Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[F1fan]

For full context this is in response to what I said here:



"Could have done one better" is an American idiom (do you one better!) meaning to upstage, outshine, or surpass something.

When I said "God could have done one better," the context was in terms of "taking care of Hitler" with a stray bullet in WWI. I was stating God could have surpassed that hypothetical in a more grandiose fashion. Sheerly that it would be within God's capability.

This begs the question if God could change the course of future events if it already knows the destiny of its creation.

If God knows the full series of events all though history then it would seem powerless to intervene or make a change. God can't be shocked about what it already knows, and it wouldn't need to change its mind.

 

[F1fan]

So you have decided that God, if existing, having other "wishes" (which is a word you just inserted), just doesnt care if we suffer. Thats it. No other options like you provided some other options?

Thus, you can provide options when you dont like something, but the God you are speaking about doesnt have another option?

Why would an omniscient God need options? If it knows everything through time it can simply create the universe exactly as it wants at the moment of creation. God wouldn't be surprised some evolving events because it already knows it'll happen. Unless God is fallible and changes its mind it has no reason to intervene. The 3 year old child diagnosed with Leukemia and dies soon after her 5th birthday is something God is aware of, and is what it creates despite being omnibenevolent, and sees no reason to intervene (this example is a real family that were clients of mine, btw). For an omniscient God to intervene means it could not see its own future and its own change of mind, and that means its not omniscient.

So if theists are going to use certain terms to define their Gods they had better stick to the definitions.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, the fact that God could have done otherwise does it make what God did deliberate.

Then God creating harmful things in the world is accidental. And God is NOT benevolent because it is not accountable for the accidental things it creates. And it's not omniscient because it couldn't foresee the negative effects of the accidental things that resulted from its creation.

There is no connection whatsoever.
God made it 'possible' for certain things to develop, but God did not deliberately create them.

So you are saying that God could NOT foresee these things developing?

You can't have it both ways. God either knew what would happen or it didn't.

 

[F1fan]

So you have decided that God, if existing, having other "wishes" (which is a word you just inserted), just doesnt care if we suffer. Thats it. No other options like you provided some other options?

Thus, you can provide options when you dont like something, but the God you are speaking about doesnt have another option?

None of us are dealing with actual phenomena called God here. We have no facts. All we have is ancient religious tradition that many still hold onto today. The discussions we have about various concepts of god is based on what some believer somewhere thinks is true. So as we debate the plausibility of these concepts as contrasted with what we observe and know about reality we can create a model of what can work and what just doesn't. Thus far it's highly unlikely any God is concerned about any organism suffering. This puts certain believers in a very difficult position since they believe in a God that does care.

So if there's any sort of alternative explanation where a God can be a bystander to suffering yet still have superior qualities is dependent on a very liberal imagination. The "I want my cake and eat it too" crowd is easy to spot.

 

[Trailblazer]

I respect that, but still, at the end of the day, it's a belief that relies upon a guess. The problem with guessing is that most of the time, our guesses are wrong. That's why many people want concrete data, hard information about things before attempting to draw any conclusions.

From my perspective that God exists it is not a guess but I understand why you feel that way.

Many believers here have started threads questioning atheists why they are non-believers. But most of us have had some measure of religion in their lives, even if only in the sense of how religion pervades throughout the culture in general. But believers go far beyond a simple claim that "God exists." They're claiming much, much more about God than that, and I would consider it fair game to challenge some of the various premises that are offered, regarding God's intentions, God's feelings, God's character and personality, as well as God's overall nature.

Yes, I agree that is fair game to challenge believers who claim to know God’s intentions, God's feelings, God's character and personality, as well as God's overall nature. I don’t claim to know anything about God except “perhaps” some of His attributes and His will for humans in any given age, both of which were revealed by Baha’u’llah, who I believe is the Messenger of God for this age. Baha’u’llah wrote that God’s Essence (intrinsic nature) can never be known, not even by the Messengers of God! I question some of the qualities attributed to God whenever I see a quality for which there is no real evidence, but I don’t question God’s will.

Then what do we need God for? Why should we feel compelled to worship or even acknowledge a God who has ostensibly put us here to fend for ourselves? I don't make any claims as to why we're here or if there's any purpose or plan to it all. I agree that humans should manage their own lives and make their own choices, but why can't people just accept it at face value? Why have a "God" without a shred of hard evidence? No one can possibly know why we're here, or much of anything else, other than that we're here on some kind of planet floating through space.

