Aggravating is it not ?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Basically, we are putting God on trial and using the suffering of innocents as evidence against Him. The charge against God is that he is unjust, and because he is unjust, we are therefore justified in disregarding his commands. But this assumes that we are in a position to put God on trial. What if we are not in such a position?

Obviously, we are ...[text shortened]... conclusive, but the evidence is far from conclusive.

Humanity is in no position to judge God.

The charge against God is that he is unjust, and because he is unjust, we are therefore justified in disregarding his commands.

I don't think so. The problem of suffering shows that it is highly implausible that God exists, where 'God' is taken to be a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. It's not like I am trying to make a charge against some extant thing and take it to court. If we take 'God' to refer to a being that is omnipotent and omniscient and morally perfect, then instances of suffering that are unnecessary for the greater good represent a problem for the existence of God. Since God is supposedly omniscient, he would know about such instances; since he is supposedly morally perfect, he would prefer that such instances not obtain and act accordingly; and since he is supposedly omnipotent, he would be successful in this...and yet such instances of unnecessary suffering obtain. I think probably you feel like I am taking God to court because it is common to argue it something like a reductio, where we take the assumption that God exists but then work toward absurdity or contradiction. However, the argument can be formalized, and in doing so it is clear that it works to the conclusion that God doesn't exist -- not to some conclusion like God exists but he's a schmuck and we should ignore him.

Of course, if you don't hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect, then the argument won't carry the same force because maybe God didn't know about such instances; or maybe God isn't powerful enough to prevent them; or maybe God doesn't always act in accordance with morally preferable states of affairs. Or you could try to argue that it is not the case that any instances of suffering are unnecessary for the greater good.

Originally posted by sumydid
First (and I won't fail to follow up on this thread, nor will I intentionally let something of substance go unanswered) I would like to hear your official stance. You've mentioned a problem of suffering and a problem of death.

I hate to step backward but it's necessary for me, and hopefully it won't last longer than your one post answer.

I'm going to ...[text shortened]... ve to reference would then be useless.

With me so far? I'm anxious for your response!

Please see my response above to epiphinehas, and maybe it will help clarify.

I'm not sure if we would be talking about the same thing or not. Does your conception of the "Christian God" entail a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect?

Originally posted by sumydid

To the Christian and people of other faiths as well, the quality of our lives on Earth is wholly secondary to the quality of our lives after death.

A cogent argument against most religions! Has it ever occurred to you that someone could be religious and care about this actual life and still not live in fear of death? Death is a natural process - it is beyond good or bad. You can have all the fantasies you want about "afters" but what does that have to do with the here and now - or indeed with death or any other circumstances of our existence? We live. We die. After events happen we can make judgments about whether we approve of the actions that led to those events. If the actors in those events are beyond human control then our judgements are a waste of time.

When humans are adolescent they often adopt a black/white view of the world because by that time in their lives they have decided what is necessary for them to live. When they are young adults they get angry because the world does not bend to their desires. (If only people would listen to them!) Eventually they grow into adults and take responsibility for their own actions and learn to live with others (some of them anyway.). When will messianic religions do this? When will they (and their followers) grow up? I really don't care that you have to imagine a paradise "after" to prevent yourself from blowing your brains out because of your fear of your own personal death. I want my granddaughter to have a better life than me. For her to have that future we humans must address the real dangers facing our species as a whole (such as the big rock, man-made climate change, the preservation of civilization in spite of dwindling energy sources.) I would gladly see you (or me) cast into whatever hell you could imagine if it meant that humanity would begin to act rationally because I have no illusions about my future - I will die. What comes "after" does not concern me as much as what is here and the people I love that will live on after my death. When they asked Master Kung (Confucius) about the afterlife he said, "I do not yet know of this life - how can I know anything of another life?" Your certainties are empty words and hollow boasts and they will serve as a poor shield when the big rock arrives on the horizon.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm failing to see how any of this actually addresses my question. What you are stating here is that justice demanded that man be forced out of some previous "system" and into another system; and you claim that this newer system features suffering. But even if this is true, it doesn't address my question which was along the lines of why does god permit ...[text shortened]... eresting...I would have thought that justice somehow facilitates the collective good life.

