• 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!

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

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
This is just another false optimization fallacy. For some reason you are suggesting that some arbitrary level of suffering is incompatible with the God the predicted it, explained how it occurs, and who's followers spend a great deal of money, time, and blood rectifying. The logical conclusion of this extraordinarily flawed logic is that any imperfection is incompatible with believe in God. The renders God only allowed to create other equally perfect God's even though that would be redundant. Atheistic logic always produces these irrational conclusions if just left alone for a bit. The fact is the bible and philosophers by the wagon load have shown suffering is perfectly consistent with God and is a necessity given his purpose and our rebellion.
A.) Arbitrary
B.) Humans starving to death

Please choose one.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Actually blasphemy and Apostasy are two different things. Though Apostasy can include a charge of blasphemy. :)


I can't for the life of me - figure out why people still believe in this bloodthirsty God.


*
The amount of "bloodthirsty" God has displayed (even if I attribute what you would blame him with" is dwarfed by many orders of magnitude by what man has done to it's self. This is like a group of death row inmates sitting around discussing the morality of the shoplifters. In fact it is far worse in every aspect. A race that has self imposed an imminent threat of it's own annihilation and has instituted the therapy of vice has no moral credibility.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This is just another false optimization fallacy. For some reason you are suggesting that some arbitrary level of suffering is incompatible with the God the predicted it, explained how it occurs, and who's followers spend a great deal of money, time, and blood rectifying. The logical conclusion of this extraordinarily flawed logic is that any imperfection is incompatible with believe in God. The renders God only allowed to create other equally perfect God's even though that would be redundant. Atheistic logic always produces these irrational conclusions if just left alone for a bit. The fact is the bible and philosophers by the wagon load have shown suffering is perfectly consistent with God and is a necessity given his purpose and our rebellion.

So in your view, a perfect creator can create an imperfect creation? How is this not contradictory?

... or do you not think there's anything wrong with suffering?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
A.) Arbitrary
B.) Humans starving to death

Please choose one.
Don't get the question. I see no reason that would result in a requirement to choose between them. Please explain what semantic trap it is you are trying so hard to lead me into, and maybe we can get this over with without the intermediate waste of time.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Not sure I understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

Ok.

Suppose that God delivers some cancer and he tells only you directly that this is part of the plan. Only, the cancer is given not to you but to someone else very close, someone you love and entirely depends on you. For intance a child.

Even better, God tells you that the plan can be accomplished only if you do not undertake any action whatsoever that might interfere with the plan.

What would you do?

Ciao

- viole
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
Don't get the question. I see no reason that would result in a requirement to choose between them. Please explain what semantic trap it is you are trying so hard to lead me into, and maybe we can get this over with without the intermediate waste of time.

Do you really think that the level of suffering that we see in this world could be considered "arbitrary?" If so... That's definitely the understatement of the year.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The amount of "bloodthirsty" God has displayed (even if I attribute what you would blame him with" is dwarfed by many orders of magnitude by what man has done to it's self. This is like a group of death row inmates sitting around discussing the morality of the shoplifters. In fact it is far worse in every aspect. A race that has self imposed an imminent threat of it's own annihilation and has instituted the therapy of vice has no moral credibility.

Yes, but He is God.

How can He even do the smallest evil (even if proportionally comparable to shoplifting)?

Those inmates are perfectly entitled to discuss the morality of a shoplifter. What they did does not reduce in any way the immorality of the shoplifter, does it?

What is more likely: that God commanded those acts of genocide, or that they have been decided and carried out by men thinking to have God's sanction?

A look on any history book should immediately provide the obvious answer.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
So in your view, a perfect creator can create an imperfect creation? How is this not contradictory?

... or do you not think there's anything wrong with suffering?
Again we are hardly in a moral position to judge but lets pretend we are. Since God's purpose for the universe is to allow the free choice of accepting him or denying him, then it would be perfect. That same God also fixed a time for that purpose to end and his ultimate purpose to be instated. You will not find any suffering, and sickness, not even death in his permanent role for the universe. His temporary purpose requires freewill, this demands that evil be potentially present.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Yes, but He is God.

How can He even do the smallest evil (even if proportionally comparable to shoplifting)?

Those inmates are perfectly entitled to discuss the morality of a shoplifter. What they did does not reduce in any way the immorality of the shoplifter, does it?

What is more likely: that God commanded those acts of genocide, or that they have been decided and carried out by men thinking to have God's sanction?

A look on any history book should immediately provide the obvious answer.

Ciao

- viole
It was exactly this type of comment that forced me to add that it is actually "far far far worse than my analogy because God is not even a little bit evil". Never, ever, equate an analogy with what it represents. That causes far more misunderstandings than most other mistakes in theology. The point was that the gap between a perfect being (or even a good one) and us is so astronomical that our appraisals are meaningless.