Why shouldn’t humans fend for themselves? God created us with a brain and free will to choose and the capacity to take care of ourselves and other people and the world we live in. I believe that the ONLY WAY humans can ever know why they are here (the purpose for which they were created) is by what God reveals through the Messengers. Logically speaking, if God created humans (and I don’t mean in created as per the Genesis six days because I believe in evolution, a process God is responsible for), then God would be the one who knows the purpose we were created for. According to Baha’u’lalh….

“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

That is the primary purpose as is also expressed in the Baha'i Short Obligatory Prayer as knowing and worshiping God. However, the other purpose if this life in this material world is spiritual growth, developing our spiritual nature, so our souls will be prepared to ascend to the spiritual world when we die physically. We grow spiritually by living our everyday life and making moral choices.

I've heard people talk about "guardian angels" as if they're a real thing. Many people believe in such things. Many people say things like "God loves you" and "God has a plan for you."

Yes, I know many people believe this, especially Christians, but these are not all Baha’i belief’. Baha’is believe that God loves us but not that we have guardian angels or that God has our lives all mapped out. If God determined what we will do in our lives that would contradict that we have free will to choose our own paths. I believe God can guide us if we are open to that but I don’t believe that God decides who we marry, what career we have, etc. although I know some Christians who believe that.

I would say, if one is claiming that God created the universe, it would imply that God also created the mechanisms and processes by which the universe operates, including the cycle of life on planets which support life (as much as we puny humans can understand it). Humans are mortal; we are not immortal beings. Was this due to God's intention, or was it just a fact of nature that God had nothing to do with?

I believe that the physical body is mortal but the soul is immortal, and after we die our soul passes to the spiritual world and takes on another form, a spiritual body, and sand continues to exist forever.

We can't survive outside of the Earth's atmosphere, not without being in a spaceship with a supply of oxygen, food, and water. If we assume that God designed it that way, then it would imply an intention to keep us, more or less, stuck on this planet, with a constant need for air, water, food, and sleep.

I do not believe that humans were ever intended to live on this planet forever, only until we die physically. After that I believe we pass to the spiritual realm of existence which is a mystery for the most part, although we are told a few things, such as that there are other worlds we will see after we leave this world…

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

That, coupled with the claims from some humans (such as those who wrote the scriptures and/or claim to be messengers) that they have communicated directly with God and have established the parameters and traditions by which most people in our culture perceive God, it has led to the expectation that "God is good." That's what believers often say. Sometimes they even sing songs that say "God is love."

By making and/or maintaining claims that God has visited humans and (at least in one part of the world at certain times in the distant past) actually did manage people's lives and implies that God continues to do so (or will do so...someday), it keeps such expectations alive.

This may not be God's fault, but it may be humans' fault for believing in religion.

Why would it be human’s fault for believing in religion, if it is really true?

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

We don't know that God exists at all. There are medical, scientific explanations as to why children get leukemia - although even they don't have all the answers. I trust that scientists and doctors are working on cures, vaccines, and other treatments for diseases like leukemia, cancer, COVID, and many others. I think society should work to support them and encourage more research for the betterment of humanity. They have come a long way in the past 100 years, especially when compared to the previous 1000 years of medieval medicine. It's troublesome that there are those in society who seem to want to set medicine back, either because of superstition - or for the love of money. But that's a human secular issue that God need not worry about. We'll handle it.

Those are my feelings exactly. Treating and curing diseases is man’s responsibility, not God’s responsibility, and humans have the capacity as has been amply proven on the last 100 years and as a believer I believe that God gave humans that capacity. So why do some atheists expect God to “step in” and cure diseases as if God was a human being like Superman? I consider that downright silly as well as an abdication of human responsibility.

As for God and your assertion of how illogical it is, let's assume there is a God. Let's further assume that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. By assuming that God created the planet, including humans, our life cycle, and the mechanisms and functions by which our bodies operate, then human vulnerability to diseases like leukemia come part of the bargain. Unless you're saying that an all-powerful God made a mistake or caused an accident. Is that logical or illogical?

I do not deny that human diseases were not part of the bargain, as everything in the natural world was created by God so it was all part of the bargain. It is a package deal. All the good things people like such as food, sex, nature, and beautiful scenery are also part of the bargain. Some atheists like to complain about what God did wrong, which is what they don’t like, but they fail to acknowledge all the god things God created that they partake of and enjoy.

