Suffering and evil

[idea]

Why should a just and loving God eliminate suffering? Nobody can ever answer that question.

Given ambiguity, I choose to have faith in what brings the most peace of mind. For me personally, I find less suffering through chalking it all up to probability and statistics, just nature.

Would you rather:
a) be attacked by your parent/teacher/best friend
Or
b) be attacked by a stranger with mental health issues / desperate circumstances

I choose b. There is less suffering if it isn't personally malicious. There is less suffering if there is no personal God setting it all up.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think for the existence of suffering to work alongside the idea of an omnibenevolent God, you would need to be able to show that suffering is either beneficial to us or unavoidable. It would be difficult to argue that all examples of suffering are beneficial to us but I could certainly see a case for it being unavoidable. However, adding omnipotence and omniscience into the mix makes either option impossible as far as I can see as not all forms of suffering are required for us to get the most out of life.

Firstly, there is nothing in any scriptures that says that God is omnibenevolent, so I don't know where that idea comes from. Omnibenevolent is not in the Bible. According to the Baha'i scriptures, God is benevolent.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.”
Gleanings, p. 278

That means that God is benevolent to whomsoever He chooses, not to everyone. If people don't like the fact that God plays favorites, they do not have to believe in God, since we all have free will to choose.

All suffering might not be beneficial but any logical person could figure out that in a material world such as we live in, all suffering is not avoidable. Because of differing circumstances in people's lives some people are going to suffer more than other people and it is the luck of the draw. The only way to prevent all suffering would be for God to control everything humans do, essentially taking away free choice. Moreover, humans would have to be robots in order to never get ill and suffer diseases.

The fact is though that people suffer needlessly, without any lesson to be learned or personal growth to be had. Somebody burning to death endures agony without any higher purpose to it. The free will argument only goes so far here as people die from accidents or illnesses all the time without any decision making from themselves or others. Would it really interfere with free will for God to prevent volcanic eruptions for example? How about congenital illnesses?

You cannot know if the suffering you say is needless is not for a higher purpose because you do not know the final result of that suffering.

The hundred-dollar question that nobody can answer is why God should prevent suffering. Because God is capable, since God is omnipotent and omniscient, is not an answer to the question. Just because some people don't like suffering is not a reason why God should intervene and prevent it. Such an expectation is childish.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In my opinion, asking why God, nature, or the universe permits or enables suffering, is futile; it’s asking the wrong question, one which appears to lead nowhere and to have no definitive answer, at least not one the modern mind finds it easy to tolerate. In some Christian theologies, this world belongs to Satan and to Caesar, and we can find no justice here, but must wait for the life to come. This is not however, any easy prospect to swallow; the educated modernist, taught to expect solutions in the here and now, instinctively rebels against it. One can easily see why

Anyway, evil exists, even if we don’t want to call it that; so what are we to do about it? The most constructive question in the circumstances in which we find ourselves must surely be, What can I do to help alleviate the suffering of others? Most religions teach that this is a moral duty of the faithful, which may bring us closer to God or our own divine nature.

We may try to help out fellows for selfish reasons, in the hope of a reward in this world or the next; we may do it because it’s the right thing to do; we may do it because we consider it God’s will for us, as most religions teach; we may even do it because we are intrinsically good people. I would say that only God knows our motives, but what matters is our actions, and that the less selfish we are in both our thought and our actions, the closer we draw to His perfect mercy and love.

 

[Trailblazer]

I choose b. There is less suffering if it isn't personally malicious. There is less suffering if there is no personal God setting it all up.

Since I do not believe in a personal God setting it all up, I don't take the suffering personally.

 

[Erebus]

Firstly, there is nothing in any scriptures that says that God is omnibenevolent, so I don't know where that idea comes from. Omnibenevolent is not in the Bible. According to the Baha'i scriptures, God is benevolent.

