Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[cottage]

Re-read my prior post to you. God didn't create law, but rather law is intrinsic to God's nature. God cannot change who God is in quality or nature.

I’m sorry but your thinking on this is quite wrong. There is no “Law of cause and effect” as you stated in another post. The ‘truth’ of any experiential hypothesis relates only to the present and what has gone before, but not to the future. So we are not justified in believing that the future must be like the past as a law-like certainty. Therefore statements that insist one thing is the cause of another are only contingently true. The only statements that are necessarily true are those referring to tautologies and definitions. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow, since it might not.

Cause and effect (causality) is a contingent principle; so if you’re saying it is intrinsic to God’s nature then you’re saying there is an element of God that is contingent. Even as a disbeliever, a religious sceptic, I can tell you that God is understood to be simple, that is to say he is not composed of parts. The natural world is contingent, composed of parts and subject to change and movement, but its contingent nature means although it exists it need not exist. Plainly none of these things can apply to an immaterial and timeless God – if he exists!

And when we speak of “evil” what we’re really concerned with is suffering. (Although one can, for example, have evil thoughts but if nobody suffers because of them then there isn’t going to be a problem as such.) But if you want to argue that God is the first cause of all causes and their effects, then suffering being an effect is attributable to God. And while the principle of cause and effect is required for life to exist and continue to exist, that is not to say life or cause and effect must imply suffering, since it is not logically impossible for an omnipotent creator to create a world without suffering. In fact, it would be logically absurd to say an omnipotent God couldn’t create a world without suffering.

 

[1robin]

I’m sorry but your thinking on this is quite wrong. There is no “Law of cause and effect” as you stated in another post. The ‘truth’ of any experiential hypothesis relates only to the present and what has gone before, but not to the future. So we are not justified in believing that the future must be like the past as a law-like certainty. Therefore statements that insist one thing is the cause of another are only contingently true. The only statements that are necessarily true are those referring to tautologies and definitions. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow, since it might not.

Cause and effect (causality) is a contingent principle; so if you’re saying it is intrinsic to God’s nature then you’re saying there is an element of God that is contingent. Even as a disbeliever, a religious sceptic, I can tell you that God is understood to be simple, that is to say he is not composed of parts. The natural world is contingent, composed of parts and subject to change and movement, but its contingent nature means although it exists it need not exist. Plainly none of these things can apply to an immaterial and timeless God – if he exists!

And when we speak of “evil” what we’re really concerned with is suffering. (Although one can, for example, have evil thoughts but if nobody suffers because of them then there isn’t going to be a problem as such.) But if you want to argue that God is the first cause of all causes and their effects, then suffering being an effect is attributable to God. And while the principle of cause and effect is required for life to exist and continue to exist, that is not to say life or cause and effect must imply suffering, since it is not logically impossible for an omnipotent creator to create a world without suffering. In fact, it would be logically absurd to say an omnipotent God couldn’t create a world without suffering.

You cannot use a description of law that is derived exclusive of God and then retroactively bind God by that definition. If God is the source of law then by necessity it is not contingent. It is a necessary component of a necessary being nature. The fact it has been true of every observation ever made is indicative of that.

 

[ZenMonkey]

I’m sorry but your thinking on this is quite wrong. There is no “Law of cause and effect” as you stated in another post. The ‘truth’ of any experiential hypothesis relates only to the present and what has gone before, but not to the future. So we are not justified in believing that the future must be like the past as a law-like certainty. Therefore statements that insist one thing is the cause of another are only contingently true. The only statements that are necessarily true are those referring to tautologies and definitions. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow, since it might not.

Cause and effect (causality) is a contingent principle; so if you’re saying it is intrinsic to God’s nature then you’re saying there is an element of God that is contingent. Even as a disbeliever, a religious sceptic, I can tell you that God is understood to be simple, that is to say he is not composed of parts. The natural world is contingent, composed of parts and subject to change and movement, but its contingent nature means although it exists it need not exist. Plainly none of these things can apply to an immaterial and timeless God – if he exists!

