Arguments against God's existence

[Sideline]

Not sure what that means

Well, not sure what part you are asking about, but I think you might be wondering about the reference to my previous post where I say that even if you answer the questions to your satisfaction, it doesn’t mean your answers will satisfy anyone else. You will never come up with the “winning” answer to religious debates.

“Untold suffering”?
What do you mean?

Which part is confusing, untold or suffering?

Take a look at the amount of pain in the world. I can’t remember who said this first, so my apologies to whomever I’m stealing it from. Imagine that you are watching a television station that instantly reports all of the evil in the world. Every rape, every murder, every heartbreak, every baby starving to death and everyone writhing in agony.

If you are anything like me, even imagining it for a couple of seconds gives you the willies. Imagine being forced to watch it and take it all in. How many hours do you think that you would be able to take before you went completely insane? Now imagine I had the power to stop it, and didn’t. What would that make me?

For the question about the problems in design, just imagine changing the channel. Now we aren’t watching all of the violence in the world, we are watching the Genetic Disorder and Natural Disaster Network. Now you are only watching the countless babies being born into constant pain. The agony of deciding whether to carry a baby to term when it is going to die within minutes and leave you unable to have another. And so on.

Does that clear up “untold suffering”?

 

[GordonBOPS]

You may get to sleep in on Sundays for the rest of your life but the other guy who believes and goes to Mass gets to spend eternity living in the presents of God and you my friend, well if we are right and you are wrong I feel sorry for your outcome. Repent and you will be saved. Choose death and isolation from God and you will get just that for eternity. I vote for the eight year old!

But what’s natural about a chain of events without a cause? Especially when such is not part of nature (that is the physical event occuring without a cause - or the generation of matter without a cause?)

Athiests have more faith than me… in reaching a conclusion that all things came from nothing.

 

[marty30]

Did you understand what you just posted or did what you say confuse you more than it did me?

 

[GordonBOPS]

Did you understand what you just posted or did what you say confuse you more than it did me?

Are you asking me?

 

[AlmostCatholic]

• The “no reason” argument tries to show that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God’s Debris.

This is the first I’ve heard of this particular argument. Many of the arguments presented have been around forever and are easy to answer. The giant rock that is immovable by infinite force for example. (What is infinite force against infinite inertia, its like asking what is adding plus infinite subtracting) To make a rock so big that it can’t be moved is simply a logical conradiction. It is a nonsense statement like asking if God can make a square circle. It is a contradiction in terms and so it has no-sense. As C.S. Lewis said, ‘nonsense is still nonsense even when we put the words ‘God can’ in front of it.’ The omnipotence of God doesn’t mean, that God can can do anything, even nonsense; rather it means that God can do all things that are possible.

This question of desire seems more interesting to me because of its novelty. What does it mean to say that God has no desires? How can that premise be proven? Is desire only a human notion?

If I desire something, it is usually because it is a good that I lack. So I desire food to fill my empty stomach. But these good things come from a lack and in God there could be no lack. But isn’t there also a desire to benevolence that is unneeded? I may desire to help an abandoned puppy because of an overflow of goodness. My desire to ‘bless’ the puppy is not from a lack in myself but from a pure overflow. It doesn’t seem to be difficult to believe that our existence is purely superfluous. God doesn’t need us or this universe or anything, yet it could only be by His overflowing goodness that we exist. Desire may not be the right word, it may be a bit anthropomorphic; maybe we could say we are created because it is joyous to God rather than desireable or needful. But they end up wrapping together. Desire is the best word we can use, but it is desire built on Joy and His abundance.

Of all of these arguments, easily the hardest one has to do with the problem of evil. But this has been covered again and again through many great philosophers. Is this the forum for it?

As to the argument that natural processes can explain the universe. We can talk about quantum theory as the origin of the big bang, but that doesn’t work. Even in that scenario, from nothing comes nothing still holds true. It is in the energetic vacuum that a particle can pop into existence. It is not nothingness in the true sense as it was prior to the big bang. In that case there was not even time or dimension- without which there can be no basis for quantum fluctuations. Natural causes still mean that nothing can only beget nothing. For there to be something, there must be an uncaused cause or a prime mover as Aristotle says. That is the only possible explanation for our contingent universe, i.e a necessary uncaused cause.