But let's just assume that God just set the parameters, while the mechanisms of nature operate within those parameters. That's why God won't control the lottery numbers, the roll of the dice, or whether or not a child contracts leukemia. That's just a matter of luck (good or bad), or probably more in the realm of probabilities. There might be other factors that medical science has discerned, but I get your point that it's still possible that God may just allow some things to take their natural course. So, it's not really his fault that a child gets leukemia, and you say it's illogical to blame God or expect God to make a miracle to save the child (although many religions claim that God does make miracles, which make some wonder why God would ostensibly be playing favorites).

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying and it is nice to see that some nonbelievers actually think logically. Perhaps there are miracles and God is involved. There is no way to ever prove that, but even if God did save some children it must be for a reason only God knows. If we start to look at all the inequity in the world and attribute it to God that would open up a whole new can or worms. Why do some people suffer in life so much more than others, through no fault of their own? I think that is related to fate but that is a big subject.

But the key thing is, God is also said to be all-knowing, so it's implied that he knows a child is dying of leukemia. It's very likely the child's parents have been praying to God, beseeching him to have mercy and save their child. But he ignores their prayer. Praying doesn't make a whit of difference.

I cannot disagree with that, but God cannot save all the children, even if He saves some children, and then what about all the adults who have cancer and horrific diseases, is God supposed to wave a magic wand and cure everyone? Can’t you see how that is unrealistic? God would be taking away the human responsibility to work towards cures. Sure, many people suffer in the meantime but why should this world be free if suffering? I find it ironic that it is not the believers who are in the overwhelming majority thus the ones getting the most of the diseases who are complaining about God’s recalcitrance, it is the atheists who complain about it.

Either way you look at it, I would see that as direct evidence that we're essentially on our own, and we're dealing strictly with the natural world and whatever we can deduce about it through scientific and other means which humans - and only humans - have devised for themselves. No God was needed whatsoever. Which is just as well, since he's not going to do anything anyway - even if he did exist, and even if he could.

I agree we are on our own and no God is needed. God designed it that way!

I simply entertain it as a possibility. Anything is possible. It's possible that God exists. It's possible that God doesn't exist. It's possible that God exists and is "good," and it's possible that God exists and is "evil." It's possible that multiple Gods may exist, and some may be good, some evil, some neutral. God could be totally indifferent. The bottom line is, there's no real way of knowing.

Maybe there is no "good" or "evil" in the universe. Maybe God's laws aren't really God's at all - just the laws of humans who felt they were necessary and practical for the society they were living in.

Sure, anything is possible and there is no way of knowing for certain since we cannot locate God on a GPS tracker and interrogate Him.

But that's what the Problem of Evil seems to be truly addressing. It's not a question of whether or not God actually exists (although that's an important question by itself), but it goes to the true heart of the matter and questions the notion that "God is good" or "God is love."

The expectation is that if God is good and God is love, there would be no suffering in the world, but that omits the possibility that there might be a purpose for suffering even if we don’t like it. Also, if there is another life after this life, we will reap the benefits of the suffering we had to endure in this life because through suffering we grow spiritually, which is the purpose of this earthly life.

It's easy to blame humans for evil, but there are still many humans who are good and demonstrate great acts of love for their fellow human. That's where the only real "good" comes from, not from God. Without humans, there's nothing but cold, heartless wilderness and nature. Neither good nor evil, just indifferent. It's just how it is.

I only blame the evil humans for evil. There are many more good humans than evil ones and they are good because they chose to be good. I agree that these people are where the only real "good" comes from, not from God. Without humans there would be nothing because we are the stewards of the planet and we are entrusted to care for each other. That is a Baha’i belief..

Strictly speaking, you're right. It is illogical to argue that God is evil, but it's equally illogical to argue that God is good or that God is love. Where is the logic in that?

There is not logic in that God is evil or good or that God is love. The belief that God is good and God is love comes from various scriptures and we either believe those or we do not. Logic cannot be used to prove God is good or evil although many people try. To say if God was good God would do x is only a reflection of what we would expect God to do if God was good and I consider it rather arrogant because it is as much as saying “I know” what God should do, as if they know more than God.

No, I don't consider them to be answers, and as I said, no one has any of these answers. I just wish people would stop pretending that they do have all the answers, when in fact, they don't.