And when we speak of “evil” what we’re really concerned with is suffering. (Although one can, for example, have evil thoughts but if nobody suffers because of them then there isn’t going to be a problem as such.) But if you want to argue that God is the first cause of all causes and their effects, then suffering being an effect is attributable to God. And while the principle of cause and effect is required for life to exist and continue to exist, that is not to say life or cause and effect must imply suffering, since it is not logically impossible for an omnipotent creator to create a world without suffering. In fact, it would be logically absurd to say an omnipotent God couldn’t create a world without suffering.

It is illogical to conclude that newly formed beings would know how to live and act perfectly in this world. Without prior knowledge and understanding, we have no way of making informed decisions. It takes knowledge and understanding to know how to live effectively, which is the reason suffering is present in life.


Humans "still" lack enough understanding and/or the moral fiber to not cause suffering ... a broken rule a consequence and that's the gist. God (truth, reality, existence) is law at base core, which is what holds all things together in the cosmos, and what enables life to be on earth.


Even God has limits when it comes to giving life. All things must be subject to the same law (principle) God is subject to. Living creatures cannot be endowed with understanding until they (we) know how existence operates. This can only be achieved by living, learning, and developing through experiential knowledge - be it direct or indirect.


We suffer because we haven't enough understanding about our existence to prevent it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The concept you define as lacking any morals is the exact same concept more associated with moral truth than any other in human history. When you open with that you can expect little additional attention. Only with God are moral edicts true.

Define your God's morals because I have defined them well. Morality is relevant to mankind not to god.
You spoke earlier about moral absolutes yet absolutes do not exist although I know you use circular fallacies to conclude so.

Let's review the Categorical Imperative where absolutes are taken into account. You love absolutes yet they existed before Christianity.

Is it an absolute moral obligation to help others?

If so then whyshould you not help the rapist with his deeds?

If you say God is a source of absolute morality then take into fact how you deemed the acts of genocide by him immoral or do you think killing virgin daughters and genocide are just?

You are either two things.......

An Intellectually dishonest and moral person.... or
A genocidal third party murderer.


Please take your pick and do not beat around the bush as you have only two options

 

[cottage]

You cannot use a description of law that is derived exclusive of God and then retroactively bind God by that definition. If God is the source of law then by necessity it is not contingent. It is a necessary component of a necessary being nature. The fact it has been true of every observation ever made is indicative of that.

If you are referring to causation then the above is demonstrably false, whether or not any God exists. You seem to be confusing the terms “necessity” and “contingency”. If a thing is contingent then it is not logically necessary. Nothing distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction if denied, and the statement A causes B is contingent because it isn’t a necessary truth. For example, without the benefit of experience and experimentation (as per your last sentence), there is no way of telling whether a leaden object placed in water might be buoyant while an object made of cork might sink, and there is no logical contradiction implied by their doing so.

 

[cottage]

It is illogical to conclude that newly formed beings would know how to live and act perfectly in this world. Without prior knowledge and understanding, we have no way of making informed decisions. It takes knowledge and understanding to know how to live effectively, which is the reason suffering is present in life.

You are continuing to make a circular argument despite my pointing out to you that it is incoherent and fallacious. You are saying there must be suffering. Why? In order to be aware of suffering and learn to avoid suffering!! Can you not see how absurd that is? As I’ve explained to another poster there is nothing at all contradictory in an omnipotent being creating a world with no suffering, that is to say a possible world where all people are all good at a basic level and yet can still aspire to achieve an even greater good.

Humans "still" lack enough understanding and/or the moral fiber to not cause suffering ... a broken rule a consequence and that's the gist. God (truth, reality, existence) is law at base core, which is what holds all things together in the cosmos, and what enables life to be on earth.

Humans do not cause infants to suffer and die from Leukaemia; humans do not cause Alzheimer’s and pancreatic cancer; humans did not invent every pathogen, virus, or deadly bacteria; humans do not cause volcanoes to consume entire villages. If there is a God then it can only be because he causes or permits these evils. The contrary position is that he does not and in which case there is no omnipotent Being!

