The Problem of Suffering

[Gentoo]

I understood his post to mean that the suffering of animals is just people's reaction to their situation. The "we" and the "inject" in his post.

Okay, what I get from his post is that nature is going to behave in the way that it's going to behave.. the only way to say that it's "naughty" or "nice" is by introducing ourselves and our biases with those words into nature. In other words, nature is what it is, until we put meaning behind what we see. It has nothing to do with animals not feeling pain, of course they do, it's about how we categorize something that un-categorical.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Okay, what I get from his post is that nature is going to behave in the way that it's going to behave.. the only way to say that it's "naughty" or "nice" is by introducing ourselves and our biases with those words into nature. In other words, nature is what it is, until we put meaning behind what we see. It has nothing to do with animals not feeling pain, of course they do, it's about how we categorize something that un-categorical.

Basically!

In essence, suffering occurs in the individual because we feel pain both emotionally and physically. Nature just is, then becomes either naughty or nice based on our reactions to it.

 

[Meow Mix]

All the natural disasters and stuff are a result of the curse God put upon the ground. God cursed the ground as a result of Adam and Eve's choice - it was a consequence of it, just like death and painful childbirth and toil and strife. It's all in Genesis chapters 1-3.

And this excuses God from the culpability of gross negligence and outright malevolence... how?

There's a clear consequential relationship between knowingly putting a hand on a hot stove and experiencing a burn and pain; but can you explain exactly how it's a consequence (rather than an action that God is culpable for) to have, say, child leukemia for being tricked into eating from a magical tree?

Regardless of the talking snake, rib-woman and magic tree business -- let's say that we take the story figuratively -- it still doesn't make sense that we can absolve God of the culpability or the negligence for causing and/or allowing the immense and egregious forms of suffering we witness in the world around us by downplaying it as some sort of direct cause-effect "consequence."

If the only suffering that existed were getting burned for putting a hand on a hot stove or for having a lie backfire, you might have something of a point; but that reasoning is lost as soon as we recognize the existence of innocent victims and suffering that isn't directly related to a person's actions. No, there is a still a problem there -- I don't think the "consequence" argument is going to work.

But to answer your question, check out Revelation, especially the later chapters, to see how God fixes everything - He will basically restore what is broken, the way someone would restore an old piece of furniture, and bring it to its original and perfect state. So there will be no natural disasters that I know of since they cause pain and suffering and there will be no pain and suffering in the new heaven and new earth after Satan is gone and sinful man has been either expelled or restored, depending on the choice of the individual.

If you give a child a piece of candy after punching them in the face, are you a good person?

 

[Looncall]

Basically!

In essence, suffering occurs in the individual because we feel pain both emotionally and physically. Nature just is, then becomes either naughty or nice based on our reactions to it.

The rabbit being eaten alive by the snake is suffering regardless of anyone's reactions to it.

Why has your god set things up so that that kind of thing happens so very frequently?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The rabbit being eaten alive by the snake is suffering regardless of anyone's reactions to it.

Why has your god set things up so that that kind of thing happens so very frequently?

Where have I mentioned any sort of God?

The rabbit, as the individual in my posts, is suffering because its nervous system is activating to create that experience, thus injecting the indifferent environment with emotion.

 

[DandyAndy]

And this excuses God from the culpability of gross negligence and outright malevolence... how?

There's a clear consequential relationship between knowingly putting a hand on a hot stove and experiencing a burn and pain; but can you explain exactly how it's a consequence (rather than an action that God is culpable for) to have, say, child leukemia for being tricked into eating from a magical tree?

Regardless of the talking snake, rib-woman and magic tree business -- let's say that we take the story figuratively -- it still doesn't make sense that we can absolve God of the culpability or the negligence for causing and/or allowing the immense and egregious forms of suffering we witness in the world around us by downplaying it as some sort of direct cause-effect "consequence."

If the only suffering that existed were getting burned for putting a hand on a hot stove or for having a lie backfire, you might have something of a point; but that reasoning is lost as soon as we recognize the existence of innocent victims and suffering that isn't directly related to a person's actions. No, there is a still a problem there -- I don't think the "consequence" argument is going to work.



