• 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 doesn't God stop evil, pain and suffering?

Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
DarkSun said:
Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, maybe He is the only person who really knows why that person had to die... as cruel as it may be to the people involved.
Click to expand...
Ah, the fourth possible solution to theodicy: mystery. This basically says "Why does God allow evil, pain and suffering?.....I dunno.":shrug:

The problem I have with this solution should be obvious to anyone who has read my posts. Mysteries are not valid arguments and "I don't know" is not an answser.
 
S

Sententia

Well-Known Member
Bouncing Ball said:
God is dead. Technically you would still be the one who is right, but you would not have your thoughts exactly.
In fact, maybe that would be more that you are both right. At that moment there is no God, so BalanceFx would be right, yet you answered question with God wich would be right. Then again, I don't think that BalanceFx thinks there ever was a God, so ..... hmmm...
Click to expand...

No gods. If there is such a thing as a god I would imagine it so different that our convential definition is meaningless. Most gods are complete and obvious fabrication as are many of the concepts of god. Thats my opinion.

As I mentioned infinite regression prevents most gods from existing. (And most concepts want to tack on intelligence to their god hehe) Many gods are said to be omnibenevolent. Yet evil exists and everything is said to be derived from god so a characterization of god having omnibenevolence is just devoid of logic. (There are some interesting rationalizations though)

Some concepts depend on personal revelation, personal revelation which is more wishful thinking then reality. Its also interesting to note that many people claimed to have experienced something but many do not agree with each other. (Much like the main doctrines that form the major religions.) Many were born into their religion and grow up with it without ever really exploring any other religion and just think they got lucky. :shrug:

I'm not trying to derail the thread though. I would say that yes I don't believe there is a god now or ever was. If I were to consider a god it would not be a personal god of any kind or based on the ramblings of prophets or ancient texts from the fiction section. I have entertained that some of the texts read were actually believed by the people who wrote them. People used to believe a lot of crazy nonsense and still do today. Men are missing a rib, the heart is the center of emotion, an arabian prince needs you to move a million dollars for him, psychics and ghosts are real, ufo abductions have happened and continue to happen, angels and demons are real, there is gold at the end of the rainbow... blah blah blah. Nonsense.

God can't stop suffering because of the same reason that mighty mouse can't.
 
3.14

3.14

Well-Known Member
maby because he relizes that a world without suffering is a boring world and that the people would soon start suffering from boredom creating a paradox?
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
Beaudreaux said:
Most monotheistic religions (certainly Christianity and Judaism) say three things about God:
  • He's omniscient and omnipotent (there is nothing he does not know or cannot do)
  • He's omnibenevolent (he is all-loving)
  • Evil and pain and suffering are real in the world
But one look at the world around us shows us that these three things cannot all be true. Consider:
  • The day after Christmas in 2004 an earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused a series of massive Tsunami that killed over a quarter million people. Parents who could not hang on to their children watched as they were drowned in the flood.
  • A year later in 2005, a hurricane ripped into the southeastern U.S. killing over 1,800 people. In New Orleans, homeowners retreated to their attics to escape the rising flood waters, only to huddle together in fear as the water rose and they watched each other drown.
  • Around 10,000 BCE, a virus came into the world that killed 20% - 60% of the people it infected (except for children, where the mortality rate was 80%). This was not a quick death, but often took days of being covered in painful pustules on the skin and in the throat. In the 18th century, it killed 400,000 people per year and was responsibile for a third of all blindness. During the 20th century it is estimated that this virus killed 3 - 5 hundred million people.
  • Too many more like this to list them all...
If the Christian God exists, he knew about the Asian Tsunami, Hurrican Katrina and Smallpox before they occured, yet he did nothing to prevent them from happening. Why not?

