Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[Meow Mix]

I think raises another issue. If we observe a world, with basic moral standards that we humans recognize as good and pragmatic, where many events take place that we ourselves would not impose or do to others (like cancer), and there is a claim that a benevolent God has created this world, then we must either trust the claim but not our own mind and moral sense, or trust our mind and moral sense and reject the claim. There's no room to both trust the self and the claim because there is a serious inconsistency with the claim and what we observe of the world.

Yes, I've made this argument too: that our moral intuitions are either faulty (and God would know that, too; in which case why give us faulty moral intuitions?), or our moral intuitions are not faulty (in which case the theodicy has a problem).

 

[danieldemol]

The hundred-dollar question is why God should prevent human suffering. "Because God is omnipotent" is not an answer. Aside from the fact that "some people" don't like suffering is there any other reason God should eliminate suffering?

Because it is the benevolent thing to do. If you could prevent your cats from burning you would due to benevolence, yet God allows people to burn to death often (not to mention other horrible ways people suffer).

 

[danieldemol]

The utopia will come in due time, it is early yet.

Nah, suffering is an inherent part of physical life and death for many creatures and will remain so even if all humans join one religion.
In my opinion.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well that's a quite jump in logic. You went from no one knows for sure either way to ... we are justified in saying God is malevolent but not in saying he's benevolent.

I think there is far more evidence for the latter actually.

I didn't quite say that. I said that we'd be justified in saying we have evidence for malevolence (that doesn't mean a being is wholly malevolent, it would just mean they are at least not omnibenevolent). So for instance we can also look at apparent goods and say we do have evidence of benevolence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because it is the benevolent thing to do.

That is just a personal opinion.

If you could prevent your cats from burning you would due to benevolence, yet God allows people to burn to death often (not to mention other horrible ways people suffer).

Realistically, how could God prevent all the suffering in the world? How would that even play out? Have you ever thought about it? Or would God just prevent some people's suffering and not other people's suffering. Maybe He does and you don't even know about it.

 

[an anarchist]

This would be the argument that God punishes descendants for the crimes of ancestors;

Not from a Biblical perspective. The argument is we inherit sinful spirits, sure, but it is each individual who sins themselves and brings on their own suffering.

Furthermore, if suffering is a punishment for something, then it can't simultaneously be argued that suffering is beneficial in some hidden way:

What is the benefit in suffering? That it might make someone examine the cause, so they could prevent suffering. Other than that, there is no benefit. Suffering caused by negative actions results in negative energy, not beneficial.

I don't think this rescues any deities from the Problem of Evil; it still describes a being that isn't very benevolent.

The Christian concept is that Jesus’s death was the ultimate act of benevolence. God gave us a path to end collective suffering through His death, the price for our negative energy fully paid. We need to only accept and use His blood to end the cycle of rebirth and suffering for all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nah, suffering is an inherent part of physical life and death for many creatures and will remain so even if all humans join one religion.
In my opinion.

I fully agree because the material world is a storehouse of suffering, as Abdu'l-Baha said.

Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 200-201

There will always be suffering as long as we live in a physical world with a physical body that is subject to accidents and injuries and disease, but some of the human suffering that is the result of human interactions can be mitigated if humans can learn to get along with each other and live in peace and harmony.

 

[Trailblazer]

an omnipotent etc God could have created you in such a way that you would get that feeling of accomplishment without struggle.

Do you mean that God could have created programmed robots?

 

[danieldemol]

That is just a personal opinion.

Realistically, how could God prevent all the suffering in the world? How would that even play out? Have you ever thought about it? Or would God just prevent some people's suffering and not other people's suffering.

It would be easy for an omnipotent omniscient God to think of a way to do it given unlimited power.

Maybe He does and you don't even know about it.

Does what? Prevent all the suffering in the world? I'd know about it because then I wouldn't personally suffer.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you mean that God could have created programmed robots?

It is possible we are nature's robots, but even if the whole free will argument is true God still could have given us possiblities to select from that do not have negative consequences (remember we are talking about an all-powerful omnibenevolent creator of everything here)

 

[Meow Mix]

Not from a Biblical perspective. The argument is we inherit sinful spirits, sure, but it is each individual who sins themselves and brings on their own suffering.

I'm not sure I follow the difference. Is God responsible for whatever laws govern how spirits work? If yes, this answer doesn't rescue God from culpability, either. If no, then there is still the problem of disproportionate punishment which would still be evidence against omnibenevolence. What sins could some children with leukemia have committed that fully grown murderers and rapists haven't, also?

What is the benefit in suffering? That it might make someone examine the cause, so they could prevent suffering. Other than that, there is no benefit. Suffering caused by negative actions results in negative energy, not beneficial.

Then what is the purpose of suffering? Is it your position that it's entirely a punishment? How do you resolve the question of why some people suffer far more than others that are not noticeably harmful people (e.g., children with leukemia), while people who are very harmful to other people sometimes suffer very little? Isn't this injustice just another microcosm of the problem of God lacking omnibenevolence by setting up an unjust system?

The Christian concept is that Jesus’s death was the ultimate act of benevolence. God gave us a path to end collective suffering through His death, the price for our negative energy fully paid. We need to only accept and use His blood to end the cycle of rebirth and suffering for all.

Omnipotent beings don't have to pay prices; so this argument would just be dropping the omnipotence premise (and thus the PoE would not apply).

 

[Trailblazer]

It would be easy for an omnipotent omniscient God to think of a way to do it given unlimited power.

My question before was why God should do it just because he has the power? Would this really be beneficial to humans? But at least I think the suffering should be more evenly distributed because that would be more fair. That is my two cents.