Again, all of the indirect suffering occuring (although I find it curious that you hone in only incidental suffering, and not the direct action of an agent, such as me or yourself. Since you're asking, why not ask why God doesn't stop me from making you suffer, or vice versa?) on the planet is a result of us choosing one system over another.

The first system, that of Life (or, better, Lives) is what God intended for man. Renewed every day, life was perfect. God not only sustained the entire universe (as He does today), He walked and communed daily with man, teaching him about Himself.

As a result of God's presence, the world benefited. Cut off from God's presence, the world suffers... as does man. Prior to their banishment from the Garden, the man and woman lived a life of ease. Afterwards, they worked.

You may point to any number of instances on this globe yesterday, today and tomorrow, all equally appalling in their deviation from perfection and consider each and every one of them 'seemingly' unnecessary. I submit that such determination is more a result of ignorance (unable to see the whole), or arrogance (unwilling to see the whole). I make no apologies for God; none are required. Instead of wondering how He could 'let' suffering occur, I would think the better question is why did He create in the first place. This goes more to the heart of the matter than any other question currently being asked.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since you're asking, why not ask why God doesn't stop me from making you suffer, or vice versa?) on the planet is a result of us choosing one system over another.

Us? I have never been in the Garden of Eden and took no part in the decision.

I gather from your posts so far that you believe that punishment for crime is a necessary part of justice. To a large extent you seem to think this is obvious to all. It is not obvious to me, and apparently not to LemonJello either.

You may not realize this, but many of us have a completely different understanding of justice and its purpose in society.

Could you expand on your understanding of justice?
I am curious specifically about:
1. Do you believe that punishment in any way lessens or counteracts or balances out the crime?
2. Do you believe that the 'justice' you describe is a necessary part of the universe or simply necessary to keep society from falling apart?
3. Do you believe that those who are punished during their lifetime have therefore 'atoned' for their sins (the ones they were punished for) and will receive no further punishment and that those are not so punished will receive their punishment after death?
4. Do you believe that the punishment can be taken by anyone other than the perpetrator?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Us? I have never been in the Garden of Eden and took no part in the decision.

I gather from your posts so far that you believe that punishment for crime is a necessary part of justice. To a large extent you seem to think this is obvious to all. It is not obvious to me, and apparently not to LemonJello either.

You may not realize this, but many of u ...[text shortened]... h?
4. Do you believe that the punishment can be taken by anyone other than the perpetrator?

Us? I have never been in the Garden of Eden and took no part in the decision.
You took no part in their decision. You do, however, take part in your decisions. Everyday, same results.

I gather from your posts so far that you believe that punishment for crime is a necessary part of justice. To a large extent you seem to think this is obvious to all.
Since it is obviously not obvious to you, I can only shake my head in disbelief and wonder. Pray tell, what possible goal could any society have in their establishment of a code of acceptable conduct, if violations of the same are met with... no action whatsoever? What distinction is made between a lawkeeper and a lawbreaker? The fantasy world you attempt to pass off as a legitimate alternative to the historical one wouldn't last beyond the slightest of trespasses (or, roughly, inside of five minutes).

1. Do you believe that punishment in any way lessens or counteracts or balances out the crime?
Depends upon both the punishment and the crime. I can think of several remedies used in law on a daily basis with just this end in mind.

2. Do you believe that the 'justice' you describe is a necessary part of the universe or simply necessary to keep society from falling apart?
Yes. Just kidding. I figured since you felt it appropriate to respond to an either/or with a 'both,' I might as well have my sport with it, too. But, in actuality, the answer is that justice is necessary for both.

3. Do you believe that those who are punished during their lifetime have therefore 'atoned' for their sins (the ones they were punished for) and will receive no further punishment and that those are not so punished will receive their punishment after death?
Again, depends. Man sometimes answers to society, but more often than not, he does not give a complete account for all of his misdeeds to the same (consider tax cheats that are never detected, for instance). Even when man does answer to society's authority, he may have only please 'some of the people' (for instance, OJ).