Imagine the person you love most in the world. Now imagine that person in a hospital bed before you wracked in pain and dying of pancreatic cancer. After attending to your loved one for several days and taking in the full extent of their suffering, a doctor walks up to you and says "You know I have a cure for that type of cancer." You think to yourself "this is fantastic! My loved one can be spared!" But when you ask the doctor to give your loved one the cure, he refuses. You beg, you plead, you take legal action, but none of it works. The doctor refuses and your loved one dies shortly afterward.

What would we say about this doctor? Would we say he was a good man? No! We would probabaly say he is a demon. But God is just like the doctor. He sits back and watches the evil and suffering that plagues humanity knowing full well that he could prevent it, yet he refuses to.

So, what can we say about God?
Click to expand...

This is basically just evidence for a proof that an omniscient or omnipotent, benevolent god cannot exist.
 
lunamoth

lunamoth

Will to love
Being 'omnipotent' does not inherently mean being coercive.

'Creator' does not inherently mean a being that set things in motion and then just let the chips fall where they may.

'Good' does not have to imply judgement value, but it could be a persuasive force.
 
Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
Storm said:
... if you ignore the several solutions presented in the thread.
Click to expand...
I don't want to give the impression that I have in any way ignored the possible solutions to this problem. Let me go over each possible solution and provide my response. If you respond to this, please let me know to which of these you subscribe, or if you have come up with something different. This is not an attempt to build a set of straw men, but is a review of the theodicy solutions proposed by great thinkers over the years as well as some of the arguments I have seen on this thread. If you have something new, or posted something I didn't cover, please let me know.
  1. God is not really all-powerful (Dualism and J.S. Mill)
    In this solution, we say that God would like to stop evil pain and suffering, but, while he is VERY powerful, he is simply not capable of doing it. This view is typical of a dualist worldview where evil and good are in constant battle. Well, my problem with this solution is that if God is not all powerful, why is he better than the devil who is another powerful being who, if you look at the state of the world, seems to be winning. It also raises doubt as to His ability to keep his promise of an eternal reward in heaven when He can't seem to keep infants from dying of AIDS in this one.
  2. God is not really all good
    In this solution, we say that it is a mistake to say that God is good. God is the universal truth and cannot be held up to a yardstick of morality. Indeed He IS the yardstick. The correct way to phrase it is "Good is God". My problem with this is that it's kind of tough to tell a grieving mother that it is good that her child died of pancreatic cancer. Not to mention the genocide and institution of many capital offenses God gave the Hebrews in the O.T. (talking back to your parents was punishable by death, as were most offenses). These are good because God said they are??? I don't buy it. If any human being did the things God did in the O.T. or did not save people when he could have, we would put him in jail.
  3. Evil and suffering are not really real (Augustine, Aquinas....)
    Evil and suffering are not an entity unto themselves. Everything is really good. It's just that some things are lesser degrees of good. This is the most common form of modern approaches to theodicy. Sure a tornado swept that father of 3 away, but the children got stronger because of it so it really wasnt' a bad thing. It's kind of the "look on the bright side" approach. My problem with this is that it doesn't play well in reality. Anyone who has mourned the loss of a loved one knows that their suffering is not a lesser degree of happiness. It's suffering, plain and simple. Also, there are many instances of pain and suffering that do not have a silver lining for the sufferee. When a child dies of pediatric cancer, the only thing they learn is how do be dead.
  4. The suffering we face on earth is NOTHING compared to our eternal reward in heaven
    This approach says "Yeah the world sucks, but an eternity in bliss with God makes up for it." There are some problems with this as well. First of all, it only works if EVERYONE gets an eternity of bliss, which is not what mainstream Christianity teaches. Universalists can use this approach, but no one else. Secondly, even if we all get eternal reward, why torture us here???
  5. Free Will
    This approach says that we have evil and suffering because humans have free will and we cause all this crap. God is indeed all powerful, but he cannot violate logic. If we are to be truly free, then we must be free to hurt others. My problem with this approach is that millions experience pain, suffering and loss that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with human free will. Natural disasters, disease, drought...all of these cause immense human pain and suffering and none has anything to do with choices made by the victims. God could prevent them, but does nothing.
  6. Mystery
    This approach says :shrug: "I dunno". Sure God allows natural disasters, and chooses not to help. Why does he allow this? Well, God works in mysterious ways..... My problem with this approach is that it's not an approach at all. It gives up and says "I believe in God anyway." Good luck with that. I don't buy it.
Anyway, I hope I have shown that I am not ignoring the proposed solutions for theodicy. I hope it also shows that I find them all insufficient. Please let me know if I have left yours out. A good solution to this would be something indeed and would be a breakthrough in religious thought that has not been seen in hundreds of years.
 
Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Beaudreaux said:
I don't want to give the impression that I have in any way ignored the possible solutions to this problem.
Click to expand...
Oh, that wasn't directed at you, doll. logician just has a bad habit of making claims he won't even attempt to back up.

Let me go over each possible solution and provide my response. If you respond to this, please let me know to which of these you subscribe, or if you have come up with something different. [snipped to save the endangered pixel]
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I don't think any of those accurately represent my position, but it could be considered a combination of several.

Basically, mine is that evil has benefits, and they're worth the price. ETA: as detailed in posts 379 and 366

Anyway, I hope I have shown that I am not ignoring the proposed solutions for theodicy. I hope it also shows that I find them all insufficient. Please let me know if I have left yours out. A good solution to this would be something indeed and would be a breakthrough in religious thought that has not been seen in hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
Well, "sufficient" is subjective, is it not? I consider my solution sufficient to solve the puzzle, this being no more than an intellectual exercise for me. It does raise the rather interesting question as to whether it would be sufficient to support my faith were I more invested than I am. ETA: I certainly don't consider it sufficient to convince you to have faith, that was never the goal.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
Luminous said:
:D: Touché
But if you are "all superpowerful" you could exist and not exist at the same time. ;)
:D: Both of them might be right! :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, some would claim that omnipotence does not grant the ability to enact logical contradictions like a square circle or existing and not existing at the same time. But heck, if God can be 3 and 1 at the same time, why not exist and not exist? :)
 
Luminous

Luminous

non-existential luminary
Beaudreaux said:
Well, some would claim that omnipotence does not grant the ability to enact logical contradictions like a square circle or existing and not existing at the same time. But heck, if God can be 3 and 1 at the same time, why not exist and not exist? :)
Click to expand...
somebody give this man some frubals!:yes:
I'm all out! :cover:
Pasta be upon you, Beaudreaux! :D You will enjoy your beer volcanos and "clean" strippers! Do you know if there is a punishment for only being Spagnostic? i hope not.
 
Last edited:
.lava

.lava

Veteran Member
Luminous said:
somebody give this man some frubals!:yes:
I'm all out! :cover:
Pasta be upon you, Beaudreaux! :D You will enjoy your bear volcanos and "clean" strippers! Do you know if there is a punishment for only being Spagnostic? i hope not.
Click to expand...

maybe next time my friend :) since i believe God created existence therefor it is beyond it (not in it), i disagree with him. i actually find praise 'God exists' a bit weird.

.
 
Luminous

Luminous

non-existential luminary
.lava said:
maybe next time my friend :) since i believe God created existence therefor it is beyond it (not in it), i disagree with him. i actually find praise 'God exists' a bit weird.

.
Click to expand...
:clap
Too true, too true: God cannot "exist" because that would require it to be either energy or matter; which would mean it would have to avaide by the Laws of Phisics, and that would mean it could not be "all-powerful".
Though i guess God could "be".
 
.lava

.lava

Veteran Member
Luminous said:
:clap
Too true, too true: God cannot "exist" because that would require it to be either energy or matter; which would mean it would have to avaide by the Laws of Phisics, and that would mean it could not be "all-powerful".
Though i guess God could "be".
Click to expand...

according to our teachings God does not need to be physical to intervene physical world.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top