Even God has limits when it comes to giving life. All things must be subject to the same law (principle) God is subject to. Living creatures cannot be endowed with understanding until they (we) know how existence operates. This can only be achieved by living, learning, and developing through experiential knowledge - be it direct or indirect.

The highlighted statement is false. God has no constraints other than what is logically impossible. And life without suffering implies no contradiction and is therefore logically possible.

 

[CG Didymus]

Humans do not cause infants to suffer and die from Leukaemia; humans do not cause Alzheimer’s and pancreatic cancer; humans did not invent every pathogen, virus, or deadly bacteria; humans do not cause volcanoes to consume entire villages. If there is a God then it can only be because he causes or permits these evils. The contrary position is that he does not and in which case there is no omnipotent Being!

Since the Bible says that God finished his work of creating on the 6th day, all those things were already made and ready to be put to work causing sickness, diseases, suffering and death. All put in place because Adam and Eve weren't wise enough or smart enough to know better than to listen to a talking serpent? Who was their teacher? And volcanoes? Maybe prior to the fall there were no volcanoes. When sin was introduced it heated up the Earth's core causing it to spew out hot magma?

 

[ZenMonkey]

You are continuing to make a circular argument despite my pointing out to you that it is incoherent and fallacious. You are saying there must be suffering. Why? In order to be aware of suffering and learn to avoid suffering!! Can you not see how absurd that is? As I’ve explained to another poster there is nothing at all contradictory in an omnipotent being creating a world with no suffering, that is to say a possible world where all people are all good at a basic level and yet can still aspire to achieve an even greater good.

It's the only logical way to view it, cottage. You would expect a new born baby to know not to touch fire, or to run out into traffic, or to not walk off a cliff ... all of which would cause suffering based on lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). It takes knowledge before we can aspire to achieve anything ... even greater good. You present a logical fallacy and base it on what you 'think' God should have been able to do. Without prior knowledge, it is impossible for any newly created being to make informed decisions. It sounds like you'd rather be driven by instinct than to be able to 'think', learn, develop, and grow through understanding and knowledge. Existence can only operate according to the inherent nature and quality already present in existence. This is something you apparently fail to understand about life. Instead you'd rather argue against the premise pretending you know better and could do better than our Creator if you were the one doing the creating.

Humans do not cause infants to suffer and die from Leukaemia; humans do not cause Alzheimer’s and pancreatic cancer; humans did not invent every pathogen, virus, or deadly bacteria; humans do not cause volcanoes to consume entire villages. If there is a God then it can only be because he causes or permits these evils. The contrary position is that he does not and in which case there is no omnipotent Being!

I never said man did. All these things are built into the system and likely occur to protect and preserve that which fosters life in the first place ... the earth. You apparently view death to be a very bad thing. Go figure ... For many, death is simply a new beginning in a much better palce, but then I wouldn't expect you to understand this concept at this juncture in your life.

The highlighted statement is false. God has no constraints other than what is logically impossible. And life without suffering implies no contradiction and is therefore logically possible.

Explain how that might work? The highlighted statement is based on what is intrinsic to God's nature, which I've already explained to be law at base core. Take way law and there would be no life, or suffering, or joy, happiness, etc. There would nothing but chaos.

 

[cottage]

It's the only logical way to view it, cottage. You would expect a new born baby to know not to touch fire, or to run out into traffic, or to not walk off a cliff ... all of which would cause suffering based on lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). It takes knowledge before we can aspire to achieve anything ... even greater good. You present a logical fallacy and base it on what you 'think' God should have been able to do. Without prior knowledge, it is impossible for any newly created being to make informed decisions. It sounds like you'd rather be driven by instinct than to be able to 'think', learn, develop, and grow through understanding and knowledge. Existence can only operate according to the inherent nature and quality already present in existence. This is something you apparently fail to understand about life. Instead you'd rather argue against the premise pretending you know better and could do better than our Creator if you were the one doing the creating.

