton never applied to Lord Jesus )

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you mean that whether God is benevolent is just a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact?
So, for example, if God considers himself to be benevolent it is just his opinion, and not a fact, is that correct?

Nothing about God is a fact, since facts can be proven.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

The existence of God can never be proven, let alone whether God has certain attributes. All we can do is believe that God exists and has certain attributes according to our scriptures.

Unnecessary as in unnecessary to achieve any given goal.
Omnipotence entails that no steps must be taken to achieve any goal.
For instance, if I were to bake a cake I would need to buy the ingredients beforehand then proceed to mix them in a certain order and then wait some time until it takes. Someone more powerful than me would be able to skip one of those steps (imagine someone that is able to bake cakes instantly with the power of their minds, for example), and someone that happens to be omnipotent would be able to skip all of those steps and just create the cake instantly.

The belief that God is omnipotent is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
The problem with your analogy is that humans are not omnipotent, so humans have to go through the steps to get from point a to point z. God could have made humans like ready-made cakes who are all they need to be right out of the womb, but then there would be no reason for humans to journey through this life, as the purpose of this life is to become what God created us to become, and that entails hard work.

Does it matter as far as this topic is concerned?
I mean, an uneven degree of suffering would still be unjust no matter the outcome, wouldn't it?

I think uneven suffering is unjust but that is just my personal opinion based upon my feelings, since I am a person who has suffered immensely all my life, and I look around and see other people who have hardly suffered at all.

I think the degree of suffering is related to the outcome because I believe there is a relationship between suffering and spiritual growth. Ideally, the more one suffers the more they grow, although suffering can also break a person.

Why not? What's the logical constraint?

I do not think there is a logical constraint.
I know people who have not suffered much yet I consider them spiritual. OTOH I know other people who have not suffered much who I do not consider spiritual.

 

[Koldo]

Nothing about God is a fact, since facts can be proven.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

The existence of God can never be proven, let alone whether God has certain attributes. All we can do is believe that God exists and has certain attributes according to our scriptures.

Sure, but that is not what I am asking though.
That was an illustrative question to understand how you see morality.
Take it as a given that God exists. If God thinks of himself as benevolent, would that be a mere opinion of his or a fact? Could his own understanding of morality be something other than a personal opinion?

The belief that God is omnipotent is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
The problem with your analogy is that humans are not omnipotent, so humans have to go through the steps to get from point a to point z. God could have made humans like ready-made cakes who are all they need to be right out of the womb, but then there would be no reason for humans to journey through this life, as the purpose of this life is to become what God created us to become, and that entails hard work.

Then the goal is also the journey itself.
If the goal was merely the end point, then omnipotence would be incompatible with it.
Using the cake analogy: An omnipotent entity may want to go through all the steps to bake a cake, and that is entirely compatible with omnipotence. The distinction though is that every step is willed rather than being done out of necessity. I wonder why you would see this as benevolent by the way.

I think uneven suffering is unjust but that is just my personal opinion based upon my feelings, since I am a person who has suffered immensely all my life, and I look around and see other people who have hardly suffered at all.

I think the degree of suffering is related to the outcome because I believe there is a relationship between suffering and spiritual growth. Ideally, the more one suffers the more they grow, although suffering can also break a person.

I do not think there is a logical constraint.
I know people who have not suffered much yet I consider them spiritual. OTOH I know other people who have not suffered much who I do not consider spiritual.

If there is no logical constraint, there is no reason as to why spiritual qualities can't be attained without suffering.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Do you mean that whether God is benevolent is just a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact?
So, for example, if God considers himself to be benevolent it is just his opinion, and not a fact, is that correct?.....

If you were a small town employee and a corrupt employee caused the small town's business (which was the source of income for the people) to go bankrupt and No one was buying the company the people would Not only be loosing their job but could not now pay for bills or food.
A benevolvent benefactor read about the people's plight and decided to buy the company and care for the people.
God is our Benevolent Benefactor because Satan and Adam bankrupted us from everlasting life.
Because we can't stop sinning we die, so we needed someone who could resurrect us. Jesus can and will.
God bought out Satan's ' business of sin ' for us by sending heavenly pre-human sinless Jesus to Earth for us.
By sinless Jesus' dying a faithful death our sins can be blotted out - 1 John 1:7
In the Bible, God is Not only our Benevolent Benefactor but also Creator and heavenly Father.
( Father means: Life Giver and Not life taker - Revelation 4:11 - everlasting life from the God of the Bible )

 

[Wildswanderer]

The word God is a title,

You have got to be kidding me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But if god has limits, or doesn't care, or enjoys causing suffering, this argument doesn't apply.

Yes, God does have limits. For example: God can Not lie - Titus 1:2. God can't die - Psalms 90:2
Sinner Satan is the one who enjoys the 'tool of suffering' to try to manipulate us.
Just as Satan challenged the man Job (Job 2:4-5) that under suffering condition Job would Not serve God.
By way of extension Satan challenges all of us. Touch our 'flesh....' (loose physical health) and we would Not love God.
Both Job and Jesus under very adverse suffering conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.
By praying the invitation to God for Jesus to come (Rev.22:20) we are asking for an end to suffering.
A reason for Jesus to come is to bring HEALING to earth's nations according to Revelation 22:2
Healing to the point that No one will say, " I am sick....."-Isaiah 33:24
Earth and its people will he happy and healthy as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
Jesus will even do away with our 'last enemy' on Earth named at 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8