• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Problem of Suffering

religion99

religion99

Active Member
idav said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not even limited capacity, according to Jain scriptures. One of the Attribute of Jain Gods is that they have zero capacity to do anything to anybody except themselves. If they have any capacity , they cannot be Omniscient according to the Scriptures and hence cannot be called Gods.
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Meow Mix said:
It's not that it's wrong per se (though I believe inflicting it to be morally wrong, that isn't even the point of the logical problem), it's that it contradicts with the notion of benevolence to create or allow it.
Click to expand...
Only if it's wrong.

Is it bad?
 
Last edited:
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
sandy whitelinger said:
Only if it's wrong.

Is it bad?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as it still conflicts with the nature of benevolence. Let's say that causing suffering is hypothetically morally neutral (I don't believe it is, but go with it for a moment) but still contradicts with the notion of being benevolent (since causing suffering is by definition antagonistic to benevolence: it's malevolent). The question of whether or not it's "wrong" is moot: there is still a contradiction, and it would still be impossible for a being to both cause (or negligently allow) suffering and be omnibenevolent.
 
DandyAndy

DandyAndy

Active Member
Meow Mix said:
(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!

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?



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.
Click to expand...

You wrote a TON of stuff and it was all very well said and very civil - that's a rare thing to encounter and I appreciate it.

So if there could be a place without suffering and with freewill, what would the people in that world be like and what would life be like? The way I see it, it seems like everyone would have to adhere to a very strict set of guidelines and would effectively have a VERY limited palate of choices, if any choices at all. They wouldn't be able to choose how to act, they would be forced to act a specific way - I think this would apply to everything, including love.

Now if there is freewill, meaning the choice to choose between two or more options, then we will arrive at the choice of good and bad, obedience and sin. Do I do the good thing or the bad thing? Do I cut the apple into small pieces with my knife or do I stab someone with it? Well, if there are no consequences to me stabbing a man, it isn't really 'bad,' is it? Why is it wrong to stab a person? Because it will hurt them and you are probably stabbing them out of a negative feeling of hatred or something like that, right? The negative consequences caused by your action are *normally* what make an action wrong/bad.

If a man chooses to do bad or wrong, there are naturally consequences. As you said there are laws that govern us that we cannot break. I cannot stab a man in the heart and he not bleed or be hurt - sure God could have made a world where I stab him and candy comes out - but with no negative or positive consequences for wrong or right actions, there really aren't any right or wrong and thus there really isn't any freewill, or love - we would just be plants or rocks. That would be no fun.

But I think we were more concerned with innocent people. So the child that gets sick as a baby and suffers and dies. It is unfair, but it is a result of the world we live in, that's the way the world works because of someones choice and the consequences of that choice. If a drunk driver swerves into the other lane and kills a family bringing their new born home for the first time and that child dies, that is VERY unfair, but because there are right and wrong actions, there are good and bad consequences. But when we talk about a disease - something that just happens regardless of someones individual choice - it gets harder and the only answer I have is that the Creation is corrupted by sin/evil. Yes it stinks because we are a TON of generations away from Adam and Eve and we like to think that we never would eat the fruit. But, that's the way it shakes out, that's how this whole thing works.

I know this isn't the most satisfying answer but I just cannot see how it is Gods fault. God made everything perfect. He gave Adam and Eve a TON of cool stuff, great food, freedom, beauty, etc. and presented them with only 1 wrong choice. He clearly told them not to make the wrong choice. He told them what would happen if they did make the wrong choice. He told them not to do it. (I don't buy that they 'didn't understand choice' - they didn't understand right from wrong, you don't need to understand right and wrong to understand choice).

God made it plain - DON'T EAT THE FRUIT. He walked and talked with them and hung out with them and told them they would live forever and rule over the Earth and gave them so much good stuff. They chose to throw it away. They turned away from it. For love, free will and I would argue meaningful life to exist, God had to give them a choice. He made that choice about as lopsided as it could be but they still made the wrong choice. They made the choice. They are to blame.

I may go back and respond point to point but I don't have the time or patience to do so right now - and I had to delete half of your quote so this would post - sorry.
 
S

Shades-o-Blue

Member
victormeldrew said:
I have yet to hear a sensible explanation from theists for the existence of suffering in a world created by a benevolent, omnipotent God. Their explanations mostly come in the following categories:

#1 The purpose of suffering is a mystery, known only to God. He will reveal all at the end of the world. (A useless dodging of the question.)

#2 God punishes sinful people. This sin may be original and general (Adam's), or specific, i.e. individuals who are suffering have been sinful. A variation is that individuals suffer in this life for sins they committed in a previous life. (This conveniently accounts for the suffering of apparently good people.)

#3 God causes suffering to bring people to faith, or strengthen their faith, or test their faith (e.g. Job).

(I have been told by religious people who have suffered that God helped them through their suffering, but they deny that God caused their suffering, while simultaneously believing explanation #2.)

#4 God can answer prayers to relieve suffering, and would rather do this than prevent the original cause of the suffering. His reasons for doing this are not for us to question (see reason #1), but might be reason #3.