You are still arguing in a circle: “Existence can only operate according to the inherent nature and quality already present in existence.” Existence can be whatever God’s wills it to be, subject to it being logically possible.
The argument you are making is to say there has to be an element of suffering in order for humans to learn and be aware of life’s pitfalls. But this makes two misleading assumptions:

1) That the world must exist;
2) That the world must exist as it is.

But it is clearly absurd to say an omnipotent God was compelled to create the world (1); and it is self-contradictory say an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God had no option but to create the world we know it (2), i.e. one containing evil and suffering. If God is the omnipotent being then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone.

And note that I am not saying that God should have done this or that thing, as you seem to be implying, and nor do I claim “to know better”. What I am saying is that evil and suffering exist because God (if there is such a being) caused and permitted it to exist. And from which it logically follows that there can be no Creator that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

And incidentally, which “logical fallacy” was it that you were alluding to?

I never said man did. All these things are built into the system and likely occur to protect and preserve that which fosters life in the first place ... the earth. You apparently view death to be a very bad thing. Go figure ... For many, death is simply a new beginning in a much better palce, but then I wouldn't expect you to understand this concept at this juncture in your life.

That is nonsensical. Once again we have that absurd circuit: God had to create a world containing X in order in order to save the world from X. (!) And even death, a coming to the end of finite matter, could be possible without pain and suffering. And a “new beginning” doesn’t alter the fact of the matter, which is that people suffered and continue to suffer; and that fact can never be undone since even God cannot undo what he has already done.

Explain how that might work? The highlighted statement is based on what is intrinsic to God's nature, which I've already explained to be law at base core. Take way law and there would be no life, or suffering, or joy, happiness, etc. There would nothing but chaos.

What Law? (!) God by definition has no limits or constraints beyond what is logically impossible. God cannot be not-God, make a square triangle or change history, but it is within his power to create any logically possible world and therefore he is capable of enabling any of his created creatures to live in harmony with one another. But if it is impossible for a supposedly omnipotent God to do these logically possible things then self-evidently he is not the Supreme Being.

And might I point out that the only things that are intrinsic to God, which is to say logically necessary to his nature, are those things for which it would be self-contradictory to deny: the Creator (which he is by definition); omnipotentence (or sufficiently powerful to bring the world into being); necessarily existent (in order to explain the contingent existence of the world); eternally existent (compatible with necessary existence); and unbodied or immaterial (not a contingent being, since he necessary). Now notice that omnibenevolence or all merciful is not among those things? They are not necessary to the concept, unlike the other metaphysically necessary properties, and thus we can deny them logically and empirically without inviting any contradiction.

 

[ardee2x]

OK, this may sound a little rude. Why do you think God has any decision on the life lived or not lived? If, now according to some, you get one, your life and others become your decision. If I told you that God just drops you off at the bus stop and where you go from there is up to you, what would you do?

 

[cottage]

OK, this may sound a little rude. Why do you think God has any decision on the life lived or not lived? If, now according to some, you get one, your life and others become your decision. If I told you that God just drops you off at the bus stop and where you go from there is up to you, what would you do?

If you've followed my arguments you will see I'm saying that is exactly what he does. And quite clearly a God that 'drops his creation off at the bus stop" has withdrawn all support and benevolence towards his creation.

 

[ZenMonkey]

You are still arguing in a circle: “Existence can only operate according to the inherent nature and quality already present in existence.” Existence can be whatever God’s wills it to be, subject to it being logically possible.
The argument you are making is to say there has to be an element of suffering in order for humans to learn and be aware of life’s pitfalls. But this makes two misleading assumptions:

1) That the world must exist;
2) That the world must exist as it is.

But it is clearly absurd to say an omnipotent God was compelled to create the world (1); and it is self-contradictory say an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God had no option but to create the world we know it (2), i.e. one containing evil and suffering. If God is the omnipotent being then neither suffering nor the world itself exist necessarily but purely by his will alone.

And note that I am not saying that God should have done this or that thing, as you seem to be implying, and nor do I claim “to know better”. What I am saying is that evil and suffering exist because God (if there is such a being) caused and permitted it to exist. And from which it logically follows that there can be no Creator that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

And incidentally, which “logical fallacy” was it that you were alluding to?