I’ll second that!

 

[Trailblazer]

There was purpose to the Nazis murdering 6 million Jews. A purpose does not imply there's a good.

I never said the Holocaust was good.

So there may be a purpose to why God created a world that includes genetic defects that kills children, we can see these defects as not being a good thing. And that means we have questions for the Creator.

You can question the Creator all you want to if you can find Him. Otherwise all you have are what you can imagine or what religions teach about the reasons for suffering. The obvious thing that come to mind is we have physical bodies that are prone to disease. There is no logical reason to think it should have been otherwise. This physical life is not forever and when it ends we continue to exist in a much better world where there are no disease or physical maladies because there is nothing physical in the spiritual world. This is a belief, not a claim.

Well if you are aware of these seriously damning problems why would you decide to believe in this God? If you don't know enough about this God, maybe you shouldn't believe in it.

It is not a problem for me that I am unable to explain why God created everything. Why would I need to know what only God knows? I know something about God, as much as I can know and need to know, but that is not why I believe in God. I believe God exists because of the evidence and I would still believe even if I knew nothing about God.

So you should be unwilling to believe in things you don't know.

I don't believe in things I don't know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, as soon as you share what you believe on a debate forum it is a CLAIM. You are saying these things to us because you claim they are true. It's very simple.

It is a belief, not a claim. I am not asserting anything.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=belief+means

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

So you can admit you might be mistaken about there being any Messengers of God? They might all be frauds, yes?

I admit there are many so-called messengers who are frauds, but I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was one of them. Is it important to you that I admit that? If so, why?

That's a lot of people who believe, and you believe what you do. So what makes them wrong and you right?

The evidence indicates that the Bahai Faith is true, but all those other religious people are not wrong because all major religions are true.

LOL. The Internet: the bastion of truth.

No, just a good source of information and the best was to access it. Not all of it is true, so we have to figure out what is and isn't.

What's an authentic source on the Internet to test the authenticity of ancient texts?

That is for you to research if it is important for you to know.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then God creating harmful things in the world is accidental. And God is NOT benevolent because it is not accountable for the accidental things it creates. And it's not omniscient because it couldn't foresee the negative effects of the accidental things that resulted from its creation.

I am not a Christian. I do not believe that God created everything in six days, but rather things evolved over the course of time. God set the process of evolution in motion, then He walked away and allowed it to unfold. It was not deliberate or accidental.

God knew the effects and just because YOU consider them negative that does not mean they are negative, and this is what flies right over your head. You think you are the ultimate judge of what is good and bad for humans.

So you are saying that God could NOT foresee these things developing?

You can't have it both ways. God either knew what would happen or it didn't.

God knew they would happen but God did not cause them to happen. Foreknowledge does not cause anything to happen.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

“the knowledge of God in the realm of contingency does not produce the forms of the things. On the contrary, it is purified from the past, present and future. It is identical with the reality of the things; it is not the cause of their occurrence........

The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 138-139

 

[Trailblazer]

If I create a bridge that I know will fail, do you disagree that I caused the bridge to fail?

No.

If I know how to create a bridge that will not fail, yet I consciously choose to create the bridge that I know will fail, do you disagree that I chose for the bridge to fail?

No.

But God is not a bridge builder so to try to compare God with a bridge builder is the fallacy of false equivalence.

God created humans good and it was humans who failed to be good, by choosing to be bad. A bridge does not have free will so that is another reason your analogy won't work.

Now if you want to say that God knew there would be genetic diseases and other things that are unrelated to human free will, you can say that but it is only your personal opinion that these things are bad.

 

[syo]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

Gods are deist. They never interact with us. Illnesses have nothing to do with Gods. Enough already.

 

[Meow Mix]

But God is not a bridge builder so to try to compare God with a bridge builder is the fallacy of false equivalence.

God created humans good and it was humans who failed to be good, by choosing to be bad. A bridge does not have free will so that is another reason your analogy won't work.

You have not understood the point of the analogy. Let me just try a different one.

If I can program a world for artificial intelligences, something like The Matrix, and I have the ability to either program it so they don’t get leukemia or the ability to program it so that they do get leukemia (and I know exactly what I’m doing when I choose the latter), would you say that I chose for them to get leukemia?

Now if you want to say that God knew there would be genetic diseases and other things that are unrelated to human free will, you can say that but it is only your personal opinion that these things are bad.

