T
tonyrey
Guest
God could not have made this type of world without pain and suffering because it is a physical world with **sentient **beings and “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”…
- Status
W
wanstronian
Guest
The simplest, most economical, most logical answer is that God doesn’t exist.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is certainly the most inadequate!
Actually it’s not even the simplest because it fails to unify the diverse aspects of reality
nor the most economical because nothing is more economical than One Being
nor the most logical because logic presupposes rationality…
W
wanstronian
Guest
Failing to satisfy your belief is not a true indicator of inadequacy.It is certainly the most inadequate!
Aside from being irrelevant in a general sense, your comment also ignores the original question - that of the purpose of suffering.
Aside from the absence of that being. Unless, for some reason, you consider that ‘more’ is less bloated than ‘less?’
Yes, and you are talking at cross-purposes and making absurd causal links. The logical position of the absence of God is not under threat by the postulation that it was God who had to provide rationality in the first place.
Think about it. The original question was, “Why did God allow x?” An answer of, “He didn’t because he doesn’t exist, x just happens,” is by far the most efficient answer. The only problem is that it doesn’t fit with your belief, and your zeal is so strong that you are unable to cope with elementary logic.
J
john_doran
Guest
the problem with that reasoning is that it’s merely the thin edge of the very large logical wedge: the most “efficient” position of all, by those lights, is solipsism, since it posits nothing but one mind and its thoughts.
“why is there suffering?”, “well, there isn’t - it’s all in your mind”
“why do people do bad things?”, “they don’t because they don’t exist: they and their bad acts are all in your mind”
and so on…
what’s the probative force of “efficiency”, anyway? it’s hardly logical - elementary or otherwise - and smacks as much of partisan axiology as the zeal with which you credit tony.
R
redhen
Guest
I thought God was omnipotent?
Also, it looks like God has plans for this exact kind of suffering-free environment in the future.
"The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death.
These will be** the same bodies people had in earthly life**—but our resurrection bodies will not die and, for the righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2)."
catholic.com/library/Resurrection_of_the_Body.asp
So, it can be done. The question then is why is there suffering now? Is this just some kind of dry run?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
its nothing but opinion, a good G-d wouldnt let bad things happen. simplistic ill agree, but logical? hardly.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
and the unsatisfying root of all atheism, denial of the PSR, revealed. let me ask, do you believe in the scientific method? if so, doesnt it seem a little hypocritical to claim that there must be a reason for everything until we come to G-d? or to say that “x just happens” is any more economical than G-ddidit?
if you believe the PSR then your position is untenable, if you dont, you deny the scientific method, or in fact the ability to have any knowledge.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Pain helps to define pleasure, just as light and darkness define each other.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Well, I’m not sure whether you’re asking what is the reason for God, or whether you’re asking what is the cause of the Universe and letting your religion get in the way of asking the question you mean. If the former, there is no reason for God because there is no evidence for God; if the latter, I’m not disputing that there is a cause of the Universe, I’m just disputing that if there is one, it has to be God.
Well it’s more economical because it doesn’t need a complex, intelligent entity to ‘allow’ it to happen.
I don’t know what the PSR is, but I do know that my position is rational (as I said to you in another post, what could be more rational than requiring evidence before believing something?), and does not preclude the scientific method. In fact, if you are claiming that the scientific method can prove that God exists, then you are clearly deranged. Because if it could, it would have, and we would all believe in God.
Edit: Okay, looked up PSR, and I’m in the clear. There is insufficient reason to believe in God. No evidence, you see.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
so you dont have a problem with the metaphysics? you dont know which theology then is the correct one? if thats the case, Christianity is unique in that we have a series of testimonies from unrelated men scattered across thousands of years that describe a series of prophecies and then their fulfillment. the math of the prophecies is inescapable, youll find that most rejection is on the nebulous grounds that the prophecies are ambiguous or it was a conspiracy. there are hundreds of prophecies, many indeed are ambiguous, however many are very specific, it takes very few of the more specific ones to be fulfilled for the odds for Christ being the Messiah astronomical. no other faith has this sort of thing, they are generally revealed texts, such as islam or mormonism, where you have to trust a single man or a very small group of people. the others tend to be philosophies or one form of nature worship or another like hinduism, shinto, taoism, or budhism. though if i wasnt a Catholic, id be a taoist, it sfits my ascetic nature.