That is nonsensical. Once again we have that absurd circuit: God had to create a world containing X in order in order to save the world from X. (!) And even death, a coming to the end of finite matter, could be possible without pain and suffering. And a “new beginning” doesn’t alter the fact of the matter, which is that people suffered and continue to suffer; and that fact can never be undone since even God cannot undo what he has already done.





What Law? (!) God by definition has no limits or constraints beyond what is logically impossible. God cannot be not-God, make a square triangle or change history, but it is within his power to create any logically possible world and therefore he is capable of enabling any of his created creatures to live in harmony with one another. But if it is impossible for a supposedly omnipotent God to do these logically possible things then self-evidently he is not the Supreme Being.

And might I point out that the only things that are intrinsic to God, which is to say logically necessary to his nature, are those things for which it would be self-contradictory to deny: the Creator (which he is by definition); omnipotentence (or sufficiently powerful to bring the world into being); necessarily existent (in order to explain the contingent existence of the world); eternally existent (compatible with necessary existence); and unbodied or immaterial (not a contingent being, since he necessary). Now notice that omnibenevolence or all merciful is not among those things? They are not necessary to the concept, unlike the other metaphysically necessary properties, and thus we can deny them logically and empirically without inviting any contradiction.

Existence - IS - God (again). Everything existing in God is subject to the laws, principles, mechanics, and/or functions inherent to God. God cannot change that which makes God God. You're operating from a false premise ... that God can change himself and the mechanics of God's own existence. It seems you think existence itself should be able to give life to beings not bound by that which God is bound by also. God changing what is intrinsic to God would be like you changing the functions of your heart, liver, kidney, lungs, and brain as an existent being. Your body functions in a manner inherent to your bodies intrinsic quality and nature. The same is true for God. God cannot change that which is intrinsic to God.

 

[CG Didymus]

If you've followed my arguments you will see I'm saying that is exactly what he does. And quite clearly a God that 'drops his creation off at the bus stop" has withdrawn all support and benevolence towards his creation.

What instructions did he leave us with? Adam and Eve? "Do whatever you like, but don't eat the forbidden fruit"? Cain and Abel? "Sacrifice to me, but one of yours I will not accept"? There was some laws given to Noah that was meant for everybody? I never heard of them until recently. 2000 years after creation, he gives the Law to Moses, but then leaves it up to them to interpret it? They do it wrong, so he sends his only son to straighten everything out, and he gives them different commands to follow? And everybody else, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, etc that came up a religion or spiritual laws and codes to live by were wrong? No, there are many buses to take, but only one says, "This way to heaven and eternal life." All others are going straight to hell. Actually, even some marked "Come on aboard. This is God's direct, non-stop line to God. Hi, I'm Jesus your driver." even some of them are the wrong bus and destined for hell. So no, we've got instructions. He hasn't left us alone.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Existence - IS - God (again). Everything existing in God is subject to the laws, principles, mechanics, and functions inherent to God. God cannot change that which makes God God. You're operating from a false premise ... that God can change himself and the mechanics of God's own existence. It seems you think existence itself should be able to birth beings not bound by that which God is bound by also.

What are these laws and principles? It seems like you're skirting around the free will question.

 

[ZenMonkey]

What are these laws and principles? It seems like you're skirting around the free will question.

Cause and effect, motion, gravity - (physics) - and there are also spiritual laws (principles) that apply to us universally also ... such as love, service, justice, forgiveness, etc. There are many more, but this small list should give you an idea of what I'm alluding to. These laws and principles function and operate in God (as God) like our organs operate and function in and as us. Without these laws there would be no order or life at all.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Cause and effect, motion, gravity - (physics) - and there are also spiritual laws (principles) that apply to us universally also ... such as love, service, justice, forgiveness, etc. There are many more, but this small list should give you an idea of what I'm alluding to. These laws and principles function and operate in God like our organs operate and function in us.

Sounds like you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it sticks. And why have you not included the negative functions that operate in us?