“No God is there but Him. All creation and its empire are His. He bestoweth His gifts on whom He will, and from whom He will He withholdeth them. He is the Great Giver, the Most Generous, the Benevolent.”
Gleanings, p. 278

That means that God is benevolent to whomsoever He chooses, not to everyone. If people don't like the fact that God plays favorites, they do not have to believe in God, since we all have free will to choose.

Like I said earlier, if God isn't omnibenevolent then the problem of evil/suffering doesn't apply. However, I was responding to what you said here:

There is absolutely no reason to think that if a an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God existed there would be no suffering, since there is no reason to think that God would prevent suffering, just because some people don't like it.

You said there was no reason to think an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God wouldn't allow suffering. I explained why I disagree. If you don't believe that God is omnibenevolent then fair enough but I can only go off what you say here.

All suffering might not be beneficial but any logical person could figure out that in a material world such as we live in, all suffering is not avoidable. Because of differing circumstances in people's lives some people are going to suffer more than other people and it is the luck of the draw. The only way to prevent all suffering would be for God to control everything humans do, essentially taking away free choice. Moreover, humans would have to be robots in order to never get ill and suffer diseases.

This strikes me as handwaving away suffering that doesn't easily fit the idea of a divine plan. I can accept that some forms of suffering could be unavoidable or even beneficial (such as the marathon example I gave earlier) but it's not difficult to find examples where that isn't the case.

God wouldn't have to control everything people do in order to prevent the existence of natural disasters or congenital illnesses. If living things do have to die then there's no reason why their deaths should be painful.

As a side-note, the necessity of suffering takes another hit if somebody believes in a heaven free of suffering. I don't know what your personal beliefs are but an existence without disease or pain is an extremely common motif in heaven concepts.

You cannot know if the suffering you say is needless is not for a higher purpose because you do not know the final result of that suffering.

The hundred-dollar question that nobody can answer is why God should prevent suffering. Because God is capable, since God is omnipotent and omniscient, is not an answer to the question. Just because some people don't like suffering is not a reason why God should intervene and prevent it. Such an expectation is childish

I strongly suspect that you would hold humans to a higher standard than you hold God to here. Unless your argument is that we should do nothing to prevent or alleviate suffering ourselves, why shouldn't we expect an omnipotent, omniscient being to step in?

If the reason is that God just doesn't want to, that God plays favourites or that God sees suffering as a good thing, then describing God as omnibenevolent makes no sense to me. Since you've said that you don't view God as omnibenevolent and that you believe he plays favourites, I'm not sure why you took issue with my initial post?

Just to reiterate, this is what I said:

This is a big reason why I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. Suffering and evil are much more understandable in a universe without that kind of deity.

We evolved in such a way that we're capable of experiencing suffering and of creating moral systems that allow us to describe things as evil. As a result, we're going to experience both over the course of our lives. It's just one of the drawbacks of being human in a universe that absolutely does not view us as special.

You don't believe in that God either so where is our argument coming from?

 

[loverofhumanity]

How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen? Things like birth defects, the death of innocent people, starvation and sickness in developing nations, dictators, etc. I can't believe in a god that doesn't keep these things from happening.

If we could all see the end in the beginning there would be no need for such a question. But since the plight of the innocent is veiled from us we cannot measure how they are compensated in the next world.

In the Baha’i writings there is an answer to this question.


As regards the question of young children and of weak, defenseless souls who are afflicted at the hands of the oppressor, in this a great wisdom is concealed. The question is one of cardinal importance, but briefly it may be stated that in the world to come a mighty recompense awaiteth such souls. Much, indeed, might be said upon this theme, and upon how the afflictions that they bear in life become a cause for them of such an outpouring of Divine mercy and bestowal as is preferable to a hundred thousand earthly comforts and to a world of growth and development in this transitory abode; but, if possible, God willing, all this will be explained to thee in detail and by word of mouth when thou arrivest here."