If you give a child a piece of candy after punching them in the face, are you a good person?

I wish I knew another way to answer this...I just don't see it as Gods fault, I don't see God being culpable. If He didn't set it up the way it was set up, if there was no choice, there would be no free will and ultimately no love. Without love there would no point in creating the Creation.

It is unfair that a child will be born with a terrible disease, suffer and die at a young age - but I don't see it as Gods fault. I totally understand what you are saying and I understand how it can seem unfair. The only real-world example I can make is second hand smoke - like the worst kind of second hand smoke, the kind that can make someone thousands of years in the future sick - which is a bad example but the best I can come up with now.

I don't think God ever punched anyone in the face so I see that as an unfair statement with a lot of assumption built into it.

 

[Me Myself]

I wish I knew another way to answer this...I just don't see it as Gods fault, I don't see God being culpable. If He didn't set it up the way it was set up, if there was no choice, there would be no free will and ultimately no love. Without love there would no point in creating the Creation.

So he was incapable to create love without suffering.

 

[Meow Mix]

I wish I knew another way to answer this...I just don't see it as Gods fault, I don't see God being culpable. If He didn't set it up the way it was set up, if there was no choice, there would be no free will and ultimately no love. Without love there would no point in creating the Creation.

However, it's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world in which there is free will but without suffering. Thus there remains the question of why there is suffering.

For instance, if you believe that Heaven exists; and that Heaven is a place with free will but without suffering, then you already believe this state of affairs is possible. It seems as though something needs to be explained here; and that God is culpable for any suffering that exists beyond what's required to exist -- and this argument has just broken the waters on the notion that none of the physical suffering is required to exist, which makes God culpable for most or all of it.

In other words, if it's possible for there to exist a state of affairs where agents have free will but in which suffering doesn't occur, then suffering demands an explanation: the creator of the state of affairs in which the suffering exists is culpable for its existence if it's possible for things to be otherwise; and since it is in fact possible for it to be otherwise, God must be culpable. At least in part: surely for things like malaria and leukemia, but even for free actions like murder since God allowed murder to be physically possible by allowing knives to cut organs, for instance.

It is unfair that a child will be born with a terrible disease, suffer and die at a young age - but I don't see it as Gods fault. I totally understand what you are saying and I understand how it can seem unfair. The only real-world example I can make is second hand smoke - like the worst kind of second hand smoke, the kind that can make someone thousands of years in the future sick - which is a bad example but the best I can come up with now.

Have you ever killed a child for disobeying you out of ignorance?

Have you ever killed someone for the actions of their parents' parents?

Would you be a good person if you did either?

If you believe you would be a bad person if you did either, why do you exempt this judgement from God and still say that He is good?

 

[DandyAndy]

So he was incapable to create love without suffering.

Not at all - He was incapable of creating love without the option of suffering/rejection because if there aren't two sides to the love coin (a choice) then it is not love and thus would be illogical. And since God is in the business of love and He is perfect He isn't going to create an imperfect love - our wrong choices are what broke things, not God's original crafting of things.

 

[DandyAndy]

However, it's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world in which there is free will but without suffering. Thus there remains the question of why there is suffering.

How do you know that is possible?

For instance, if you believe that Heaven exists; and that Heaven is a place with free will but without suffering, then you already believe this state of affairs is possible. It seems as though something needs to be explained here; and that God is culpable for any suffering that exists beyond what's required to exist -- and this argument has just broken the waters on the notion that none of the physical suffering is required to exist, which makes God culpable for most or all of it.

Going to heaven is the result of a choice, entering into this world is not a choice. The way this world is (broken) was the result of a choice. You are right to say that God created a perfect place with free will - but the inclusion of free will means that imperfection can be chosen - and if it is chosen, it must be so, because if God swooped in and said 'oh you chose the wrong thing - I'll just change your choice so you choose right' then there is no free will. In Heaven the choice has already been made prior to admittance - that's why only people that choose and follow and trust in Christ go to Heaven - they chose it.

In other words, if it's possible for there to exist a state of affairs where agents have free will but in which suffering doesn't occur, then suffering demands an explanation: the creator of the state of affairs in which the suffering exists is culpable for its existence if it's possible for things to be otherwise; and since it is in fact possible for it to be otherwise, God must be culpable. At least in part: surely for things like malaria and leukemia, but even for free actions like murder since God allowed murder to be physically possible by allowing knives to cut organs, for instance.