Are you saying you don’t share the opinion that it’s reasonable to say children that are born, suffer horribly, and then die is bad? I’m not denying that this is an opinion; I’m just asking yours?

 

[Meow Mix]

Gods are deist. They never interact with us. Illnesses have nothing to do with Gods. Enough already.

If gods set up the world such that diseases exist, it does have everything to do with the gods that made them possible; and knowingly so. That is the point.

A bridge builder that knowingly builds a faulty bridge that will collapse is still culpable for it even if they have nothing to do with the bridge after they build it. Same principle.

 

[Meow Mix]

So you have decided that God, if existing, having other "wishes" (which is a word you just inserted), just doesnt care if we suffer. Thats it. No other options like you provided some other options?

I did not insert the word “wish,” you did in the post prior. I was speaking in terms of the words you used out of hope it would communicate better.

Also, this is not at all what I said. You asked “Why do we think if God exists it would have the same wishes we do?”

My response was that if God had different wishes in a way that didn’t consider our suffering, then that would simply be saying that God is not omnibenevolent and so the PoE wouldn’t apply. I did not say this was the case, it was an if/then statement to cover the hypothetical you brought up.

Thus, you can provide options when you dont like something, but the God you are speaking about doesnt have another option?

I am very confused at this point as to what exactly you’re asking.

If God is concerned about human suffering, then that would be benevolence. If God is perfectly benevolent — never malevolent — then we would not expect to see physical suffering in the world, but we do, so that’s evidence against God being omnibenevolent.

If God is not concerned with human suffering (and maybe He’s not, these are all if/then statements), then that is simply the same thing as saying God is not benevolent; and thus the PoE does not matter because the PoE does not respond to the possibility of a God that is not benevolent.

That make more sense phrased that way?

 

[Trailblazer]

You have not understood the point of the analogy. Let me just try a different one.

If I can program a world for artificial intelligences, something like The Matrix, and I have the ability to either program it so they don’t get leukemia or the ability to program it so that they do get leukemia (and I know exactly what I’m doing when I choose the latter), would you say that I chose for them to get leukemia?

Who said God has that ability? No, it won't work to say that God is omnipotent and omniscient.
But even if God did have that ability, why should God program it so that children do not get leukemia? And what about all the diseases children and adults get? Why should God eliminate all diseases, because you don't think they are good? Do you know more than God? If so, you would have to be more than omniscient which is logically impossible.

Are you saying you don’t share the opinion that it’s reasonable to say children that are born, suffer horribly, and then die is bad? I’m not denying that this is an opinion; I’m just asking yours?

I am not the one who determines what is good or bad for humans. God determines that.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is concerned about human suffering, then that would be benevolence. If God is perfectly benevolent — never malevolent — then we would not expect to see physical suffering in the world, but we do, so that’s evidence against God being omnibenevolent.

If God is not concerned with human suffering (and maybe He’s not, these are all if/then statements), then that is simply the same thing as saying God is not benevolent;

Sorry but no, because you are operating under the "assumptions" that:

a) God is not concerned with human suffering just because it exists, and
b) The existence of suffering means God is not benevolent, which is just your personal opinion, not a fact.

If suffering is beneficial for humans that means that God is benevolent.

“Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit.

The labourer cuts up the earth with his plough, and from that earth comes the rich and plentiful harvest. The more a man is chastened, the greater is the harvest of spiritual virtues shown forth by him. A soldier is no good General until he has been in the front of the fiercest battle and has received the deepest wounds.” Paris Talks, p. 51

Now please look at the character of Joe Biden who worked his way up to where he is today and has suffered terribly, losing his wife and daughter in a car crash and later losing another child to brain cancer. Compare his character to the character of Donald Trump who never lost any children and whose life was handed to him on a silver platter. Which man is better off?

Joe Biden fathered four children from two marriages. His firstborn daughter, Naomi Christina Biden, died in 1972, in the same car accident as her mother, and his firstborn son, Joseph "Beau" R. Biden III, died in 2015 after a fight with brain cancer.

Family of Joe Biden - Wikipedia

 

[F1fan]

I never said the Holocaust was good.

My point was that you said there's a purpose to many things in what God creates and I noted that the Holocaust had a purpose. So that a God had a purpose to create there world a certain way doesn't imply it's necessarily good just because it's God. Children with leukemia has a purpose?

You can question the Creator all you want to if you can find Him.