God Bless
-Justin

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Take a look at the amount of pain in the world. I can’t remember who said this first, so my apologies to whomever I’m stealing it from. Imagine that you are watching a television station that instantly reports all of the evil in the world. Every rape, every murder, every heartbreak, every baby starving to death and everyone writhing in agony.

If you are anything like me, even imagining it for a couple of seconds gives you the willies. Imagine being forced to watch it and take it all in. How many hours do you think that you would be able to take before you went completely insane? Now imagine I had the power to stop it, and didn’t. What would that make me?

For the question about the problems in design, just imagine changing the channel. Now we aren’t watching all of the violence in the world, we are watching the Genetic Disorder and Natural Disaster Network. Now you are only watching the countless babies being born into constant pain. The agony of deciding whether to carry a baby to term when it is going to die within minutes and leave you unable to have another. And so on.

Does that clear up “untold suffering”?

This is a marvelous question and it shouldn’t be taken lightly. Every great Christian thinker has wrestled with it and had to deal with it in some way. But every great atheistic thinker really has to grapple with it as well. On the flip side of the untold suffering is the problem of goodness. If there is no Good Creator, and no meaning then why is there a Mother Theresa?

This question reminds me of Dimitri Karamazov’s question. Why should the infant be hungry, why should even one go cold and starve? We cannot look at this problem without feeling the pain. If our philosophy makes it make sense, then we have forgotten something very key. We have to respond. Just like Dimitri Karamovoz, we have to accept our own resposnibility and take those pains on ourselves. The best answer to the problem of evil is a Mother Theresa. It is Christ touching the untouchable lepers and weeping over his dead friend. Our pain is God’s pain.

It is important to understand the problem philosophically and we can look at Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, or myriad other great philosophers for aid. But we cannot forget that pain and evil is real.

God Bless

-Justin

 

[Catholicdeacon]

What do you call **a person that allows untold **suffering in order to forward their own personal goals? I don’t know either, but all-loving isn’t the first thing that comes to mind.

Hmmm Maybe you will understand this one: So you are driving in a city late for an important appointment. You stop in a traffic light and notice a homeless man holding a sign that says “Need money for food” you say to your self “Why doesn’t God comes down and feed this man” and keep driving to your meeting. I ask you who is allowing this man to go hungry you or God? His plan was for you to take care of your brother (Or at the least hand him some change!), you did not do it (After all it is your choice) Moral of the story: Do not blame God for the suffering you have the power to prevent.

What about the suffering you do not have the power to prevent such as natural disasters and sickness. God created the universe subject to natural laws, take earthquakes; they are the result of the movement of tectonic plates. The plates move, cities are destroyed, thousands die. Well… The reason why life in this planet has been able to subsist for millions of years is… the movement of tectonic plates. Why not create an earth that could generate life without the movement of tectonic plates? That is an easy one, if you study what the Catholic Church teaches about scatology, in the future there is going to be a perfect universe (Paul calls it “a new heaven and a new earth”) so in fact you are living in earth V1.0 the new release will take care of all the bugs. Or in other words God is creating a perfect universe he is just not done yet

I actually thought I might have to come up with more than one objection to your post, but gosh darn it, it still fits. Untold suffering for one’s own personal scheme is not all-loving.

A comment about the “someone’s personal plans” argument. You are making the mistake of assigning human qualities to an infinite perfect being, which resides outside of space and time, by doing this you are judging God by human standards. This will never work since he is God and our standards do not apply to Him(we are not perfect or infinite and we are subject to space and time). God does not have “personal plans” everything He does is to show His glory. When we stop to think about God in this way all this silly questions about “Why doesn’t God behaves like I would if I were God” go away.

Actually, I think the classical answer is that yes God could. God’s infinite power would allow him to limit himself.

Actually… the classical answer is no (I can give references if you want them) but the issue is not syllogisms as much as the definition of omnipotence. Your definition of omnipotence is flawed as it hinges in the fact that an omnipotent being can not fail, but this would create cases in which this being must be wrong and right at the same time (Some kind of weird Schrödinger’s divine cat) . A logic system in which an event is both TRUE and FALSE is not …well… logical, so the necessity of a perfect being able to fail must be allowed in the definition of omnipotence. In other words for such a being to have a reasonable chance to exist, first and foremost it needs to be logical.

