Special Pleading and the PoE (Part 2)

[Koldo]

That is just a personal opinion.

If that is not what benevolence entails, what does it entail if anything at all?

What does it mean to act in accordance with benevolence ? And please do not answer with your personal opinion. If you can't answer, then it is a meaningless word.

 

[F1fan]

And if God did everything for us what would there be left for us to do, just sit around enjoying ourselves, thinnking only of ourselves? I don't think that is what this life is for.

This isn't being suggested. We aren't advocating for being spoiled brats. Most all of us want to work and enjoy the fruits of our labor. Yet if you get cancer you can't work. You suffer terribly and hope you survive. All we are saying is that God could have created a world that has no cancers. People would still get tired and stub our toes. We would age and die of other natural causes. We would still do stupid things and die young. We would still minding our business and get hit by cars while riding a bike and be killed (except for me which has happened 4 times yet God intervened on behalf of an atheist). But we wouldn't have to worry and deal with cancers. Yet somehow your version of God allowed cancers to develop in the world it created, and you think this suggests a God is benevolent.

Could your God have created a world where there was no cancers?

 

[F1fan]

It does, because the Problem of Evil came about in 10,400 HE when the Church had to try and answer how evil could still exist when god was all-powerful and all-good. It's from that where we get the Christian notion of "Hell"; devils, demons, and "Satan"; and notions like "He works in mysterious ways." Without the claim of a perfect god, or the only god unvexed by more maligned deities, the "Problem of Evil" becomes more "Crap Happens".

I do know that plenty of Abrahamics maintain their omnibenevolent/potent/scient deity, but they also maintain the contradictions that come with it; namely The Plan being foiled by both "Satan" and the presence of "evil" acts and events.

The dilemma here is that the early Abrahamic did not fully design their God to withstand these logical contradictions in the future. Obviously they were not gods themselves. Flawed design. Christians tried to fix it. Just more flaws. Muslims did better, but still they inherited a seriously flawed framework.

The soup is ruined. There's no fixing it.

 

[Link]

This world is an error handling back up plan and we are in one of it the most back of back up plans. It has an explanation, but the explanation is not simple. The original intended world was perfect. And it was meant to be restored to a just state for a long time but man has been rebelling against his chosen kings for a long time too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

I see it more like this:

• If God is the source of everything, then it's not a matter of asking why God should eliminate suffering; it's a matter of asking why God caused the suffering in the first place.
• An omnipotent and omniscient God has no excuse for why his will would not be done. Therefore, if an omnipotent and omnipotent God exists, then everything else that exists can be inferred to be in line with God's will, and is therefore a reflection of God's character.

 

[Trailblazer]

An omnipotent and omniscient being doesn't have to jump through hoops like this to accomplish goals, however. If there is still suffering and the being intends there not to be, that means the being intends there to be suffering (given omnipotence/omniscience).

No, it does not mean that God intends for there to be suffering, it only means God allows the suffering to exist because there is a big difference between intend and allow; intend is intentional (planned) and allow is not intentional (not planned). God's does not have as a goal that human's suffer just because God allows suffering to exist.

Intend

1. have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan.
"the company intends to cut about 4,500 jobs"

2. design or destine (someone or something) for a particular purpose or end.
"this one-roomed cottage was intended to accommodate a family"

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intend+means

Allow

1. give (someone) permission to do something.
"the dissident was allowed to leave the country"

2. give the necessary time or opportunity for.
"he stopped for a moment to allow his eyes to adjust"

https://www.google.com/search?q=allow+means

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it does not mean that God intends for there to be suffering, it only means God allows the suffering to exist because there is a big difference between intend and allow; intend is intentional (planned) and allow is not intentional (not planned). God's does not have as a goal that human's suffer just because God allows suffering to exist.

So God didn't plan his creation or intend it for it to be the way it is?

Suffering is an aspect of God's creation; God's creation either:

• reflects God's intent, in which case, the suffering was intentional, or
• doesn't reflect God's intent, which would call into question his abilities as a designer (and also raise the question of negligence).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Even if God could only prevent some of the suffering that happens today, this would still imply that some of the suffering God created for us now was avoidable, and that God's creation is imperfect.

 

[Trailblazer]

What in incredible myopic and insensitive line.
Another reason why god should end suffering could be for him to just quit being such an @$$hole. Those mysterious ways have appalling consequences outside internet forums.

God does not cause suffering, so God is not to responsible for suffering.
Suffering simply exists because that is the nature of life in a physical world.

Cause
make (something, especially something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cause+meaning

How utterly childish to want God to end suffering just because you don't like it.
Mama, I want chocolate ice cream, not vanilla. Give me chocolate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God does not cause suffering, so God is not to responsible for suffering.
Suffering simply exists because that is the nature of life in a physical world.

Cause
make (something, especially something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cause+meaning

How utterly childish to want God to end suffering just because you don't like it.
Mama, I want chocolate ice cream, not vanilla. Give me chocolate.

Is there anything in "God's creation" that you think God is actually responsible for?

 

[Trailblazer]

In preventing suffering, vaccine researchers obviously robbed us of our "free will"... somehow.

That's why God didn't just stop COVID-19: it is necessary because of "free will."