('Abdu'l-Bahá, from a Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Bahá

 

[Mock Turtle]

And that is why most suffering happens, from natural causes.
The other suffering that comes to man is because of man's inhumanity to man.
Why blame God for either of these, or expect God to fix them? It's not logical.

True. And, personally, natural causes I can accept, but much else I have never done so, and mostly put such things down to our 'human' nature, and as to such this has evolved over time and necessarily has tendencies and habits that can reinforce bad behaviour and/or attitudes to others, and often due to insecurity. Hence why we perhaps have so much selfishness, greed, arrogance, and often hatred.

 

[muhammad_isa]

God wouldn't have to control everything people do in order to prevent the existence of natural disasters or congenital illnesses..

Again, all that's effectively being said here, is that God could have created the universe in a different way.
Perhaps you would like to tell us all how God could have done so much better..

A world in which volcanoes don't exist .. a world in which the weather could not become extreme .. a world in which DNA cannot get damaged etc. etc.

Why not just accept the one we have?
..and accept the fact that we often suffer for no fault of our own.
It's not that simple though .. climate-change that is bringing about extreme weather pattern is of our doing .. as is the transmission of disease.

It is a finite world, and not intended to be permanent.

If living things do have to die then there's no reason why their deaths should be painful..

Fair enough .. Almighty God is Most Merciful.
He has given us intelligence .. never heard of Opium?

 

[Erebus]

Why are you equating mortality with suffering?
It is quite obvious why we suffer from being burnt .. it doesn't follow that God wants us to suffer unnecessarily.

I'm not. I'm using an excruciating death as an example of suffering that serves no purpose. Since a common argument is that suffering is necessary for us to learn and grow, I pointed out that this argument falls apart when the suffering in question marks the end of our life.

All you are doing, is suggesting that God could have made a "better world".
I have no reason to believe that any other than God could have created the universe .. but there are no shortage of people claiming they could do it better.

Right. If a human can point out instances where suffering is needless, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being should have no trouble with it whatsoever. If it's possible to envision a better world, why wouldn't God make it that way in the first place?

Speaking of which...

It's quite simple really. We all have to die.
..and although it might seem that death is a long way off, nobody knows exactly when their death will be.
Any suffering that we might experience here through no fault of our own, will seem like a distant memory, to those that are righteous.

I assume you're talking about heaven here, right? A better world?

So it is possible for God to create something better after all

Only if your idea of an omnibenevolent God is one that would not create an independent mind, that is capable of choosing evil.

An independent mind that is not capable of evil, is one that is not truly independent.

You said yourself that people suffer through no fault of their own. People choosing evil is only one source of suffering for us.

You do raise an interesting point though: What exactly is benevolent about creating beings capable of choosing evil in the first place? Why is our existence necessary for God to be considered omnibenevolent?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I assume you're talking about heaven here, right? A better world?

So it is possible for God to create something better after all

Heaven is a state of being .. we cannot achieve it unless we grow spiritually .. it is not "a place" as such.

What exactly is benevolent about creating beings capable of choosing evil in the first place?

That is the big question .. why has God created mankind, who causes mischief upon the earth?

The only conclusion that I can come to, is that righteousness will prevail over evil .. mankind have qualities that can excel themselves, despite their weaknesses.
..and Almighty God know best.

 

[Colt]

How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen? Things like birth defects, the death of innocent people, starvation and sickness in developing nations, dictators, etc. I can't believe in a god that doesn't keep these things from happening.

IMOP

My theology from the Urantia Book explains it like this: With the gift of free will comes the possibility of evil and sin. On our particular world we are suffering first from the default of a high administrator in the celestial world and then by Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, children must often suffer the consequences of the actions of their parents or in the case of Lucifer, tragic betrayal of the whole world!

But it by design that we are to experience imperfection, certainly not to the extent of the rebellion against God, rather choosing right from wrong.