I understand if you don't personally accept the 'Adam and Eve chose it and as a result sin became a part of the world' explanation but it is an explanation and it makes sense.

About the whole murder thing, I personally find that logic to be very flawed, because you are taking away personal responsibility for an individuals choice. Yes knives cut organs and sever veins and kill people, but the knife isn't evil and the person that made the knife isn't to blame - the individual that wielded the knife and chose to thrust it into someones chest is the only one to blame. God isn't to blame for making everything - He made it perfect - we are the ones that took it, manipulated it and ruined it. It is our fault.

Have you ever killed a child for disobeying you out of ignorance?

Have you ever killed someone for the actions of their parents' parents?

Would you be a good person if you did either?

If you believe you would be a bad person if you did either, why do you exempt this judgement from God and still say that He is good?

No I am commanded to love others and to not kill others.

No I am commanded to love others and to not kill others and to not judge others.

Define 'good person' that is such a subjective and vague term.

God doesn't judge people as 'good' or 'bad.' We are all guilty, broken and evil - everyone is 'bad.' God is pure 'good' and only the one that is pure 'good' can judge - which is why the Bible states over and over that only God is the judge. The only thing that can make us 'right' with God is Christ.

 

[Meow Mix]

How do you know that is possible?

(This is in response to my statement: "However, it's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world in which there is free will but without suffering. Thus there remains the question of why there is suffering.")

"Possible" means for something to be logically possible. To be possible, all it takes is that some proposition doesn't contradict. I should clarify now that I should have been more specific and said that it's possible for an omnipotent/omniscient being to create a world with free agents but without physical suffering.

Omnipotence is the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Omniscience is the state of directly and absolutely knowing all truths from all falsities. By definition, an omnipotent/omniscient creator can create any possible world He wants: a world where gravity falls up, a world where Pangaea never separated into continents, a world where all of the rocky planets around Sol have human life -- any world which isn't contradictory is possible to create for an omnipotent/omniscient creator-being.

This means that the question of whether or not God could have created a world with free agents yet without physical suffering amounts to the question, "Does the concept of a world with free agents without suffering contradict?" The answer is no, it does not. Even mere mortals have simulated such worlds using video games -- if it's possible for a programmer to simulate something, then it must also be possible for God to actualize that thing into reality.

As a practical example, consider the game Second Life. There is no way to physically suffer within Second Life -- there are no tornadoes that actually destroy peoples' houses and bodies, there are no leukemia kids, there are no murders and rapes. Yet it's abundantly obvious that even so, each avatar on Second Life arguably has free will despite that (disregarding "bots" that people program). How could this be?

Someone might argue that they have free will because the users live in a world where physical suffering is possible, but that's nonsense. Physical suffering isn't required for free will: imagine that God creates an island universe for a group of people but makes the laws of physics such that the people aren't able to be physically harmed. Can they still choose what to do with their day? Can they still choose what to eat, what to wear, who to befriend, what philosophy they want to take on life? Of course they can!

Someone might also argue that using the laws of physics to prevent suffering strips us of free will. There's no problem if God just makes it such that leukemia doesn't happen, but what about when a man tries to stab another man? What if God made it such that physics wouldn't allow it: maybe the knife turns to silly putty, or maybe the inertia of the knife simply gets set to zero upon contact with human skin so that it doesn't cut it? Does that infringe their free will?

Nah. If you think about it, God has already ostensibly set up physics such that you're prohibited from doing some things. You can't turn yourself inside out, or teleport to Pluto with a thought, or walk on the ceiling -- is your free will infringed? Of course not.

So, indeed, it's logically possible for there to exist a world in which there are free agents but without physical suffering. Why doesn't such a world exist if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator-being exists?

Going to heaven is the result of a choice, entering into this world is not a choice. The way this world is (broken) was the result of a choice. You are right to say that God created a perfect place with free will - but the inclusion of free will means that imperfection can be chosen - and if it is chosen, it must be so, because if God swooped in and said 'oh you chose the wrong thing - I'll just change your choice so you choose right' then there is no free will. In Heaven the choice has already been made prior to admittance - that's why only people that choose and follow and trust in Christ go to Heaven - they chose it.