However, whatever man reaps, he will sow. Whether in the form of societal punishment through the legal system, loss of kinship through rejection by others, loss of health for ill treatment of self, loss of peace through ill treatment of self and others, or etc., whatever man puts into the system, the corresponding fruit comes back to him.

No one ever goes to hell for sins they commit. The only thing that sends anyone to hell is their own rejection of God. Not sin. Sin has been paid for in full via the work done by the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.

4. Do you believe that the punishment can be taken by anyone other than the perpetrator?
Don't you?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, all of the indirect suffering occuring (although I find it curious that you hone in only incidental suffering, and not the direct action of an agent, such as me or yourself. Since you're asking, why not ask why God doesn't stop me from making you suffer, or vice versa?) on the planet is a result of us choosing one system over another.

The first This goes more to the heart of the matter than any other question currently being asked.

Again, all of the indirect suffering occuring (although I find it curious that you hone in only incidental suffering, and not the direct action of an agent, such as me or yourself. Since you're asking, why not ask why God doesn't stop me from making you suffer, or vice versa?) on the planet is a result of us choosing one system over another.

How is it curious that I bring up the specific examples that I do? If I bring up examples of agents clashing with each other, you'll likely respond that the resultant suffering is somehow necessary for principal goods, such as free will and justice. Now, despite the fact I am also ready to argue that the degree of suffering that exists is not necessitated by such goods as these even in such cases as these, it makes my job even easier to instead bring up the examples I have. It should be obvious to anyone here that you cannot reasonably appeal to free will or considerations of justice in order to provide satisfactory explanation of why God allows the neonate to suffer. This is because there is no reasonable reading upon which such suffering could conceivably be necessitated by free will or justice (or even any reasonable reading upon which such suffering has much of anything genuine at all to do with such things).

You can keep on claiming that the suffering and illness of the neonate is the result of choice on the part of the neonate's forbears. But that only begs the question of why God would allow this strange connection, particularly given that it is absurd to think the neonate deserves in any way to suffer for the choices of its forbears.

I submit that such determination is more a result of ignorance (unable to see the whole), or arrogance (unwilling to see the whole).

Well, if you think that I am displaying ignorance and arrogance by, say, thinking that the suffering of the neonate is unnecessary for the greater good; surely, then, you ought to be able to provide some reasons why I should instead think that such suffering is necessary. So, what are these reasons? If you cannot provide some, then you'll just have to excuse me for taking these kinds of statements as mere posturing on your part.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]The charge against God is that he is unjust, and because he is unjust, we are therefore justified in disregarding his commands.

I don't think so. The problem of suffering shows that it is highly implausible that God exists, where 'God' is taken to be a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. It's not like I am trying to make ...[text shortened]... not the case that any instances of suffering are unnecessary for the greater good.[/b]

The problem of suffering shows that it is highly implausible that God exists, where 'God' is taken to be a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Highly implausible? Can we reduce 'highly implausible' to a percentage? Would you say that the 'problem of suffering' gives God a 1.28% chance of existing? Perhaps something much lower? If I offer up the various plausible explanations as to why bad things may yet happen to innocent people in a God-created world, would that bring the percentage up a little bit? In the world of statistics, even a very small chance that God may exist is a good chance, so how should the 'problem of suffering' realistically influence an unbiased individual's belief on the subject? It's extremely difficult to say exactly; proclaiming God's existence 'highly implausible' just because innocents are known to suffer and die is somewhat premature overall, IMO.

Since God is supposedly omniscient, he would know about such instances; since he is supposedly morally perfect, he would prefer that such instances not obtain and act accordingly; and since he is supposedly omnipotent, he would be successful in this...and yet such instances of unnecessary suffering obtain.

Note your assessment of God's attributes and what those attributes supposedly entail. How confident can you be of what you assume? For the sake of argument you must assume that God exists, which is easy enough. But how easy is it to guess exactly how a 'morally perfect' being might behave in his dealings with a fallen world? My contention is that since we do not know the beginning from the end as God does (i.e., we are not omniscient), we cannot accurately judge what we see. You may be able to formalize your argument, but without any conclusive evidence at your disposal, the conclusions you reach will always remain suspect.