God never carried out an act of genocide though he did act against a group for their moral depravity, on a few occasions. Your going to have to be more specific.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Do you really think that the level of suffering that we see in this world could be considered "arbitrary?" If so... That's definitely the understatement of the year.
That has nothing to do with anything. I was talking about an arbitrary level of evil used as proof that no God exists. That is what was expressed, not anything about what level of evil actually exists. God predicted evil, his purpose demands it be potentially allowed for, he gave it's cause, and it's ultimate solution. In what way is the presence of evil disproof of that?

The level of evil (and even it's classification as evil) requires God to explain. Tigers do not plot the destruction of all tigers or antelope on earth. What is so special about man that we and we alone exhibit these level of evil. How can you even classify something as evil without an objective standard by which to distinguish them? How can you have that objective standard without an objective source? For evil to actually exist God must exist to know it as such.
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
That has nothing to do with anything. I was talking about an arbitrary level of evil used as proof that no God exists. That is what was expressed, not anything about what level of evil actually exists. God predicted evil, his purpose demands it be potentially allowed for, he gave it's cause, and it's ultimate solution. In what way is the presence of evil disproof of that?

The level of evil (and even it's classification as evil) requires God to explain. Tigers do not plot the destruction of all tigers or antelope on earth. What is so special about man that we and we alone exhibit these level of evil. How can you even classify something as evil without an objective standard by which to distinguish them? How can you have that objective standard without an objective source? For evil to actually exist God must exist to know it as such.

The problem is... Your God has the ability to prevent said evil, but chooses not to, for whatever reason. If you knew that your neighbors were abusing their children, wouldn't you be morally obligated to help them instead of ignoring it?
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
I'll take your "right" to mean that you agree: an omnipotent God could do anything that wasn't logically contradictory.

And wouldn't you agree that to "make" someone "freely" do something is logically contradictory?

We both agree that God can do anything that's not logically contradictory (right?).

:yes:

This means that when you argue that, for instance, the only way God could've achieved some good result involved making someone die a painful death, this implies that every single way to achieve that result was logically contradictory except for the ones that involved making someone die a painful death... or worse consequences.

Do you get what I mean now?

I get what you mean, I just don't think it is an accurate depiction...if a person's painful death is the ONLY way that God can get his desired result...think about it like this; There are many ways one can die, right? Now out of all of those ways, suppose the only way for you to come to know God is for you to die by the means of ONE of those many ways. No other way will get the job done, just that specific way...God know's this, so he either orders a world (or pre-orders) at which this possibility becomes a reality, so that the person man come to know him.

Funny how God's opinion of what diseases "provides a greater good" follows along exactly with advances in medical technology.

Meaning what?

Why do you think that God decided that scurvy was really useful in the Middle Ages but not so useful today?

I don't have all the answers, just like you don't have all the answers regarding questions about whatever you believe in. All I can say is, according to my belief, God is in sovereign control over every single thing that happens, whether good or bad.

Wrong. You'll have to explain yourself a lot better than that if you want me to accept your argument... or even know what your argument is.

My point is simple; I can think of scenarios at which even the most darkest and troublesome moments of our lives, God could be using it for a greater good..and all I am saying is this COULD be the case...but sometimes, our downfalls comes as a direct result of our negligence, which is why the lung cancer/smoking thing was brought up.

And I'm saying that for an omnipotent God, there can be no such thing as an unfortunate side effect.

He could have achieved his goals while avoiding any consequences he considered undesirable, so everything we experience must have been intentional. When someone suffers or dies, this must be because God wanted the suffering or death for its own sake.

Wrong..because as mentioned previously, there are some cases at which the only way a desired result could be acheived is through experiences that may we may consider troublesome.

... if God is omnipotent. If we drop this assumption, then unintentional side effects become possible.

I find it amazing that you keep assuming that things could have been done better, as if you know things could have been done better...if you know it, doesn't God know it? So apparently maybe your idea of "better" isn't the same as his idea of "better".
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
My point is simple; I can think of scenarios at which even the most darkest and troublesome moments of our lives, God could be using it for a greater good..and all I am saying is this COULD be the case...but sometimes, our downfalls comes as a direct result of our negligence, which is why the lung cancer/smoking thing was brought up.

So you admit don't know for sure? How do you know God isn't doing this out of malice, or simply ignoring is?
 