LOL, right. We aren't dealing with any actual God or creator. We are dealing with the claims of believers. We are dealing mostly with your claims about what God is. You offer us texts and your beliefs, and no substantive evidence. At best we are debating what is irrational and implausible about any God/creator if it were to exist. Our platform of evidence is what we observe around us.

Otherwise all you have are what you can imagine or what religions teach about the reasons for suffering. The obvious thing that come to mind is we have physical bodies that are prone to disease. There is no logical reason to think it should have been otherwise. This physical life is not forever and when it ends we continue to exist in a much better world where there are no disease or physical maladies because there is nothing physical in the spiritual world. This is a belief, not a claim.

The simplest answer is that we are just animals like any other in a universe that has no conscious awareness of us. Yet we evolved with certain insecurities, a massive fear response mechanism that we don't need, and intelligence with the capacity for abstract thought. Most humans appear to be very confused and tangled in a religious/cultural framework that is both irrational and highly satisfying to the emotions. The believer is caught in a trap between the intellect and the rewards the brain enjoys, yet it lacks the discipline to be aware of this, and do something about it so the mind can function in a more effective way.

It is not a problem for me that I am unable to explain why God created everything. Why would I need to know what only God knows? I know something about God, as much as I can know and need to know, but that is not why I believe in God. I believe God exists because of the evidence and I would still believe even if I knew nothing about God.

You are very certain about certain things that are contradictory and irrational, and try to express humility at the same time. It seems you use uncertainty as a way to escape the problems in your beliefs. You have no problem claiming all sorts of things about God that no mortal would know, but then claim to know very little.

I don't believe in things I don't know.

You believe in things you can't be certain of. If you have knowledge you don't need belief.

All belief is uncertain and subject to change. The quality of the belief is related to the degree of evidence it's based on. The belief in Gods is very weak given the fantastic nature of the concepts, and the evidence being underwhelming. No one believes in a God due to evidence and an objective conclusion. They believe because there is an emotional satisfaction to believe, and much of this is learned behavior.

 

[F1fan]

It is a belief, not a claim. I am not asserting anything.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. belief means - Google Search

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. claim means - Google Search

So how is it not a claim when you STATE what you believe on a debate forum?

I admit there are many so-called messengers who are frauds, but I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was one of them. Is it important to you that I admit that? If so, why?

I asked you before how you determine a fraud from authentic Messenger of God, and you offered no criterion for that. You have no standard to discern Messengers so that casts suspicion on your beliefs.

The evidence indicates that the Bahai Faith is true, but all those other religious people are not wrong because all major religions are true.

Oddly there's no objective thinkers who are impressed.

No, just a good source of information and the best was to access it. Not all of it is true, so we have to figure out what is and isn't.

Skeptics do the best job at this. Atheists are included in this category of thinkers. Evidence for religious concepts are notoriously weak.

That is for you to research if it is important for you to know.

Proper research includes discerning bad sources from credible sources. Reading a website of a religious framework will be rampant with fantastic claims and little to no evidence for them. So I have done quite a bit of research over the years and my realization is that religious websites cannot be trusted at face value.

 

[F1fan]

I am not the one who determines what is good or bad for humans. God determines that.

This is a claim. You state it as if it's factual. Is there evidence for what you claim here?

First you need to demonstrate a God exists outside of human imagination.

Second you have to demonstrate that God deliberately determines what is good and bad for humans.

Can you show facts for any of this that is indisputable?

 

[Trailblazer]

So how is it not a claim when you STATE what you believe on a debate forum?

Do you mean when people engage me in a dialogue and keep asking me to prove that my religion is true?
Do you mean when I explain what my religion is or what it teaches when I am asked?

I asked you before how you determine a fraud from authentic Messenger of God, and you offered no criterion for that. You have no standard to discern Messengers so that casts suspicion on your beliefs.

I told you what my standard was myriad times, but you don't like my standard...That is not my problem.

Oddly there's no objective thinkers who are impressed.

Baha'is objective thinkers were impressed after which time they became Baha'is.
If you really want to know why not many people are impressed you should read this:

#2155 Trailblazer

#2156 Trailblazer

Proper research includes discerning bad sources from credible sources. Reading a website of a religious framework will be rampant with fantastic claims and little to no evidence for them. So I have done quite a bit of research over the years and my realization is that religious websites cannot be trusted at face value.

I never suggested you look at only the religious websites and take them at face value.