All I'm saying is that the 'problem of suffering' is inconclusive. It's just not that easy to explain away God's existence. I freely admit, however, that it is equally difficult to explain away the 'problem of suffering'. Personally, though, I am at peace with the mystery of God's ways and choose to believe that as a finite individual with limited faculties I cannot begin to understand exactly why everything happens as it does. If I start making sweeping judgments about the whole based on my limited insight, I am bound to commit some manner of folly. The problem of suffering, therefore, has never been a slam dunk for me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet I have no doubt that you will do just that when the evidence appears to point the other way. How many times have I heard Christians proclaim the goodness, righteousness, and justice of God and claimed how these properties are clearly visible?
Yet you are saying that God has never been known to do anything good or bad because we are incapable of knowi ...[text shortened]... aim that God is good must be taken entirely on faith based on zero evidence ie wishful thinking.

That God is good is indeed a matter of faith.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Please see my response above to epiphinehas, and maybe it will help clarify.

I'm not sure if we would be talking about the same thing or not. Does your conception of the "Christian God" entail a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect?

Ok so I think we're on the same page. The problem of senseless suffering primarily negates the existence of a good, just God or secondarily (again if He's powerless to stop the suffering or isn't aware of it) it negates the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God. In each case, your argument certainly strikes at the plausibility of the Christian God (good, just, omnipotent, and omniscient) and the bible itself which stakes those claims.

Since that is out of the way, I'll proceed. Let's start with death. Now, the only way I can approach this is on an individual basis. For example... an entire village is wiped out by a tsunami. 125 deaths. Well, we can't just chalk up all 125 deaths as unjust, senseless, and not for a good purpose. Each individual is on their own path and has their own afterlife to attend to after death.

So as we examine each individual's death and ascertain whether or not it is just or good... (which by the way we cannot do, not even for one person... but anyway) we could break these individuals down into categories. Remember, we're discussing only death, it's relation with God's goodness and justness, and the individuals that experience it. So based on that, we should look at the categories of people as relates to their position with God.

We can immediately remove all of ones who have the faith, right? Because in their case, death is the best thing that ever happened to them as they are now free from the evil of the flesh and will enjoy a personal, blissful relationship with God in heaven.

Ok, that leaves the so-called "unbelievers."

The unbelieving, according to the Bible which we are using for reference, and according to Jesus Himself, are enemies of God. The Bible says that the wage of sin is death. The Bible says God's enemies deserve His wrath and in their sin, deserve death.

Do you see where I'm going with all of this?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You took no part in their decision. You do, however, take part in your decisions. Everyday, same results.

Do am I partly responsible for the suffering of an infant with malaria?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
That God is good is indeed a matter of faith.

Do you agree that it is based on a total absence of evidence?
Can we apply this to anything else about God? ie we know absolutely nothing about God because we lack the bigger picture.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
In the world of statistics, even a very small chance that God may exist is a good chance, so how should the 'problem of suffering' realistically influence an unbiased individual's belief on the subject? It's extremely difficult to say exactly; proclaiming God's existence 'highly implausible' just because innocents are known to suffer and die is somewhat premature overall, IMO.

Which 'world of statistics' is that? You honestly believe that there is a 'good chance' that you will be hit by a car tomorrow? Is there also a 'good chance' that it will be a green BMW driven by a man named Joey who owns two dogs?
How certain must you be that something indicates Gods non-existence before you can proclaim Gods existence 'highly implausible'? is 99.99999% good enough in your world of statistics?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The problem of suffering shows that it is highly implausible that God exists, where 'God' is taken to be a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Highly implausible? Can we reduce 'highly implausible' to a percentage? Would you say that the 'problem of suffering' gives God a 1.28% chance of existing? Perhaps something muc The problem of suffering, therefore, has never been a slam dunk for me.[/b]

Highly implausible?

Yes, highly implausible. When I say that some proposition is highly implausible I mean that the evidence weighs strongly against the proposition being true. I am not really interested in reducing our talk to specific percentages, but I am trying to say something about evidential clout. I bring up isolated examples here and there in this discussion, but there seems no end to the instances of unnecessary suffering.