I'm not saying that God would swoop in and force people to "choose right." Doesn't Jesus say that those who sin in the heart have sinned fully? A person in a world where stabbing another man is impossible can still imagine and wish he could stab a man, and so still have moral culpability -- right? The only difference is that in such a world there wouldn't be innocent victims; or if you prefer, victims of crimes committed against them for no fault of their own. Why does God allow that to happen?

Maybe there is a sense of justice if someone does a bad thing or makes a wrong choice and then they personally suffer for it -- and know exactly why they are suffering -- but that sense of justice disappears when you have random rape victims, children born with ravaging genetic diseases, and people who suffer immensely under Nature's wrath. Where is the justice in suffering and not knowing why you're suffering or what you've done to deserve it? Can it even be looked at as a "punishment" under those circumstances, or is it just plain torture? Would you ever punish a child without telling them specifically why they're being punished, and for what?

Doesn't it take an understanding of why one is being punished in order for the punishment to be just? I encourage you to ask people who've had their faces eaten off by leishmaniasis if they know why they've suffered. I encourage you to ask a woman who was in the wrong alley at the wrong time if she knows why she's been raped and murdered. How about those people who live good lives up into their 20's until they learn that they have a rare genetic disorder that prevents them from sleeping -- ever again, until they waste away into psychosis and death? Do you think they have any idea why they're suffering and what they're supposedly attoning for with it?

God, if He is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, can create a world in which beings have free will and in which they never physically suffer. He could at least create a world in which people know why they're suffering such as the child knows why he's being spanked for being caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Innocent victims -- or, if you believe no one is innocent, then victims of suffering that isn't directly related to some action that they've done in a way that they can understand -- should not exist if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists.

Yet, these very things exist. Why? How? The most likely explanation is that one of the premises are wrong: either there is no actual suffering (unlikely), or God is not omnipotent, or God is not omniscient, or God is not wholly good. Of course, I lean towards the idea that such a being in general probably just doesn't exist.

[quote="DandyAndy"About the whole murder thing, I personally find that logic to be very flawed, because you are taking away personal responsibility for an individuals choice. Yes knives cut organs and sever veins and kill people, but the knife isn't evil and the person that made the knife isn't to blame - the individual that wielded the knife and chose to thrust it into someones chest is the only one to blame. God isn't to blame for making everything - He made it perfect - we are the ones that took it, manipulated it and ruined it. It is our fault.[/quote]

Do you believe in lawsuits based on negligence? Let's say that I'm a carpenter that builds your house; except that I cut corners and I leave a gaping hole in your guest room wall, and that somehow you have no choice in this matter and no way to block the hole. Now, a thief comes through that hole in the night and steals all of your possessions -- do I share some of the culpability for this?

That depends. Did I have the ability to plug the hole? I did. Did I have the materials to plug the hole? I did. Could I have, if I so chose to, plug the hole? I could have. Did I understand -- with my knowledge of carpentry and the nature of the neighborhood around -- that deciding not to plug the hole would probably result in your suffering? Yes. Would it be pretty awful if for some reason I knew ahead of time that if I left this hole open, you would definitely be robbed? Of course!

I must be held accountable. I had the power, the means, and the know-how to prevent your suffering. Worse, I knew that you would suffer; and still I did nothing about it. Plugging the hole wouldn't have infringed your freedom, or even the freedom of the would-be thief. I, the carpenter, should be taken to trial and rightfully sued for the damages you ensued thanks to my negligence.

So, what's the difference? God doesn't just create our house, He ostensibly creates our entire world and the laws therein. If He could have plugged in proverbial holes to prevent suffering, yet chose not to -- and worst of all, knew what would happen if He didn't thanks to omniscience -- then He is culpable for all damages that occur as a consequence of that inaction.

It's not possible to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with the existence of physical suffering. One of those premises must be wrong. Either God isn't all-powerful, or isn't all-knowing, or isn't wholly good, or doesn't exist, or suffering doesn't exist -- or this problem must somehow be resolved, and I sure haven't seen a good way in which it could be resolved just yet. However, I'm not closed-minded. Perhaps you have a new take on it?