your right, it is more economical in that it posts no reason for the universe at all, it simply says, i dont know. of course thats more economical, problem is that it denies the PSR. the very basis of the scientific method and all knowledge. not much of an answer then.
oh, i agree thats rational, but there is a ton of evidence, i find when people say that they are intent on rejecting evidence that doesnt fit the position that they desire to hold. true rationalism questions everything. i was an athiest, now im not, almost entirely a rational process, of course at that edge where one understands there is a G-d whether one likes it or not, rationality goes out the window. you realize that you dont really know anything after all.
no, i dont think the scientific method can prove G-ds existence, why would anyone think that? though you cant exclude the possibility. who knows, maybe it will in a few thousand years. rather im pointing out that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, underlies scientific and metaphysical investigation. when you say X just happens, you deny the need for a reason for X to happen, but you surely wouldnt do so in case of science, all scientific investigation is based on the PSR, there is a reason for some phenomenon, lets hypothesize and test. so, X just happens isnt the most economical, its simply refusing to ask the question. or search for an answer.
its contradictory to hold both the scientific method and X just happens. one or the other is true, and im going with the PSR.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason#Schopenhauer.27s_Four_Forms
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Let’s look at the logic, in detail.
If there is a God, then He would have made the world without pain and suffering.
If there is a God, then there is no suffering. (Simplify; if p then not q)
There is suffering. (q)
There is no God. (p)
This is perfectly valid reasoning. But it has assumptions tied to it. The conditional statement (if p then q) is an assumption, which must be justified before the inference stands. Any vague terms in the conditional must be clarified.
“God”, as some atheistic posters around here commonly point out, is a vague term. In assuming God, what are we assuming? At least three things: 1) An omnipotent, omniscient being, 2) A being who created everything except Himself, and 3) A being that is entirely good (omnibenevolent).
Let’s just consider #3. If God is not good, then we can immediately scrap the above syllogism, because a imperfectly good God would not necessarily create a world with no suffering.
But there is a further important consideration. The word “good” is also a vague term. At one point in my life, I may believe that the death penalty is good; at another, that it is evil. My ideas about what is good refer to nothing else in the world but my ideas about good. Christians believe that there is an objective good, aside from our ideas about it. But we cannot even refer to this objective good with perfect accuracy, because our word “good” is always bound up in our own limited perspective on the matter.
In other words, we do not know what the word “good” in the expression “God is good” means. There are at least embedded premises (EP) in the original argument.
God is good. (EP #1)
Our ideas of “good” are in accordance with the objective nature of “good” (EP #2)
If God exists, then there is no suffering.
There is suffering.
There is no God.
Given the metaphysical assumptions of most atheists, EP #2 is incoherent and unnecessary, because there is no objective nature of good. But theists will not agree to these assumptions, and atheists cannot prove them true. Therefore, the argument – formally, at least – is riddled with ambiguity and inconclusive.
Oh, and yes, I know my answer is more complicated than yours, wanstronian. But, to quote Oscar Wilde, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” And, as we all know, Wilde was never wrong.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I’d be careful with that kind of argument. You’re placing too much trust in the rationality of the masses. The scientific method has taken note of loads of evidence for evolution, but a good percentage of Americans refuse to believe it. Sure, the Christians would grope for the evidence supporting God immediately, but most other religions would stubbornly cling to their texts. Christians would do the same, of course, if evidence of Allah is discovered.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
you conflate the denominations, though some Catholics doubt evolution, it is not required by the faith. protestants on the other hand have a theological principle called sola scriptura, that infers a literal reading of Scripture, they view evoluution as a threat to that. i dont think the theory proven or set in stone because it rests on an unproven and possibly unprovable abiogenesis, and there are other issues. one should always remember phlogiston when they think of some science as dogmatic.I’d be careful with that kind of argument. You’re placing too much trust in the rationality of the masses. The scientific method has taken note of loads of evidence for evolution, but a good percentage of Americans refuse to believe it. Sure, the Christians would grope for the evidence supporting God immediately, but most other religions would stubbornly cling to their texts. Christians would do the same, of course, if evidence of Allah is discovered.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Because the gift of Free Will that God gave to us would be useless without suffering entering into the equation. If we had no free will, we would basically be automatons conditioned so that one can do whatever ones like without any consequences. Free will makes us have to choose between good and evil. Besides, suffering entered into our lives through the Fall.