3:5.5 (51.4) "The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:

3:5.6 (51.5) 1. Is courage—strength of character—desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

3:5.7 (51.6) 2. Is altruism—service of one’s fellows—desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3:5.8 (51.7) 3. Is hope—the grandeur of trust—desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

3:5.9 (51.8) 4. Is faith—the supreme assertion of human thought—desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

3:5.10 (51.9) 5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

3:5.11 (51.10) 6. Is idealism—the approaching concept of the divine—desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

3:5.12 (51.11) 7. Is loyalty—devotion to highest duty—desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

3:5.13 (51.12) 8. Is unselfishness—the spirit of self-forgetfulness—desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

3:5.14 (51.13) 9. Is pleasure—the satisfaction of happiness—desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities." UB 1955

Far more good has come from allowing Lucifer to abuse his free will then had he been summarily stopped!

 

[Erebus]

Heaven is a state of being .. we cannot achieve it unless we grow spiritually .. it is not "a place" as such.

Okay. Do those in a heavenly state of being suffer?

If they do, what purpose does their suffering serve?

If they don't, why not just start people in that state to begin with? If an omnipotent God sets the rules, any restrictions on what can or can't be done would be entirely up to that God to decide. That would very much include the criteria for what's required for spiritual growth. You would still need to contend with why people suffer needlessly if a state of non-suffering is attainable.

That is the big question .. why has God created mankind, who causes mischief upon the earth?

The only conclusion that I can come to, is that righteousness will prevail over evil .. mankind have qualities that can excel themselves, despite their weaknesses.
..and Almighty God know best.

Fair enough, I don't expect you to know for certain why we exist. I can respect the view that sometimes we just have to do the best we can to arrive at what seems like a reasonable conclusion.

My conclusion is that if a creator God does exist, then that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It may possess none, one or two of those qualities but not all three at once.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is not a problem for us monotheists at all.

I had written, "This is really only a problem for monotheists with a tri-omni deity." You're part correct, and so am I. This is only a problem for those who require coherence in their beliefs, meaning that they support one another. The problem of evil is that the ideas of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence lead to a world with no gratuitous suffering, which world we don't live in. Obviously, there are people who don't see a problem there, and thus have no difficulty believing an incoherent metaphysics, but there are many who do, and grapple with the problem as if it were a problem as do all critical thinkers as far back as Epicurus in the 3rd century BC, who, regarding the existence of gratuitous suffering, asked, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

It is only a problem for atheists who have expectations of the deity.

Like I said, it's only a problem for those who require coherence in their belief set. You should know by now that this last comment is incoherent. Its parts contradict one another. There are no more atheists with expectations of gods then there are tri-omni gods or married bachelors all for the same reason - the ideas are incoherent when subjected to reason. They involve mutually exclusive qualities be present in the same sense at the same time, a logical impossibility.

God is not like Superman who rescues humans from suffering.

That would be a god worth respecting. The universe would be better if its indolent god were replaced by one of benevolent action.

Yes, a lot of suffering is because of the laws of nature, but that does not mean there is not a God.

Correct. It only means that there is no tri-omni deity.

Why should a just and loving God eliminate suffering? Nobody can ever answer that question.

Maybe you never hear the answer. I've answered it several times and will again, although I don't expect the answer to have any more impact on you this time than last, and I expect to read your words again sometime soon that nobody can answer your question. That's what just and loving agents do. That's what parent that love their children do for them - they prevent gratuitous suffering where they can and ease it where they must. It's what you do for your cats.

Put yourself in your question above - why should a just and loving pet owner minimize her cats' suffering? Why give it nutritious food, protect them from raptors and coyotes, or take it to the vet to treat an infection? Now put yourself into that question: "Why should a just and loving pet owner eliminate her cats suffering? Nobody can ever answer that question" That's what your question sounds like to me.

The hundred-dollar question that nobody can answer is why God should prevent suffering. Because God is capable, since God is omnipotent and omniscient, is not an answer to the question. Just because some people don't like suffering is not a reason why God should intervene and prevent it. Such an expectation is childish.