Edit: In the carpenter example, of course the thief shares some culpability, but the point is that the carpenter is still culpable for the suffering. The carpenter can't be said to be good.

 

[religion99]

"Problem of suffering" can be solved by indifferent God , A God who is omniscient but not omnipotent, one who is neither able nor willing to interfere in anybody else's problems.

 

[Meow Mix]

"Problem of suffering" can be solved by indifferent God , A God who is omniscient but not omnipotent, one who is neither able nor willing to interfere in anybody else's problems.

This is true, but many theists are unwilling to make any concessions of this nature. Why believe in such a being?

Of course, as an atheist, I don't understand why anyone believes in a being with those attributes anyway thanks to the lack of epistemic justification in that belief, but I can at least understand the psychology of wanting such a being to exist.

When it's demonstrated that such a being can't exist, though, even the psychological reason is gone: why believe such a being exists?

 

[religion99]

An Omniscient , but not Omnipotent , Gods along with an uncreated beginning-less and endless Universe should be able to explain the current state of the World. What do you guys think?

 

[Breathe]

An Omniscient , but not Omnipotent , Gods along with an uncreated beginning-less and endless Universe should be able to explain the current state of the World. What do you guys think?

I think it depends upon what you consider as an "uncreated beginning-less and endless universe" - considering we have a good idea that the universe proceeded from the Big Bang, it wouldn't be able to explain that unless that is denied.

Or do you mean "It always has been, and goes in cycles of birth and rebirth"?

 

[idav]

An Omniscient , but not Omnipotent , Gods along with an uncreated beginning-less and endless Universe should be able to explain the current state of the World. What do you guys think?

Knowing anything would mean that in theory one could be very powerful as long as it is possible to know how to be. Even the omniscience would need to be limited in some way, though having to abide by natural laws may be enough of a limitation so it is a good argument. It paints a picture of a god that knows everything, possibly suffering along with everything, but unable to do anything to stop it except in very limited capacities.

 

[Meow Mix]

An Omniscient , but not Omnipotent , Gods along with an uncreated beginning-less and endless Universe should be able to explain the current state of the World. What do you guys think?

In some ways it's more plausible (such as that it escapes the Problem of Evil), but it suffers from other problems: why would such a being exist with those attributes, and not some other attributes? If the being has some arbitrary power rather than maximal power, why -- and why that specific value?

It ends up not explaining anything at all, but rather just pushing the question a step back. Instead of "Why is the world the way it is" we'd just end up with the question "Why is that god the way it is?" It just creates a microcosm, and so explains nothing whatsoever.

There's also the fact that there's still no epistemic justification to believe in such a being, and therefore still not rational to believe in it any more than any other gods.

 

[Acim]

Problem of suffering is solved by realizing it is, at a real level, unreal. And understood more accurately that at the unreal (illusionary) level, that the perceived problem is corrected in at least 2 ways. With illusion of help (can go long ways in perception) and in gently waking being from fundamental error (belief in unreal).

Do you have (any) empathy / compassion for the me that suffered in a night dream last night? If no, then you at least intellectually understand the way this problem is not really a problem. If yes, you have compassion, but do nothing, then you understand the straw man that is ongoing misperception of this argument. If you have compassion and understand you can invoke something into the mind that perceived itself suffering, then you understand how correction does work, unless you think this invocation is, and can only be, a violation of the being's freedom.

 

[religion99]

I can understand confusion faced by everybody in accepting an omniscient and non-omnipotent God. These two attributes of God almost act as two giant forces acting in opposite directions to each other , canceling out each other . leaving no trace behind of its existence.

According to Jainism , last Omniscient walked on the earth about 2,500 years ago. He made some predictions which turned out to be true:

1. There are micro-orgasms in Yogurt.
2. There will be decline of Jainism.
3. Plants are living beings.
4. It is possible to have massless particles.

 

[religion99]

He also predicted that there will be no Omniscient on the Earth for next 20,000 years and after that King Shrenika (Bimbisara) will reborn on the Earth and eventually attend the Omniscience.