... or at least it was necessary from late 2019 on. Preventing COVID-19 didn't violate anyone's "free will" before that. And at some point in the future - coincidentally, just as scientists and medical professionals eradicate the disease - God will decide that he can once again prevent further outbreaks without violating anyone's "free will."

But right now, stopping COVID-19 would violate our "free will." This is why God isn't doing it.

Makes perfect sense.

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Nobody chose to get COVID-19. Scientists chose to develop a vaccine to hopefully eliminate it. Stopping COVID-19 would not take away our free will because we did not choose to have COVID-19.

God is not stopping COVID-19 because that is not His responsibility. It is the responsibility of humans to take care of the world and what is in it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see it more like this:

• If God is the source of everything, then it's not a matter of asking why God should eliminate suffering; it's a matter of asking why God caused the suffering in the first place.

God did not cause suffering. Suffering is inherent in life in a physical world.

Cause

make (something, especially something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cause+meaning

• An omnipotent and omniscient God has no excuse for why his will would not be done. Therefore, if an omnipotent and omnipotent God exists, then everything else that exists can be inferred to be in line with God's will, and is therefore a reflection of God's character.

Sorry but no. God does not intend for suffering to exist, God only allows it to exist.

Intend

1. have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan.
"the company intends to cut about 4,500 jobs"

2. design or destine (someone or something) for a particular purpose or end.
"this one-roomed cottage was intended to accommodate a family"

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intend+means

Allow

1. give (someone) permission to do something.
"the dissident was allowed to leave the country"

2. give the necessary time or opportunity for.
"he stopped for a moment to allow his eyes to adjust"

https://www.google.com/search?q=allow+means

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Nobody chose to get COVID-19. Scientists chose to develop a vaccine to hopefully eliminate it. Stopping COVID-19 would not take away our free will because we did not choose to have COVID-19.

I'm glad to hear that you're starting to abandon your ridiculous argument that stopping suffering would rob us of free will.

God is not stopping COVID-19 because that is not His responsibility. It is the responsibility of humans to take care of the world and what is in it.

If God created COVID-19, then all of its effects are God's responsibility.

 

[Trailblazer]

If that is not what benevolence entails, what does it entail if anything at all?

What does it mean to act in accordance with benevolence ? And please do not answer with your personal opinion. If you can't answer, then it is a meaningless word.

Benevolence: the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=benevolence+means

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God did not cause suffering. Suffering is inherent in life in a physical world.

Do you no longer believe that God caused the physical world, then?

Sorry but no. God does not intend for suffering to exist, God only allows it to exist.

If God did not intend for his creation to have the form it does, where do you think God screwed up?

 

[Trailblazer]

So God didn't plan his creation or intend it for it to be the way it is?

Suffering is an aspect of God's creation; God's creation either:

• reflects God's intent, in which case, the suffering was intentional, or
• doesn't reflect God's intent, which would call into question his abilities as a designer (and also raise the question of negligence).

God intended for the creation to be the way it is but God did not intend for suffering to exist even though God knew it would exist. God does not cause suffering. God only created the conditions under which suffering can exist.

If an auto manufacturer makes a car it is was not his intent that people would drive drunk and kill people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God intended for the creation to be the way it is but God did not intend for suffering to exist even though God knew it would exist.

You're contradicting yourself.

Suffering is a feature of creation the way it is. If God intended creation to be the way it is, then God intended suffering.

And if God did not intent for suffering to exist, then at some point, God's creation deviated from God's plan, which would reflect on God's ability to actually execute his plan.

So which is it?

Edit: IOW, was suffering a part of God's original plan?

- if yes, then God intended suffering to exist and this reflects on his character.
- if no, then God failed to execute what he set out to do and this reflects on his ability.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even if God could only prevent some of the suffering that happens today, this would still imply that some of the suffering God created for us now was avoidable, and that God's creation is imperfect.

Only imperfect by your standards.
Baha'is do not believe in Adam and Eve and the Garden where there was once a perfect world free of suffering. That is an fantasy.

God never created this world with the idea that it would be free of suffering. Suffering is inherent in life in a physical world. There will be no physical suffering in the next world (afterlife) because it is a spiritual world, although there might be psychic suffering for people who are distant from God. How much worse it will be for people who hate God. Any suffering in the afterlife will be what people have created in this life because what we take with us is what we were in this life. Since heaven is nearness to God, if you hate God then that will be hell.

People who say, feel and think awful things about God don't realize that they are only hurting themselves. They believe there will be no consequences. All they care about is proving they are right that God is malevolent. May God have mercy on their souls, but there is no guarantee of that. The guarantee is for people who love God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is there anything in "God's creation" that you think God is actually responsible for?

No, not really. God takes on the responsibility of sending His Messengers but that is only out of His love, mercy and compassion for humans. God could dispense with all His creatures in one second if He chose to. Instead He puts up with people ranking on Him day and night. But there will be consequences. How ignorant people are to say God is omnipotent and then believe there will be no consequences for what they say, think, and feel about God. Their Ego rules.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm glad to hear that you're starting to abandon your ridiculous argument that stopping suffering would rob us of free will.

That was never my argument.

If God created COVID-19, then all of its effects are God's responsibility.

God did not create COVID-19 so its effects are not God's responsibility.