That's not the answer given. You left out omnibenevolent. Throw that in, and you have your answer. You're free to create your own theology that leaves out omnibenevolence or any kind of benevolence at all, and you'll restore coherence to your position. There is no reason to expect a deity no longer involved in our universe or unaware that we exist or powerless to help us or indifferent to our needs and desires to prevent suffering. But that's not the theodicy problem any more nor any kind of problem

 

[muhammad_isa]

Okay. Do those in a heavenly state of being suffer?

I do not know .. but one would presume that they do not suffer to the extent that they might here in this life.

If they do, what purpose does their suffering serve?

The same purpose that it does here in this life .. as a warning that something is wrong.

If they don't, why not just start people in that state to begin with?

..it appears as though we all start off with a "clean slate", and are weaned, educated and so forth..
Almighty God has hidden from us what came before our birth ..we are tested in this world as He so desires.

Our souls need to grow, in order to be in "that state" .. yes, God could have created us in "that state", but we would no longer be human .. no longer be of independent mind.
Not everybody will achieve "that state", because they will not spiritually grow.

You would still need to contend with why people suffer needlessly if a state of non-suffering is attainable..

We all know the point of this rhetoric .. it is to sow the seeds of doubt .. to cause human beings to doubt God's existence.
In turn, that leads them away from spiritual growth, and towards failure.
No human being can create a universe.
I put my trust in God completely.

My conclusion is that if a creator God does exist, then that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It may possess none, one or two of those qualities but not all three at once.

..and my conclusion is that God is Greater than all.
He sees all .. He knows all .. and the sequel is for those who
remember Him, and guard against evil.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is quite obvious why we suffer from being burnt .. it doesn't follow that God wants us to suffer unnecessarily.

If we suffer unnecessarily and a god exists that could have prevented that, it means that that god either prefers that suffering exist or is indifferent to it

All you are doing, is suggesting that God could have made a "better world". I have no reason to believe that any other than God could have created the universe .. but there are no shortage of people claiming they could do it better.

Why wouldn't people be able to do better? I could, and I bet you could as well. I bet that you'd like me as your god if I had its powers. Do you suffer from arthritis? Not in my universe you don't.

Only if your idea of an omnibenevolent God is one that would not create an independent mind, that is capable of choosing evil. An independent mind that is not capable of evil, is one that is not truly independent.

Isn't that a requirement of omnibenevolence? Why would we want minds with evil intent? In my universe, you don't have free will. I would know what will bring you happiness, and I have programmed you to want the right things and make good choices. Malice isn't even a possibility in my peaceable kingdom, since it would never occur to any conscious agent to harm another.

Again, all that's effectively being said here, is that God could have created the universe in a different way. Perhaps you would like to tell us all how God could have done so much better..

No free will, and no gratuitous suffering. It's the kind of children I would produce if I could. I would fix their thinking to benevolence, honesty, courage, reliability, etc.. Basically, I'd be infusing them with wisdom at the factory, and that's good thing - not the ability to do otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's what just and loving agents do. That's what parent that love their children do for them - they prevent gratuitous suffering where they can and ease it where they must..

..so why do children complain so much to their parents?
They often feel that their parent expects them to do their homework, when they just want to go and play.

They see doing their homework as suffering, for example.

There is no reason to expect a deity no longer involved in our universe or unaware that we exist or powerless to help us or indifferent to our needs and desires to prevent suffering..

Almighty God can do as He wills .. just don't expect an instant response .. human beings lack patience..
I know that, because I am one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If we suffer unnecessarily and a god exists that could have prevented that, it means that that god either prefers that suffering exist or is indifferent to it..

Almighty God clearly DOES prefer that suffering exists .. otherwise it wouldn't .. duuh.

Why wouldn't people be able to do better? I could, and I bet you could as well..