 

[ZenMonkey]

Sounds like you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it sticks. And why have you not included the negative functions that operate in us?

All I can tell is to pay attention to the way life operates. What would you consider a negative anyway? There are two sides to every coin. Every law works the same way. There are negatives and positives attached to every law. This is the reason it best to observe the laws inherent to existence. If we want to avoid negative results while living, it would best to understand how these laws affect us as humans ... individually and collectively. Suffering could be eliminated if humans understood and observed the laws inherent to existence. We suffer because we haven't enough understanding about our existence to prevent it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

All I can tell is to pay attention to the way life operates. What would you consider a negative anyway? There are two sides to every coin. Every law works the same way. There are negatives and positives attached to every law. This is the reason it best to observe the laws inherent to existence. If we want to avoid negative results while living, it would best to understand how these laws affect us as humans ... individually and collectively. Suffering could be eliminated if humans understood and observed the laws inherent to existence. We suffer because we haven't enough understanding about our existence to prevent it.

So you don't believe God is omnibenevolent then?



I really think that you're being stubborn and refusing to understand Cottages argument.

 

[cottage]

Existence - IS - God (again). Everything existing in God is subject to the laws, principles, mechanics, and/or functions inherent to God. God cannot change that which makes God God. You're operating from a false premise ... that God can change himself and the mechanics of God's own existence. It seems you think existence itself should be able to give life to beings not bound by that which God is bound by also. God changing what is intrinsic to God would be like you changing the functions of your heart, liver, kidney, lungs, and brain as an existent being. Your body functions in a manner inherent to your bodies intrinsic quality and nature. The same is true for God. God cannot change that which is intrinsic to God.

You’ve not addressed any of the points I’ve made. And you are also attacking a straw man; I am not talking of God changing himself or being what he is not, and in fact I gave you an argument to show that doing so would be contradictory. I also gave an explanation of the concepts and attributes that are metaphysically necessary to God and those that are not, such as omnibenevolence. Forgive me, but you don’t seem to know where you are going with your arguments.

 

[ZenMonkey]

So you don't believe God is omnibenevolent then?



I really think that you're being stubborn and refusing to understand Cottages argument.

He is arguing from a false premise. God is certainly benevolent (well meaning, good, kind) as I understand God, but then our actions have consequences based on that which is intrinsic to God (law). Cottage is trying to make an argument based on what he 'thinks' God 'should' be and not on what God 'is'. At this point, I think you and cottage both are refusing to understand 'my' argument. Cottage seems to think God should be able to change what is inherent to God so that humans are able to not be bound by that which governs our existence in existence. Cottage seems to want absolute freedom to do what he wants without consequence of action. The whole argument is juvenile.


Law exist for a reason. They can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on our observance and understanding or on our lack of understanding and failure to observe. We are capable and fully able to understand how life operates, but then some are content leading haphazard lives and without direction. I feel like I'm arguing with a 2 year old having a tantrum over a cookie he can't have. Laws exist. You observe them or you don't, but there are consequences to be had either way, whether you subjectively view them to be positive or negative. Death (destruction) is the flip side of life (creation). We're going to die, but then creation demands destruction, but that destruction demands new creation. That is just the way it is. That too is a law (principle) inherent to existence.


For example: Why did God create if it is required that something be destroyed through the active process of creating? Why does a painter destroy a dark blank canvas by painting a picture ... bringing the canvas to life with color and form? From creation (life) comes destruction (death). Creation requires sacrifice. The pendulum swings from creation to destruction, and then from destruction to creation again. This cycle is a circular continuum ... without one the other could not be. God creates life, but in the process of creation, something else must be sacrificed and destroyed. I suppose God's benevolence or malevolence is in the eyes of the beholder beholding these truth's about existence. I myself perceive God's will to create to be a benevolent thing, whereas cottage seems to perceive God's will to create to be a malevolent thing. I see God as a master designer with an intent to create a masterpiece. Even so, there are laws inherent to God that dictate the way things must be done. Creation is active, whereas destruction is a passive result of creating.