So where did infancy cancer come from? And why didn't god know about it? And if he did, why didn't he avoid it?
I don't know. Only God knows.
When god created the universe he created it with cancer as an inherent part, knowing that there would be infants who develop it and dies in agony. He could have created a universe without cancers that develop in infants. He chose not to. Therefore it is something he wants to happen. He is responsible.
Maybe so, but so what?
If a manufacturer knowingly produces a product that will result in children being killed from it being used as designed, they would be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter. So why do you want to let god off the hook so easily?
Who said I let God off the hook?
Obviously, because he wants a world where children die in agony from cancer. He made the choice to create cancers that develop in children for no apparent reason, when he equally had the option of creating a world where it did not happen.
The point is - what kind of a monster would do that in the first place?
No, it is not obvious that God wants a world where children die in agony from cancer just because cancer exists. You do not know what God wants and neither do I.
Good. But it still leaves you needing to explain why god deliberately creates so much unnecessary suffering.
God does not
deliberately create unnecessary suffering. Suffering simply exists as part of the material world.
**** me! This just gets worse.
So god wants to make the parents suffer, and the way he decides to do it is to have their child die in agony from cancer.
Your god really is a raving psychopath!
No, it is a test for the parents but that does not mean God wants parents to suffer....
Some religious apologists might believe that but I don't.
Of course the source and purpose of suffering is a religious issue.
Without god there is no source or purpose of suffering (other than natural processes). The issue does not exist.
Sorry, but suffering would still exist even if God does not exist. There just would not be anyone to blame it on.
If there was no God and no purpose for suffering then people would suffer and not know why, and that would be even worse. At least the fact that there is a reason for suffering, spiritual growth, helps some people endure suffering.
No. The whole point of this is to examine why god made the universe the way he did.
You agree that the universe is a pretty ****ty place for many people. So what was god up to? If he doesn't want people to suffer so much, why does he make people suffer so much?
Again, God does not
make people suffer, suffering is simply a by-product of living in a material world.
“If we suffer it is the outcome of material things, and all the trials and troubles come from this world of illusion.
For instance, a merchant may lose his trade and depression ensues. A workman is dismissed and starvation stares him in the face. A farmer has a bad harvest, anxiety fills his mind. A man builds a house which is burnt to the ground and he is straightway homeless, ruined, and in despair.
All these examples are to show you that the trials which beset our every step, all our sorrow, pain, shame and grief, are born in the world of matter; whereas the spiritual Kingdom never causes sadness. A man living with his thoughts in this Kingdom knows perpetual joy. The ills all flesh is heir to do not pass him by, but they only touch the surface of his life, the depths are calm and serene.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 110
But it was not necessary for god to create a universe where it is necessary for you to suffer so much.
You are not God so you don't know is it was necessary to accomplish what God was trying to accomplish.
Just because something happens doesn't mean you have to accept it. It is the very basis for protest and change. Have you not read any history?
I do have to accept it unless I can do something about it. If someone causes a car accident and I end up injured or paraplegic or if I have incurable cancer I have to accept that.
So you don't think god has anything to do with who suffers of by how much. It is just random chance/environment?
It is nature and nurture and the environment and random chance. I do not think God
causes suffering, it is just our fate. However, since God is responsible for fate and predestination, indirectly God is the cause.
According to your argument, the world works as if there is no god.
Only if you expect God to do x and y.
Because those experience great suffering have pretty imperfect lives, by definition.
That depends upon what you consider imperfect. By his own admission, my older brother has hardly suffered at all, but he also has not changed or become more spiritual. By contrast, I have suffered constantly and I have changed a lot. Is the pain worth the gain? For some people it isn't, for some people it is. No two people are alike.
Really?
Then why do you struggle to understand basic concepts and definitions?
I don't.
That is not false equivalence. I am not claiming that men and god are the same because they share a common trait. I am saying that the word "benevolence" has meaning. If god's attributes do not correspond to the meaning of benevolence, you cannot call him "benevolent".
Sorry, but it does not mean the same thing for God to be benevolent as it means for human to be benevolent. Iows, a benevolent God cannot be expected to do what a benevolent human would do under the same circumstances. You are comparing what a benevolent man would do to what a benevolent God would do, so you are comparing apples and oranges. That is why it is the fallacy of false equivalence.
False equivalence is a
logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.
[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show
equivalence, especially in
order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.
[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia
We can't really draw any valid inferences from such questioning because of things like a lack of control group, confirmation bias, imprecise definitions.
Thought you'd done an MA in psychology? Surely you covered this kind of thing.
No, we cannot get any definitive answers but we can get some idea as to whether suffering has helped people grow stronger by asking them. There might even be some studies that have been conducted.
No, whether suffering makes one stronger or not is not covered in psych classes, it is more of a religious subject.