..only satan would claim that they could make a universe that excels that of Almighty God. It is lies.
Created beings are incapable of creating a fly !

In my universe, you don't have free will. I would know what will bring you happiness, and I have programmed you to want the right things and make good choices..

..but we are not living in such a universe .. we are not all infallible angels.

Both men and angels have responsibility, but angels are not accountable for their actions .. they do the bidding of God,
whereas mankind does his own bidding.
Almighty God knows why He has created us in that manner.
We are not without intelligence .. we can see that there surely is a good reason for it.

Malice isn't even a possibility in my peaceable kingdom, since it would never occur to any conscious agent to harm another.

It sounds like you've eaten too many mushrooms over Christmas

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.so why do children complain so much to their parents?

Free will and a whiny nature when immature. In my universe, they wouldn't complain.

Wouldn't you end that behavior in your children if you could excise the free will that lets them make that choice, if you could push a button on them and they never whined again, just asked reasonable questions in a pleasant tone? Of course you would. So would I. This idea that free will is a gift from a loving God that issues commandments to be obeyed is incoherent. The plain fact is that our minds are inherited from preliterate creatures that had to make decisions to find food, and to escape predation and other danger, and though we do more with our minds than that, we also do that. At the same time, we have higher cognitive (language, reason) and affective centers (conscience) that often send conflicting messages, and a tug-of-war ensues in the mind. Optimally, our better selves make the decisions, as when the beast within wants a cigarette while the higher self is trying to quit. Sometimes, the beast prevails, and we shame it, calling it the sinner and cursing ourselves for being weak.

This would not be happening if I were the deity. There would be only one mind in an individual, only one will resulting from a brilliant reasoning faculty and a benevolent conscience, and the idea of free will would be of no interest to the religions. And I would program that mind to reason impeccably and make honorable moral choices. Why would I want any other output from my children?

This is another problem for the faithful - why didn't their deity make man like that if it could? Instead, they have to argue as if they believe that free will was a gift from God. They argue that it pleases Him, and describe what I have described for optimal minds as being robots because they have only benevolent and intelligent desires. But that's just apologetics for why we don't see this kind of mind in men more often. Some seem to have subdued the beast and become "robots."

They see doing their homework as suffering, for example.

Yes, they do, but so what? Their parents see the benefit of it.

You might say that that applies to gods as well, that they see the benefit of what I'm calling gratuitous suffering, gratuitous here meaning "lacking good reason," but I don't buy that that is the case, that such suffering is beneficial. You might ask how I know that I am correct, and I would answer that I don't, but I need a reason to believe that I am.

Almighty God can do as He wills .. just don't expect an instant response

You're writing to an atheist. I don't expect anything from gods, and of course they can never disappoint if they don't exist. Only those expecting an answer to prayer, for example, can be disappointed by a nonresponse.

human beings lack patience

How long do you recommend waiting for an answer from a god before deciding that none will be coming? For me, it's been decades already, and I'm running out of decades.

Almighty God clearly DOES prefer that suffering exists

Or doesn't exist, or can't prevent it, or doesn't care. That's not a respectable god.

only satan would claim that they could make a universe that excels that of Almighty God.

Really? I just did. Does that make me Satan? I'd take it. I could do a lot of good with those powers as well.

Both men and angels have responsibility, but angels are not accountable for their actions .. they do the bidding of God,

You say that like it's a bad or lesser thing than having the ability and desire to do harm.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This would not be happening if I were the deity..

Yes, they do, but so what? Their parents see the benefit of it..

..and compared to God, you are like an infant..

You're writing to an atheist..

I should know that by now..

 

[Nakosis]

How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen? Things like birth defects, the death of innocent people, starvation and sickness in developing nations, dictators, etc. I can't believe in a god that doesn't keep these things from happening.

I suspect that without suffering we would not know compassion.

Once we gone through and passed the suffering there is only the memory but the compassion remains.