For instance, if your argument followed, Jesus would have to be lying when he cried “My God why have you forsaken me?” As it would have been impossible for God to be separated from himself.

When Jesus said “My God why have you forsaken me?” he was actually praying Psalm 22. In fact when Jesus died the second person of The Most Blessed Trinity died to, as you can see God lost His Son in the cross. No only that he voluntalrily gave His only son to be tortured and killed so you and I can have this conversation.

Not an expert though.

No need to be, you just need an open mind

In His Love

 

[steveandersen]

Well, not sure what part you are asking about, but I think you might be wondering about the reference to my previous post where I say that even if you answer the questions to your satisfaction, it doesn’t mean your answers will satisfy anyone else. You will never come up with the “winning” answer to religious debates.

I had simply read your post too quickly perhaps and didn’t know what you meant by “landing” a slam dunk. I had never heard it phrased that way before.

As for “winning” a theological arguments you are right. Since you can’t put God in a petri dish there almost any argument will have to start with some set of assumptions or beliefs which may be impossible to get the parties to agree upon.

Which part is confusing, untold or suffering?

The confusing part is what you categorize as suffering and what that has to do with the existence of God.

Take a look at the amount of pain in the world. I can’t remember who said this first, so my apologies to whomever I’m stealing it from. Imagine that you are watching a television station that instantly reports all of the evil in the world. Every rape, every murder, every heartbreak, every baby starving to death and everyone writhing in agony.

If you are anything like me, even imagining it for a couple of seconds gives you the willies. Imagine being forced to watch it and take it all in. How many hours do you think that you would be able to take before you went completely insane? Now imagine I had the power to stop it, and didn’t. What would that make me?

Are you taking the long way around to ask “How can there be a God if there is suffering?” or “Why doesn’t God Do something about X?”
He has done some something. He told us not to murder & rape and feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted.
He even sent His Son to reiterate the message in case we weren’t listening the first time.

He has given us the free will to do something about it or not.

For the question about the problems in design, just imagine changing the channel. Now we aren’t watching all of the violence in the world, we are watching the Genetic Disorder and Natural Disaster Network. Now you are only watching the countless babies being born into constant pain. The agony of deciding whether to carry a baby to term when it is going to die within minutes and leave you unable to have another. And so on.

Kind of lurid isn’t it? Sure I could try to imagine that…but to what end?

Does that clear up “untold suffering”?

No,
You seem to be equating suffering with evil. They are not the same thing.

Much of what you talk about, such as death or disease, are part of the natural function of the world. You can’t have life without death.

 

[steveandersen]

….That is an easy one, if you study what the Catholic Church teaches about scatology……

I think you mean Eschatology
Scatology is something very different….

 

[GordonBOPS]

Then, just out of curiosity, why would you expect an atheist to know how the universe is created?

You say, “God did it.”

I say, “It was a natural process.”

On paper they seem both equally good, and equally poor, explanations. We’re both saying, “I don’t know, but it worked somehow.”

I would have to say your explanation puts us right back to square one. Except, I get to sleep in on Sunday mornings.

Oops, this was the post I meant to reply to earlier:

But what’s natural about a chain of events without a cause? Especially when such is not part of nature (that is the physical event occuring without a cause - or the generation of matter without a cause?)

 

[Sideline]

This is a marvelous question and it shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Glad you liked it.

Every great Christian thinker has wrestled with it and had to deal with it in some way. But every great atheistic thinker really has to grapple with it as well.

Sure. Suffering affects everyone.

On the flip side of the untold suffering is the problem of goodness. If there is no Good Creator, and no meaning then why is there a Mother Theresa?

Completely lost me. Why wouldn’t there be?

This question reminds me of Dimitri Karamazov’s question.

Such a great book.

Why should the infant be hungry, why should even one go cold and starve?

Excellent question.

Just like Dimitri Karamovoz, we have to accept our own resposnibility and take those pains on ourselves.

Yes, make me a channel of your peace and all that.

The best answer to the problem of evil is a Mother Theresa.

Have you ever met her? I did once. She is a lot harder to like after you have met her.

Our pain is God’s pain.

Ahh, there’s the rub. Your eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving being really doesn’t have the same right to weep as we do. He set up this game, made the rules, and can change them as he goes along. He, presumably, decided what pain would be, and decided to dose it out liberally.