This is just another false optimization fallacy. For some reason you are suggesting that some arbitrary level of suffering is incompatible with the God the predicted it, explained how it occurs, and who's followers spend a great deal of money, time, and blood rectifying. The logical conclusion of this extraordinarily flawed logic is that any imperfection is incompatible with believe in God. The renders God only allowed to create other equally perfect God's even though that would be redundant. Atheistic logic always produces these irrational conclusions if just left alone for a bit. The fact is the bible and philosophers by the wagon load have shown suffering is perfectly consistent with God and is a necessity given his purpose and our rebellion.

Anyone who believes a 2000 year old fable written by sheep herders who believed in witches, thought the earth was flat, **** on the ground and wiped on their hands calling anyone else's position irrational is a pure unadulterated joke. Also since nobody can see this invisible man in the sky and since no one has ever returned from the grave just what else would you use to prove something's irrational?
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
The problem is... Your God has the ability to prevent said evil, but chooses not to, for whatever reason. If you knew that your neighbors were abusing their children, wouldn't you be morally obligated to help them instead of ignoring it?
That is not a problem. God's will as the Bible describes in great detail is tempered by his purpose temporarily. God cannot perform impossible acts. He cannot make round squares for example. That means he cannot make a world where freewill exists and evil does not. Not to mention that he will soon end this sad tale of woe caused completely by the lack of faith you defend in the first place, and institute an endless state where no evil does occur.

So far you have not demonstrated in the slightest that God and evil are incompatible, especially given purpose. Until you do so there is not even a contention much less an argument. You have simply saddled God with a burden he does not have and cried foul.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Anyone who believes a fable written by sheep herders who believed in witches, thought the earth was flat, **** on the ground and wiped on their hands calling anyone else's position irrational is a pure unadulterated joke. Also since nobody can see this invisible man in the sky and since no one has ever returned from the grave just what else would you use to prove something's irrational?
Since the book written by those sheep herder's is simultaneously the most critiqued and cherished book in history your comments say more about you than people of faith. You have also not shown that witches do not exist (as the bible defines them) nor that a single verse insinuates the earth is flat, much less all of them considered as a single narrative as should be done.

You have basically invented something that does not exist, called it faith, and condemned it. Not much of a foundation to risk your soul on. The stakes are too high for this type of amateurish propaganda based fantasy.

Since visibility is equated with rationality in your mind I guess 99.9% of reality including dark matter, gravity, and the quantum are silly as well. Nice job.

Is there a relevant argument coming at some point. If so lets skip ahead a bit.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Ok.

Suppose that God delivers some cancer and he tells only you directly that this is part of the plan. Only, the cancer is given not to you but to someone else very close, someone you love and entirely depends on you. For intance a child.

Even better, God tells you that the plan can be accomplished only if you do not undertake any action whatsoever that might interfere with the plan.

What would you do?

Ciao

- viole

I would do whatever God wants me to do.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Again we are hardly in a moral position to judge but lets pretend we are. Since God's purpose for the universe is to allow the free choice of accepting him or denying him, then it would be perfect. That same God also fixed a time for that purpose to end and his ultimate purpose to be instated. You will not find any suffering, and sickness, not even death in his permanent role for the universe. His temporary purpose requires freewill, this demands that evil be potentially present.

Wow.. I would almost agree with this, though probably for the wrong reasons. However evil is present isn't it. So who actually creates the evil?

God creates the potential evil? Man manifest the potential to actual?

I would say God creates the perception of God's absence. Because of this we can make choices that appear to be against God's will. God's allows us to suffer the consequences of those choices so we can learn about evil and choose to reject it.

However if/when we choose to reject evil, we still have all of the consequences left to deal with. But, if we accept God through Jesus, then God will wipe the slate clean. You make the commitment to reject evil and accept salvation. You make the commitment and God will send the Holy Spirit to help you keep that commitment.

God allows man the perception of pain and suffering so we can learn about evil. We have to have knowledge of what we are choosing in order to choose.

The temptation of evil is great. Even if one wants to reject it. It's very difficult for man to reject it fully. All God asks for is the commitment from you. You make the commitment, God provides the support.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
So you admit don't know for sure? How do you know God isn't doing this out of malice, or simply ignoring is?

That is why I appeal to the arguments based on the Historicity of Jesus...if Jesus was who he said he was and he did what I believe history tells us he did, then this would corroborate the God of the bible, which is the Christian belief in an all powerful, all loving, supernatural Deity.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
It is ridiculous that you have to come up with such scenarios in an attempt to make your God appear sane.


My mother was an extremely nice person, loved by all. She would give the shirt off her back if someone needed it. She belonged to several help the poor organizations, cooked to feed people that need it, etc.

She died of cancer, over several painful years.


This idea of a God controlling, and allowing, such for a purpose - is just BULL!


*

As I said, I have a loving aunt that died of cancer, and despite her ailment she never lost faith in her God...and for all I know, if your mother was a believer, she is with God right now.
 
Top