Where is God when awful things happen?

[Koldo]

No, his demand is that God be compatible with our understanding of the world. Which as I am sure you are aware, is very limited, and very often wrong.

I am not sure where you are headed with that.
We are often wrong about many things, but to what extent are you going to take it ?
Would you go so far as to say that our understanding that there are/were people suffering in the world is mistaken ?

Why should we then assume that the creator/sustainer of a world that's greater than our ability to comprehend, be, itself, comprehensible to us?

If you were to claim that it has certain attributes then it is, at least in part, comprehensible to us. But I can easily go further than that and point to some very popular scriptures which are widely accepted as being God's words. That alone suffices to make God comprehensible.

 

[blü 2]

I understand that you believe this, but there really is no way for us to verify this proposition.

I don't pretend to prove it, since I can't demonstrate it without first assuming it's true. But there can be no argument between us, since as I pointed out, you share those assumptions.

Once we are removed from the "world", or the "world" is removed from us, any question of either's nature, or existence, becomes unverifiable

What do you mean, removed from the world? A lost weekend on moonshine?

And we don't know anything apart from our subjective means of "knowing".'

Seems to work well enough. We've invented the arch, toilet paper, pancakes and the stapler and put rovers on Mars.

Logically speaking, there is no "objective reality", that we know of.

Really? Are you breathing at the moment? Breathing what? Where does it come from?

 

[Koldo]

what if everything is perfect already, only our warped view of reality is the problem?

I don't like the term 'perfect' because it leads to an even more subjective conversation.
But, more importantly, I would definitely take issue with the concept that it is 'perfect' that a child is being raped right now somewhere. Can anyone really say that with a straight face?

 

[Sanzbir]

They don't have objective existence. They're human value judgments, from our genetics, hence from our evolution.

Certain aspects of morality are also genetic ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, fairness and reciprocity, loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and a sense of self-worth or virtue through self-denial. Other aspects are cultural ─ how to hold your knife and fork, may you fart and if so when, whether a brideprice or a dowry or neither is payable &c.

So such judgments are part of being human, and to pretend otherwise may suit a psychopath, as I said, but not other members of society.

So "human value judgement". So made up nonsense. Nonsense informed by biology, sure, but made-up nonetheless.

You have a faith in an imaginary boogeyman.

There is no evil.

There's a Taoist parable:

There was a farmer whose horse ran away. That evening the neighbors gathered to commiserate with him since this was such bad luck. He said, “Maybe.” The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses, and the neighbors came exclaiming at his good fortune. He said, “Maybe.” And then, the following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg.

Again the neighbors came to offer their sympathy for the misfortune. He said, “Maybe.” The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to seize young men for the army, but because of the broken leg the farmer’s son was rejected. When the neighbors came in to say how fortunately everything had turned out, he said, “Maybe.”

Human value judgement on judging good and evil, fortune and misfortune, are terribly inaccurate. Forgive me if I do not place blind faith in the existence of your made-up, imaginary, delusional gods.

You mistake the belief in good and evil as being rational for it merely being biological. Tribalism, jealousy, outgroup hatred, and gossip are all biological. That doesn't make them rational.

 

[Sanzbir]

There is no 'problem of evil' if good is a matter of opinion.

Correct.

 

[blü 2]

You mistake the belief in good and evil as being rational for it merely being biological.

An odd thing to say when I've just told you it's genetic, the product of evolution.

Tribalism, jealousy, outgroup hatred, and gossip are all biological. That doesn't make them rational.

Nothing is 'rational' in a vacuum ─ only relative to a purpose, a motive, a desire.

And where do purposes, motives, desires, come from? From our evolved biology.

You're old enough to work that out for yourself.

Aren't you?

 

[Akivah]

IOW, it's okay for God to be evil occasionally, because he never promised to be entirely good?

Good and evil don't apply to G-d. Good is defined as doing actions in accordance with G-d's Laws. Evil is defined as doing actions not in accordance to G-d's Laws. G-d's Laws are only applicable to humans. They are nonsensical to attempt to apply them to G-d. G-d wrote them for our benefit, not His.

 

[PureX]

I don't pretend to prove it, since I can't demonstrate it without first assuming it's true.

You know what they say about that word, "***-u-me".

What do you mean, removed from the world?[/QUOTE]Your theory is that "objectivity" is a state of existence apart from human perception and understanding. But apart from human perception and understanding there is no "state of existence". At least not that we could know.