Does what? Prevent all the suffering in the world? I'd know about it because then I wouldn't personally suffer.

No, I meant maybe God prevents some of the suffering, not all of it.
I have suffered more than you can ever imagine. It is a miracle I am still alive given how many times I have been suicidal. If anyone should be angry at God it should be me, and I was angry for many years. I am still only tepid at the thought of loving God but at least I don't hate Him anymore. That's progress for me.

I don't fit in with the Baha'is very well because I don't love God like they do. Trailblazer tells all.

 

[an anarchist]

How do you resolve the question of why some people suffer far more than others that are not noticeably harmful people (e.g., children with leukemia), while people who are very harmful to other people sometimes suffer very little?

On your first thread, I was asked this. Let’s say you’re an American, right (I am, so that’s why I’m using it as an example). So, I pay taxes. Those taxes goes to committing genocide often times, and bombing people indiscriminately. All of my fellow Americans pay taxes, and we don’t really resist, do we? No, rather, we justify it. Yet we ask, “How can God let our kids get cancer?” Meanwhile we fund literal genocide with complete indifference, denial, and desensitization. And that’s just touching on war, there is so much more. Perhaps all of the negative karma we produce affects those innocent kids.

Omnipotent beings don't have to pay prices;

God created the law of karma. In order to free humanity from the law of karma, He had to abide by it. Karma itself is God. God was abiding by the universal laws He created.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is possible we are nature's robots, but even if the whole free will argument is true God still could have given us possiblities to select from that do not have negative consequences (remember we are talking about an all-powerful omnibenevolent creator of everything here)

If we never selected anything bad or did anything wrong, how would we ever learn what was good and right?
I do not rely upon God for much except to be watching over me and I believe He does prevent me from making some mistakes when I am open to listening.

I rarely say prayers asking for anything, not even for the cats, but recently I did say some prayers for my cat this last time because I could not bear to lose one more cat. I wrote about that on this thread: Did God answer my prayers?

 

[Meow Mix]

On your first thread, I was asked this. Let’s say you’re an American, right (I am, so that’s why I’m using it as an example). So, I pay taxes. Those taxes goes to committing genocide often times, and bombing people indiscriminately. All of my fellow Americans pay taxes, and we don’t really resist, do we? No, rather, we justify it. Yet we ask, “How can God let our kids get cancer?” Meanwhile we fund literal genocide with complete indifference, denial, and desensitization. And that’s just touching on war, there is so much more. Perhaps all of the negative karma we produce affects those innocent kids.

That doesn't track, though: why would something we do cause little kids to suffer and die? That's still unjust -- and the PoE still applies (either God can save the kids, and chooses not to, or God can't, and isn't omnipotent).

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you resolve the question of why some people suffer far more than others that are not noticeably harmful people (e.g., children with leukemia), while people who are very harmful to other people sometimes suffer very little?

I also have a problem with this, maybe given I am one who has suffered more than most people.
So, if I have a problem with suffering, it is the uneven distribution of suffering I have a problem with.
I have no idea what I did to deserve all the suffering I have endured, I never hurt anyone or broke God's laws.

 

[blü 2]

This would be the argument that God punishes descendants for the crimes of ancestors; and furthermore that punishment with gratuitous suffering is completely disproportional to the supposed crime.

Furthermore, if suffering is a punishment for something, then it can't simultaneously be argued that suffering is beneficial in some hidden way: those two ideas are not congruent with each other.

I don't think this rescues any deities from the Problem of Evil; it still describes a being that isn't very benevolent.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

 

[an anarchist]

That doesn't track, though: why would something we do cause little kids to suffer and die? That's still unjust -- and the PoE still applies (either God can save the kids, and chooses not to, or God can't, and isn't omnipotent).

(I’m sorry if I sound like I’m repeating myself, I just want to be clear)
I suppose the way I think that’s challengeable is this.
God has provided a way to end all suffering, even childhood cancer. Personally, I think this is what the rapture of the Bible is. When we have become collectively moral, our conscious invoking of Heaven on Earth will result in its physical emanation on Earth, ending suffering. With and since the death of Jesus, it has been possible for humanity to do this.
All that is left is for humanity to consciously do this. Just as we consciously turned the world of no suffering into a world of suffering, with our immorality. I theorize it’s our purpose to do the reverse, consciously turn this world of suffering into one of no suffering.
The PoE says God let’s the kid suffer, but perhaps He has already provided a way to prevent the suffering. It is us, who needs to do our part.

 

[Meow Mix]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​

This would just be abandoning omnibenevolence (which does resolve the PoE).

 

[Meow Mix]

(I’m sorry if I sound like I’m repeating myself, I just want to be clear)
I suppose the way I think that’s challengeable is this.
God has provided a way to end all suffering, even childhood cancer. Personally, I think this is what the rapture of the Bible is. When we have become collectively moral, our conscious invoking of Heaven on Earth will result in its physical emanation on Earth, ending suffering. With and since the death of Jesus, it has been possible for humanity to do this.
All that is left is for humanity to consciously do this. Just as we consciously turned the world of no suffering into a world of suffering, with our immorality. I theorize it’s our purpose to do the reverse, consciously turn this world of suffering into one of no suffering.
The PoE says God let’s the kid suffer, but perhaps He has already provided a way to prevent the suffering. It is us, who needs to do our part.

This still doesn't register to me at least as very just. For instance if I had children and they were all suffering, and I could prevent that suffering, but I told them "sorry, you will all still suffer until your brother gets with the program," that isn't very just. That's still a problem with benevolence.