religion99
Active Member
I meant "settled issue" , as in this debate between you and me.
-
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
- Thread starter victormeldrew
- Start date
religion99
Active Member
If there is an Almighty God , he will make sure that his followers don't suffer. But , as we experience in day to day lives that many people who follow the commandments of this God seems to suffer and some other people , who don't , are very happy. This proves that there is no Almighty God. This well-known issue against the existence of almighty God is called "problem of suffering" or "problem of evil".
Christianity , Islam and Hinduism are famously known to suffer from this problem because all of them claim the existence of almighty God.
Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
This makes the assumption that there is something wrong with suffering. What is that?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
It's implicit in the word.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
These are the definitions of "suffer" from Merriam-Webster.com that are applicable:
1
a : to submit to or be forced to endure <suffer martyrdom> b : to feel keenly : labor under <suffer thirst>
intransitive verb
1
: to endure death, pain, or distress
2
: to sustain loss or damage
3
: to be subject to disability or handicap
Now, what is it that implies that suffering is wrong?
religion99
Active Member
Infinite can measure Infinite.
Finite knowledge doesn't not have the capacity to know infinite Universe and its constituents.
Infinite knowledge has the capacity to know Infinite Universe and its constituents.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I was not specific: there are second-order infinite things to know, at least. Possibly third or fourth-order infinite, maybe higher. Infinities can't measure things bigger than them, and yes, there is such a thing.
Trust me, I'm a mathematician. As an example, assuming God knows everything, he cannot specify everything. He will always miss at least one thing he knows. Always.
Last edited:
religion99
Active Member
Please define "second-order infinite"
The specification of the Universe has to be described sequentially by the Omniscient , using the letters and words. I agree that it is not possible to specify everything using limited words and letters and in limited time.
But , He can definitely describes the recipe to achieve the Omniscience for the rest of us using those limited words and sentences. That description should be sufficient for us to achieve our target of attaining Omniscience.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
The number of possible selections from the integers. { (0), (1), (2)..., (0,0), (0,1)... (0,0,0), (0,0,1)... etc} Equivalently, the number of real numbers, i.e. the number of ways to add all possible fractions together in all possible ways.
Third-order infinity can be defined as the number of possible different ways to choose sets of real numbers. Fourth-order is similar; the number of ways to choose out of all possible collections of real numbers.
But how can omniscience be achieved without learning everything?
religion99
Active Member
As you have correctly predicted , it is not possible to know infinite world by examining each and everything sequentially and memorizing each of them , because it will take infinite time to do that.
As a matter of fact , it is not possible to know even ONE thing , with all of its attributes , its previous states and its future states ; because even that task will take infinite time to finish.
Hence an Omniscient should know everything in a single instance. Omniscience is infinite knowledge and such kinds of absurdities of "knowing everything in one instance" is possible in the realms of Infinities. You being a Mathematician can easily comprehend that.
Regarding the procedure to attain Omniscience , According to Jain Principles, everybody has to pass through following fourteen stages of spiritual development to achieve Omniscience.
1. the stage of false beliefs with intense attachment and aversion (our current stage)
2. the stage of having tasted the righteousness
3. the stage of fluctuation between the false and right belief
4. the stage of the right belief but no renunciation
5. the stage of the right belief with the partial renunciation
6. the stage of the total renunciation
7. the stage of the total renunciation and no carelessness
8. the stage of an extraordinary efforts
9.the stage of almost passionless state
10. the stage of the subtle greed
11. the stage of the passionless state by the suppression
12. the passionless stage
13.the stage of the omniscient with activities
14. the stage of the omniscient without activities
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
In mathematics, this isn't an issue. The operation is still "do-able", even though it takes an infinite amount of time. See next paragraph on why this doesn't work.
Knowing everything everywhen is identical to knowing everything for an instant. After all, "everything" includes the complete future and past.
However, it's still impossible to know everything, because there is too much. For instance, there is an infinity of prime numbers; Listing them all will take an infinite amount of time. However, "primeness" is only one property of numbers; there are infinitely many others, and an omniscient must be able to take account of all of them. This is impossible, even in infinite time. Why should be obvious: there are two infinities, stacked on top of each other: whether a given number fulfills a property (there are an infinity of numbers) and which of infinite potential properties it is. An omniscient would have to know which of all numbers fitted which of all properties.
Wait, you're learning things? You're not just hacking into the universe and retrieving your infinite knowledge? Then you are limited to the thinkable truths, which are even fewer than the enumerable truths, which are infinitely smaller than all the truths.
religion99
Active Member
Suppose you have infinite number of balls , some Black and some Red. Total Number of Red Balls are finite. Rest all are Black Balls. Suppose you have an infinite number of people at your disposal , whose number is equal to total number of Balls. Is it possible to find out number of Red balls in finite time using these infinite number of people at your disposal?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Of course; there are finitely many red balls. I don't need the infinite people; I can simply count them on my own.
Sandy Whitelinger,
I tried to respond to you earlier today and lo and behold, at that moment, my internet was shut off for non-payment. (Yeah, the girl and I are pretty tight on cash right now!)
Luckily, I saved my response on a temporary .txt file, so as soon as I restore my connection tomorrow I'll post it.
Essentially, the point is that "benevolence" is antagonistic to "malevolence" and malevolence incorporates causing and allowing suffering. Whether or not suffering is "good" or "bad" or "neutral" is entirely irrelevant to the contradiction.
I tried to respond to you earlier today and lo and behold, at that moment, my internet was shut off for non-payment. (Yeah, the girl and I are pretty tight on cash right now!)
Luckily, I saved my response on a temporary .txt file, so as soon as I restore my connection tomorrow I'll post it.
Essentially, the point is that "benevolence" is antagonistic to "malevolence" and malevolence incorporates causing and allowing suffering. Whether or not suffering is "good" or "bad" or "neutral" is entirely irrelevant to the contradiction.
religion99
Active Member
You cannot , because , you have to count all the infinite balls to find out actual number of red balls.
"Hell is other people."
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Ah, I was assuming I knew how many there were. Do the infinite balls presumably have a start?
religion99
Active Member
Even with our limited knowledge , we can stretch our knowledge using logic , reasoning and mathematics to make some predictions about the infinite things. Why , then , an infinite knowledge cannot have the capacity to stretch itself and comprehend all Substances in the Universe , with all of its dimensions , in a single instance? (BTW , this was the argument someone made with me when I myself had doubts about Omniscient)
religion99
Active Member
It doesn't matter. Answer will be same in either case.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
What answer are you expecting?