 

[PureX]

I am not sure where you are headed with that.
We are often wrong about many things, but to what extent are you going to take it ?
Would you go so far as to say that our understanding that there are/were people suffering in the world is mistaken ?

No, but it may be that what we perceive as "unacceptable" suffering isn't as we perceive it to be. After all, our perspective is very self-centered and very limited in scope.

If you were to claim that it has certain attributes then it is, at least in part, comprehensible to us.

No, all that would mean is that I THINK I comprehend something, in part, as 'such-n-such'. An assertion that I see no reason for you or anyone else to accept unless you want to.

But I can easily go further than that and point to some very popular scriptures which are widely accepted as being God's words. That alone suffices to make God comprehensible.

This isn't about anyone's "scriptures". It's about YOUR idea of God, and your resultant questions.

 

[blü 2]

Your theory is that "objectivity" is a state of existence apart from human perception and understanding.

Of course. Otherwise scientists wouldn't bother with experiments, they'd just give you a call. You, after all, have this personal intimacy with what we call reality and could have produced satisfactory evidence of the Higgs boson, long before CERN.

But apart from human perception and understanding there is no "state of existence". At least not that we could know.

The world will retain its state of existence when you die, when I die, when everyone dies. Just, no one will be there to notice.

This follows from the same assumptions you and I are making in having this net conversation.

 

[corynski]

There's so much evil garbage that happens every day all over the world and my biggest question is where God is when any of this stuff happens. Does God just not care? If the Abrahamic view of God is true, then he has the ability to make it all stop and to, essentially, remove evil from all of existence, but instead God chooses to let evil run rampant and lets unspeakable things happen to babies, children, the elderly, and good people. Why would any loving and merciful God allow for any wicked thing you can think of to exist in his world? No matter how I look at it, it just doesn't make any sense to me and the question puts me that much closer to being an atheist.

It doesn't make any sense because it's nonsense..... Three times God says he does it all: Is 45:7, Amos 3:6, and Lam 3:38, so there shouldn't be any doubt who is causing everything. Right, go figure, I can't make any sense of it. The Christian God appears to be very fickle, as seen with His treatment of Uzzah at 2Sam 6:6. While engaged in a vain attempt to prevent the falling Ark from hitting the floor, Uzzah touches it, actually he 'reached out and took hold of the Ark', and God smites him smartly...."The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God." So, you're telling me that God wasn't already aware of Uzzah's noble intention? Like I say, I can't make any sense out of it.......and I'm thinking it's

because the 'sense' isn't there to begin with. I mean, would you kill your neighbor who you've just discovered is worshipping the moon?

 

[Koldo]

No, but it may be that what we perceive as "unacceptable" suffering isn't as we perceive it to be. After all, our perspective is very self-centered and very limited in scope.

I have yet to mention the word 'unacceptable'. Where did it come from ? Why have you summoned it ?

No, all that would mean is that I THINK I comprehend something, in part, as 'such-n-such'. An assertion that I see no reason for you or anyone else to accept unless you want to.

I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate ?

This isn't about anyone's "scriptures". It's about YOUR idea of God, and your resultant questions.

When you use the capital 'G', there is a lot of background to it.
This is why I have mentioned the scriptures.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's so much evil garbage that happens every day all over the world and my biggest question is where God is when any of this stuff happens. Does God just not care? If the Abrahamic view of God is true, then he has the ability to make it all stop and to, essentially, remove evil from all of existence, but instead God chooses to let evil run rampant and lets unspeakable things happen to babies, children, the elderly, and good people. Why would any loving and merciful God allow for any wicked thing you can think of to exist in his world? No matter how I look at it, it just doesn't make any sense to me and the question puts me that much closer to being an atheist.

God created a world entirely free of evil, hate,worry, grief, pain, despair of any kind. This world still exists today- for Jellyfish. And hence they experience no happiness, joy, love either.
Would you trade? me neither

 

[Sanzbir]

An odd thing to say when I've just told you it's genetic, the product of evolution.

Your blind faith in good and evil is not a thing you should embrace merely because it is a result of your evolved biology.