Should I go to the aid of those in need? Absolutely, and I do. I’m no Mother Theresa (For instance, I smile and have a sense of humour.), but I know what the inside of the local soup kitchen looks like, and I’ve given up on more than one night’s sleep listening on a Crisis line. But if there is a kind and loving God, why should I have needed to?

 

[Sideline]

Hmmm Maybe you will understand this one: So you are driving in a city late for an important appointment. You stop in a traffic light and notice a homeless man holding a sign that says “Need money for food” you say to your self “Why doesn’t God comes down and feed this man” and keep driving to your meeting. I ask you who is allowing this man to go hungry you or God? His plan was for you to take care of your brother (Or at the least hand him some change!), you did not do it (After all it is your choice) Moral of the story: Do not blame God for the suffering you have the power to prevent.

Maybe you will understand this one: A doctor tells a woman that her baby has a genetic defect that causes it constant pain before it dies within moments of birth. She goes ahead and has it because she is Catholic. Moral of the story: Don’t blame people because your all-loving God is a sadist.

That is an easy one, if you study what the Catholic Church teaches about scatology,

Oooh… you might want to look that one up. That word you used does not mean what you think it means.

in the future there is going to be a perfect universe (Paul calls it “a new heaven and a new earth”) so in fact you are living in earth V1.0 the new release will take care of all the bugs. Or in other words God is creating a perfect universe he is just not done yet

See previous comment about God being a sadist.

A comment about the “someone’s personal plans” argument. You are making the mistake of assigning human qualities to an infinite perfect being, which resides outside of space and time, by doing this you are judging God by human standards.

Er… you are Catholic right? Catholics always talk about God in anthropomorphic terms. I’m just saying that a God that is capable of understanding human suffering, and decides to ignore it, isn’t loving.

God does not have “personal plans” everything He does is to show His glory.

Did you actually read what you wrote before you posted it? Do you think God actually came off *well *there?

 

[Sideline]

Oops, this was the post I meant to reply to earlier:

But what’s natural about a chain of events without a cause? Especially when such is not part of nature (that is the physical event occuring without a cause - or the generation of matter without a cause?)

Who said that there wasn’t a cause? I just said the cause wasn’t a being.

 

[Sideline]

I had simply read your post too quickly perhaps and didn’t know what you meant by “landing” a slam dunk. I had never heard it phrased that way before.

I should really never use sports metaphors. I almost always mess them up. I thought it meant winning easily.

As for “winning” a theological arguments you are right. Since you can’t put God in a petri dish there almost any argument will have to start with some set of assumptions or beliefs which may be impossible to get the parties to agree upon.

I have a feeling that this might be the only point on which we agree, so let me take a moment to celebrate.
:extrahappy: :clapping: :extrahappy: :bounce: :extrahappy: :clapping::extrahappy:

The confusing part is what you categorize as suffering and what that has to do with the existence of God.

Existence of God? Nothing. The existence of an all-loving God. A lot. How can an all-loving God turn his back on suffering? On the suffering he actually created.

Are you taking the long way around to ask “How can there be a God if there is suffering?” or “Why doesn’t God Do something about X?”

No, I took the short route. Then you asked me what untold suffering was, then I did a longer explanation.

He has done some something. He told us not to murder & rape and feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted.
He even sent His Son to reiterate the message in case we weren’t listening the first time.

Sometimes he told us not to. Sometimes he told us to do exactly that. He has been pretty wishy washy on the whole murder and rape thing.

He also made the hungry and diseased. Let’s not forget that.

He has given us the free will to do something about it or not.

Or a simpler explanation is he doesn’t really exist in the sense that most people think he does, and we should try and end suffering as best we are able.

Kind of lurid isn’t it? Sure I could try to imagine that…but to what end?

That would pretty much be the image that God would have of the world and decide to ignore.

No,
You seem to be equating suffering with evil. They are not the same thing.

No… evil does cause suffering though. And besides all it takes for evil to flourish is for good gods to do nothing.

Much of what you talk about, such as death or disease, are part of the natural function of the world.

Really? You believe that God has no control over the natural function of the world?

You can’t have life without death.

Kind of blows that heaven, everlasting life thing, out of the water doesn’t it? Oh wait, are you arguing for reincarnation?