#5 The Devil causes suffering, and God allows this, because he wants us to choose between good and evil. (A variation on #2 and #3) The world would be a boring place, theists say, with no power to choose and no reason for faith. (Does that mean Heaven will be boring, for eternity?)

These sound like made-up stories to me, but then I do not have to start from the position that God causes or allows suffering, because I don't believe in God. I don't have to go through the philosophical gymnastics of designing bizarre models of the solar system to fit my preconceived notion that the Earth is at the center (as befits God's perfect plan).

This video presents a view of the nature of the Universe, and our place in it, based on the current evidence, instead of starting with the preconception of divine benevolent creation.

God says sorry. - YouTube

But if any theist can provide me with an alternative plausible reason for the existence of suffering, my mind is open to receive it.

Victor
Click to expand...
I prefer #6 God inflicts our bodies so that he may purify our souls.
 
S

Shades-o-Blue

Member
victormeldrew said:
How does this work?

(And is it a variation of #3?)

Victor
Click to expand...
First of all, our physical state is only temporary. Knowing this, the Lord can inflict all kinds of maladies on our bodies, if He deems it necessary, because of the resurrection (will go into that another time if you wish).

Second, we are all sons and daughters of God. In what we call the pre-earth life, we each sat with our Eternal Father and mapped out our lives, together. We knew things would not be easy & pain free, because if they were, life on earth would be pointless. The purpose is to meet challenges here on earth and prove our worthiness to become like our Father in Heaven.

More later....
 
Last edited:
victormeldrew

victormeldrew

Member
Shades-o-Blue said:
First of all, our physical state is only temporary. Knowing this, the Lord can inflict all kinds of maladies on our bodies, if He deems it necessary, because of the resurrection (will go into that another time if you wish).

Second, we are all sons and daughters of God. In what we call the pre-earth life, we each sat with our Eternal Father and mapped out our lives, together. We knew things would not be easy & pain free, because if they were, life on earth would be pointless. The purpose is to meet challenges here on earth and prove our worthiness to become like our Father in Heaven.

More later....
Click to expand...

Why would the Lord want to inflict all kinds of maladies on me? Why on me, and not on my neighbour?

I don't remember having a pre-earth life where I mapped out my life with the Eternal Father. Why not let me go straight to Heaven where I won't have to meet any challenges, but my life will have the point and purpose of worshipping Him forever?

And if my life is mapped out, what difference can I make to anything? I thought the point of my life on Earth was to make decisions, to meet challenges and prove my worthiness.

Victor
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Meow Mix said:
It doesn't matter if it's wrong as long as it still conflicts with the nature of benevolence. Let's say that causing suffering is hypothetically morally neutral (I don't believe it is, but go with it for a moment) but still contradicts with the notion of being benevolent (since causing suffering is by definition antagonistic to benevolence: it's malevolent). The question of whether or not it's "wrong" is moot: there is still a contradiction, and it would still be impossible for a being to both cause (or negligently allow) suffering and be omnibenevolent.
Click to expand...
You seem to be contradicting yourself when you state that suffering is not wrong yet call it malevolent. Are you saying suffering is bad?

If benevolence is the disposition to do good then the "not goodness" of suffering needs to be shown.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
sandy whitelinger said:
You seem to be contradicting yourself when you state that suffering is not wrong yet call it malevolent. Are you saying suffering is bad?

If benevolence is the disposition to do good then the "not goodness" of suffering needs to be shown.
Click to expand...

I'm not contradicting myself; the definition of malevolence includes harmful or injurious as synonyms. Yes, evil is also part of the definition in a context, but that's irrelevant: it's still a malevolent action to cause harm by definition of what "malevolence" is even if for whatever reason we're existing in la la land where causing harm isn't evil. It's not the "evil" that makes it malevolent, it's the causing harm.

Besides, are you playing Devil's Advocate here or are you really questioning whether or not causing suffering is morally permissable? I mean, we could discuss that if you'd like, but it's really irrelevant because the contradiction still exists: the word "omnibenevolence" implies being never malevolent, and the word malevolence includes causing harm or suffering regardless of any moral implications of suffering.
 
religion99

religion99

Active Member
An "Indifferent God" is as much plausible explanation as "No God" to the "Problem of Suffering". "Almighty God" , "Indifferent God" and "No God" are three mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities about the God. Unfortunately, the idea of "Indifferent God" is never put in front of the people in search of the solution to the "problem of suffering" because population of the world who believe in "Indifferent God" is in severe minority compared to Atheists.
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
religion99 said:
An "Indifferent God" is as much plausible explanation as "No God" to the "Problem of Suffering". "Almighty God" , "Indifferent God" and "No God" are three mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities about the God. Unfortunately, the idea of "Indifferent God" is never put in front of the people in search of the solution to the "problem of suffering" because population of the world who believe in "Indifferent God" is in severe minority compared to Atheists.
Click to expand...

It's true that a non-benevolent god doesn't suffer from the Problem of Evil, but I still don't see the point in believing in such a being without evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top