If I offer up the various plausible explanations as to why bad things may yet happen to innocent people in a God-created world, would that bring the percentage up a little bit?

Yes, that would seem to be quite relevant toward evidential consideration. For example, if you could provide some plausible explanations why the suffering of the neonate (in my earlier example) is merely ostensibly unnecessary for the greater good, that would be great for discussion. Further, if these considerations turned out to be transferable to the any number of other seemingly unnecessary instances of suffering that exist, then that would surely bring me to some heightened understanding of the problem of suffering. Again, when I talk about plausibility I am saying something about the evidential weight. Any evidential considerations you can bring are good for discussion and understanding.

In the world of statistics, even a very small chance that God may exist is a good chance, so how should the 'problem of suffering' realistically influence an unbiased individual's belief on the subject?

Huh? I don't know too many people who read a "very small chance" as a "good chance" in everyday conversation. Anyway, if there is a "very small chance" that God exists, then isn't it very unlikely that the proposition 'God exists' is true? Again, if I say here that there is a very small probability that God exists, I would be talking about epistemic probability, which measures our evidential information. It would also indicate (ideal) rational confidence in the proposition. If there is a very small chance that God exists, then a person shouldn't believe the proposition that God exists. So if indeed some argument shows that there is a very small chance that P, then that argument should indeed influence whether or not one believes P. Why shouldn't it?

Note your assessment of God's attributes and what those attributes supposedly entail. How confident can you be of what you assume?

Hey, I am just trying to faithfully preserve the attributes that many, many theists ascribe to their God. These people claim that he is omnipotent (which I take to mean that he can do anything that is logically possible); that he is omniscient (which I take to mean that he knows the truth value of every proposition); and that he is morally perfect (which I take to mean that he always acts in accordance with morally preferable states of affairs, to the extent that his knowledge and power allow). So consider my example of a suffering neonate. I am confident it follows pretty readily that such a God would know about the suffering; would have the ability to prevent such suffering; and would do so, provided that it is morally preferable to do so. Further, I am confident that it would be morally preferable to prevent the suffering of this neonate, rather than to allow it to suffer horribly and die.

But how easy is it to guess exactly how a 'morally perfect' being might behave in his dealings with a fallen world? My contention is that since we do not know the beginning from the end as God does (i.e., we are not omniscient), we cannot accurately judge what we see.

Wait -- your contention is that since we are not omniscient, we cannot make accurate judgments? That doesn't make any sense. Just because one doesn't know everything, that doesn't mean he cannot know some, or even many, things. None of us humans are omniscient, and yet we can come to accurate judgments on many things. And does one really need to be omniscient to figure some of these things out? If you saw your child unwittingly reaching for a piping hot stove, you would stop her hand without thinking twice about it. If you saw a child drowning and knew that you could save him, you would immediately understand that you ought to do so. But, suddenly, we cannot figure out whether one ought to prevent the suffering of a neonate if one knew he could do so?

By the way, I think these ideas of yours are likely to be defeaters toward some of your other core theistic ideas. You're telling us in this thread that we are in no position to judge God; but you are committed to just the opposite when you claim that He is loving and good and just, etc. Further, you want to hold that God is a moral exemplar and one who can lead by example to effectively help us become the sort of moral beings that we ought to be; and yet now all of a sudden, God's moral dealings are mysterious and inexplicable and beyond our grasp.

Originally posted by sumydid
Ok so I think we're on the same page. The problem of senseless suffering primarily negates the existence of a good, just God or secondarily (again if He's powerless to stop the suffering or isn't aware of it) it negates the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God. In each case, your argument certainly strikes at the plausibility of the Christian God (go ...[text shortened]... h and in their sin, deserve death.

Do you see where I'm going with all of this?

Do you see where I'm going with all of this?

Honestly, not really. I'm sorry if you got the false impression that I agreed to using the Bible as our reference (whatever you take that to mean). All I did was refer you to my earlier response to epiphinehas to hopefully get a better sense of the content of my argument. I'm failing to understand exactly what part of my argument you disagree with. Are you disagreeing with my claim that there exist instances of suffering that are unnecessary for the bringing about of greater good?