 

[joseph_virgen]

An observation.
No matter how many years go by, i’m still amazed at the abundance of information that atheist have on God. In truth, sometimes i hope they are waiting patiently for it all to make sense to them, some day.

 

[Ginger2]

In a nutshell…

You shouldn’t expect to know all the right answers because you are not in control. It is God who must first open a person mind to understand the Scriptures before anyone can successfully witness to another.

When that is done, God will give you the words. God may be using you to plant the first seed, then someone else will come into this person’s life to do the watering and another to do the hoeing, etc.

You may not be there to see the fruits of your work - just keep believing.

You need to have faith that God will get the job done when God wants it done. In the meantime, do a lot of praying. And don’t be afraid to admit you don’t have all the answers.

In the meantime, and if you don’t already do this, I suggest reading Scriptures everyday. It’s amazing how often we get to use the info we read the day before.

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Since this has turned into a problem of pain forum, let’s deal with that head on. It is a hard question and it is truly the only logical argument against God out there. (I mean that it can be stated logically and follows validly. It may be that the premises are false or that the terms are ambigous however.)

The first point I brought up should be elaborated. If there is no God or if there is a strong/bad or weak/good god then why is goodness meaningful? You say that you do good works in a soup kitchen and I praise you for it! There are few christians who live out love in that way when we really ought to be the first to sign up. But if there is no God then by what standard can we call your actions good? Even if the universe was like the taoists say with a balance of good and evil forces, then by what standard would it be right to be on the good side compared to the bad side? Isn’t your feeding the homeless only extending their misery? In a universe without a source of ultimate goodness, then these acts are as equally meaningless and empty as a Virginia tech shooting spree. Remember that it was Ivan Karimozov that put the idea into Smerdyakov’s head that without God, everything goes.
This is what I was trying to say with the problem of goodness earlier.

Another premilinary point I’d like for you to notice is that you do believe in an objective system of right and wrong. You say that God is wrong to act in certain ways and so apply a standard of goodness and evil against God. This is fine, but the point is, where can that objective morality come from. If the universe is a cosmic quantum blip and we are a conglomeration of random particles, then our whole existence is meaningless and our end will be the same as the whole universe - heat death. Yet we are both talking about a real objective standard of right and wrong that is not itself a part of the universe. As C.S. Lewis says “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . .” – Mere Christianity. He says it is like creatures who live in a world without light asking why there is no light. The fact that we are not blind to evil and suffering says though, that there really is something there, and if this is true, then there must be a metaphysical source of Goodness.

(not necessarilly so though for evil as in the taoist philosphy. Evil is only a parasite of goodness. It cannot exist as a thing in itself but can only be a derivation of a good thing. Consider that no one pursues evil for it’s own sake but only for the sake of a good. A greedy man uses an evil means to aquire the good of security and prosperity. We can only call diseases bad when we know what the healthy person ought to look like.)

These are only a couple of preliminary points. There is more to the argument concerning the problem of evil that could be developed, but I wonder if this forum really should end up being a book. Does it really do us any good? If this is an honest question, then why not look into the philosophers who have already dealt with it. My personal favorite is C.S. Lewis and his book the Problem of Pain. Thomas Aquinas deals with it in the summa theologica, and Peter Kreeft, a modern catholic theologian/philosopher has also written about it. There are many more that I am personally unfamiliar with but I’m sure have good things to say.

God Bless you on your journey,

-Justin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. (Why does God permit evil and suffering?) Answer:

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4029/dm_crucifixion_dtl.jpg

​

That’s why Christian faith is not faith in “G/god” - whatever that may mean: but in God Who is revealed in Jesus Christ “and Him Crucified”.

To hell with theism - Christian faith is nothing to do with that. God is a Person to be encountered, not a proposition to be validated.