Our evolved biology tells us our nations are too big, that we should stick to a group within the bounds of Dunbar's number, and that we should react with hostility and violence to all people outside of our Tribes, because they are the out-group. It tells us that women should not be allowed to hold dangerous jobs, because protecting women from harm is helpful for biological reproduction. Even religion is so present on the world that one must wonder if there is some sort of biological directive to believe for some survival based reason. All of these instincts, from tribalism, to out-group violence, to gender roles are informed by biology, evolution, and genetics.

But for some reason we can all work past those biological details. We can overcome all those things. But the assumption that we can cleanly divide the world into categories of good and bad?? That assumption, for some mysterious reason, is the one sacred thing, the one biological irrationality that we aren't allowed to examine critically or skeptically. We're just supposed to accept on faith that some things are good and others are bad, in absence of all evidence.

How dare one such as I question or doubt the existence of almighty Evil!! What a horrible heathen I am to dare doubt your almighty division!! How dare I see the yin-and-yang as the one shape it is, instead of the two you imagine it to be!!

Now if you personally want to wallow in your own delusional belief in your imaginary gods of good and evil merely because believing in those concepts is biological, you go right ahead!! But don't assert that I need to believe in your gods without evidence merely because we evolved to believe in imaginary, intangible, nonexistent concepts like good and evil, to which there is no consistent, measurable, objectively real, existing metric. None at all.

Feel free to behave in the irrational manner that biology has determined for you. I won't stop you. Just don't act like I'm the one acting irrationally for demanding you prove your gods are real before I believe in them.

I just find it amusing that a "skeptic" just accepts an irrational belief because it was biological in origin. No need to think critically about that thing, eh?? It's good enough if it is biological, even if it is belief in a thing that doesn't exist whatsoever.

Delusion's okay if it's biology I guess!!

Do you also justify tribalism this way?? Out-group hostility?? Societal gender roles?? All those things have roots in biology after all. Do you want us to go back to embracing those things (or, at least, embracing them more than we currently are)?? That's the way evolution made us after all!! No need to, perhaps, consider that the times have changed and that we can continue to evolve out of these beliefs now that they no longer suit us!!

 

[Koldo]

God created a world entirely free of evil, hate,worry, grief, pain, despair of any kind. This world still exists today- for Jellyfish. And hence they experience no happiness, joy, love either.
Would you trade? me neither

And hence... ?
Prove it if you can.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And hence... ?
Prove it if you can.

you believe they do?!

 

[Koldo]

you believe they do?!

It is the reasoning behind the 'hence' I want you to prove.
I want you to prove that 'a world entirely free of evil, hate,worry, grief, pain, despair of any kind' must entail 'no happiness, joy, love'.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is the reasoning behind the 'hence' I want you to prove.
I want you to prove that 'a world entirely free of evil, hate,worry, grief, pain, despair of any kind' must entail 'no happiness, joy, love'.

Good and bad define each other, like left and right. One has no meaning without relation to the other.

So it's not just a practical impossibility but a logical one

 

[Sanzbir]

And hence... ?
Prove it if you can.

Easy to do. Defining and categorizing things is completely and totally necessary on implicitly defining the opposite thing.

You can't define what "warm" is without implicitly defining what "cold", or more specifically "not warm" is.

You can't even really define what a "chair" is without defining "not chair".

Thus the "yin" and "yang", both defined by the definition of the other.

So if you can define an emotional state as a positive, you must also be defining the inverse of that state as a negative at the same time. There is no light without dark, no hot without could, no night without day, and yes, no happy without sad.

 

[Koldo]

Easy to do. Defining and categorizing things is completely and totally necessary on implicitly defining the opposite thing.

You can't define what "warm" is without implicitly defining what "cold", or more specifically "not warm" is.

You can't even really define what a "chair" is without defining "not chair".

Thus the "yin" and "yang", both defined by the definition of the other.

So if you can define an emotional state as a positive, you must also be defining the inverse of that state as a negative at the same time. There is no light without dark, no hot without could, no night without day, and yes, no happy without sad.

Good and bad define each other, like left and right. One has no meaning without relation to the other.

So it's not just a practical impossibility but a logical one

You are both too caught up on the words. It is of no concern to me if the words 'suffering' and 'happiness' were not to exist. Let me use the first example provided here: warm and cold. In a world where there is only one temperature there would be no cold, and no warm, and yet this temperature would be still be experienced nonetheless.

@Guy Threepwood I am still waiting for the proof. That one is no proof.