One of the loathsome things about treating God as made known in Christ as though He were a proposition to be validated, is that such a procedure is utterly anti-Christian; it falsifies faith in Christ. It’s false because

• faith cannot be proved - it can only be given, totally freely, by the Father.
• to try to prove it is to treat it as though it were a purely human philosophy founded on human brilliance & human insight. This is to degrade it
• Christ Crucified is a scandal, a stumbling block, a cause of offence to Greek & Jew alike: the Cross is not reasonable: it’s an offence & an insult to human self-sufficiency & human cleverness & human wisdom & human pride - it is meant to be.
• to try to make it easy to accept, is to distort & dilute it; to change its entire character. And that is a falsification of the Good News.
• Christ is an offensive mystery - which is why the religious people hated & murdered him (with very good reason; they thought he was a deceiver, liar, blasphemer & a thoroughly wicked man); & why “the accursed rabble outside the Law” “heard him gladly” This is the very reverse of what one would expect to happen - it shows how unreasonable He is. So to try making His Good News fit with our expectations is (once again) to mistake its character.
  The Good News can be proclaimed - it challenges the hearer (including the preachers of it). But trying to prove that it is acceptable intellectually is a waste of time:it needs none of our feeble arguments, because it is the ever-effective message of God. How can it need our help ? If it is not acceptable - its rejecters judge themselves.

Let’s not falsify the Good News in our attempts to share it. It can look after itself

 

[Sideline]

Since this has turned into a problem of pain forum, let’s deal with that head on. It is a hard question and it is truly the only logical argument against God out there. (I mean that it can be stated logically and follows validly. It may be that the premises are false or that the terms are ambigous however.)

There is actually a really good reason for it being the only really good proof against God. Claims that God is all-loving, all-merciful, and all-just are really the only claims that anyone could possibly test. They are the only thing that is claimed about God that would have any visible, tangible, or perceivable affects.

The first point I brought up should be elaborated. If there is no God or if there is a strong/bad or weak/good god then why is goodness meaningful?

You know, you seem nice. You really do, but I am so flipping sick of the “God is the universal standard” argument that I wish it was in my power to ban it forever.

Do you really think God is what makes punches hurt and hugs feel good? Do you think he really is some sort of cosmic scale or thermometer? Seriously, even if there were a God deciding right and wrong, he would have to be basing it on something. If he isn’t, it isn’t right or wrong, it is the arbitrary decision of a cosmic despot.

Remember that it was Ivan Karimozov that put the idea into Smerdyakov’s head that without God, everything goes.
This is what I was trying to say with the problem of goodness earlier.

As great a writer as Dostoevsky was, I don’t buy his argument.

Another premilinary point I’d like for you to notice is…

I’m just going to summarize this. You think that I think there is a universal moral code. Where did it come from if not God, because there is no morality in the physical universe.

1. I don’t know if there is a universal code, but I suspect not. 2. This doesn’t stop me from living as if there is one. 3. Being somewhat logical and living with other somewhat logical beings, we can construct a somewhat logical set of assumptions about what the moral code, if it were to exist, would be. 4. Using this moral code, I can decide whether God, if he exists, is living according to it.

I could say the same about compassion or love. Does it exist out there, or is it a human construction? Either way, we can examine what God does, apparently, and decide if it conforms to the definition of love and compassion that we believe in.

As C.S. Lewis says “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . .” – Mere Christianity.

Why that guy ever got published, I don’t know. Actually, the Screwtape letters are kind of funny, I’ll give him that.

We can only call diseases bad when we know what the healthy person ought to look like.

Actually, if you are born in pain, you don’t need to know what good feels like to know that the pain sucks.

My personal favorite is C.S. Lewis and his book the Problem of Pain.

Thomas Aquinas deals with it in the summa theologica, and Peter Kreeft, a modern catholic theologian/philosopher has also written about it. There are many more that I am personally unfamiliar with but I’m sure have good things to say.

Ouch, that was like a litany of people whose books I would never read again.

Why do you assume that I haven’t read about this issue? Have you really read C.S. Lewis’ argument critically? Think about what he is doing. He is trying to justify the actions of God. He is starting from the premise that God must exist, must be all-good, and therefor the pain in the world must teach us some great lesson. Why must someone assume any of that? Does it really fit the evidence the best? How about this: There is no God. Suffering exists partly as a mechanism for survival, but it’s partly just bad luck. It is an imperfect system in an imperfect world. If you look at motivational tools for people, beating them into submission isn’t brilliant, it’s barbaric and counter-productive.

Take a child, communicate with him indirectly and infrequently. When he goes wrong, beat the **** out of him. And sometimes when he goes right as well. He will be a scarred, vicious mass of hatred, but he’ll be strong all right.

 

[Sideline]

Take a child, communicate with him indirectly and infrequently. When he goes wrong, beat the **** out of him.

Just for the record, the word I used wasn’t that bad. It’s not what you think.