And then there is George Weigel. HH John Paul II’s biographer writes in his The Truth of Catholicism:
“Suffering, in the Catholic view of things, is a mystery. By ‘mystery,’ Catholic theology means not a puzzle to be solved as Sherlock Holmes would do, but a reality that can only be grasped and comprehended in an act of love. There is no ‘answer’ to the problem of suffering in the sense that there are answers to questions like ‘What is two plus two?’ The Church has always believed and taught that there is a different kind of answer to the question ‘Why do we suffer?’ That answer takes us directly into the heart of the Church, which is Jesus Christ.
That Jesus Christ is a suffering redeemer has been a shock and offense since the first days of Christianity. The challenge of belief in a redeemer whose victorious strength is displayed in his weakness may be greater today than at any other time in the past two thousand years, given our culture’s resistance to the idea that suffering is the necessary path to beatitude or human flourishing. But that is the mystery – the profoundly human mystery – of suffering.”
And then there is George Weigel. HH John Paul II’s biographer writes in his The Truth of Catholicism:
“Suffering, in the Catholic view of things, is a mystery. By ‘mystery,’ Catholic theology means not a puzzle to be solved as Sherlock Holmes would do, but a reality that can only be grasped and comprehended in an act of love. There is no ‘answer’ to the problem of suffering in the sense that there are answers to questions like ‘What is two plus two?’ The Church has always believed and taught that there is a different kind of answer to the question ‘Why do we suffer?’ That answer takes us directly into the heart of the Church, which is Jesus Christ.
That Jesus Christ is a suffering redeemer has been a shock and offense since the first days of Christianity. The challenge of belief in a redeemer whose victorious strength is displayed in his weakness may be greater today than at any other time in the past two thousand years, given our culture’s resistance to the idea that suffering is the necessary path to beatitude or human flourishing. But that is the mystery – the profoundly human mystery – of suffering.”
F
Fran65
Guest
Allah and the Christian God are the same God. Where Muslims and Christians differ is in the nature of Jesus Christ and the status of the Qu’ran.
W
wanstronian
Guest
But you make one big assumption up front - that I’ve assumed the nature of God to play any part in my conclusion.Let’s look at the logic, in detail.
If there is a God, then He would have made the world without pain and suffering.
If there is a God, then there is no suffering. (Simplify; if p then not q)
There is suffering. (q)
There is no God. (p)
This is perfectly valid reasoning. But it has assumptions tied to it. The conditional statement (if p then q) is an assumption, which must be justified before the inference stands. Any vague terms in the conditional must be clarified.
“God”, as some atheistic posters around here commonly point out, is a vague term. In assuming God, what are we assuming? At least three things: 1) An omnipotent, omniscient being, 2) A being who created everything except Himself, and 3) A being that is entirely good (omnibenevolent).
Let’s just consider #3. If God is not good, then we can immediately scrap the above syllogism, because a imperfectly good God would not necessarily create a world with no suffering.
But there is a further important consideration. The word “good” is also a vague term. At one point in my life, I may believe that the death penalty is good; at another, that it is evil. My ideas about what is good refer to nothing else in the world but my ideas about good. Christians believe that there is an objective good, aside from our ideas about it. But we cannot even refer to this objective good with perfect accuracy, because our word “good” is always bound up in our own limited perspective on the matter.
In other words, we do not know what the word “good” in the expression “God is good” means. There are at least embedded premises (EP) in the original argument.
God is good. (EP #1)
Our ideas of “good” are in accordance with the objective nature of “good” (EP #2)
If God exists, then there is no suffering.
There is suffering.
There is no God.
Given the metaphysical assumptions of most atheists, EP #2 is incoherent and unnecessary, because there is no objective nature of good. But theists will not agree to these assumptions, and atheists cannot prove them true. Therefore, the argument – formally, at least – is riddled with ambiguity and inconclusive.
Oh, and yes, I know my answer is more complicated than yours, wanstronian. But, to quote Oscar Wilde, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” And, as we all know, Wilde was never wrong.
My point is simply that If you accept that God doesn’t exist, the question goes away - rather, it becomes, “How come people suffer?” and the answer is, “That’s just the way the universe is.” There doesn’t have to by a “why” to everything.
I think the, “If God were good, people wouldn’t suffer” argument is a weak one from an atheistic point of view. The argument then becomes an ontological one which can never have a satisfactory answer. I prefer to stick to the simple fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God - despite what WSP might say.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Your original post said:
The statement “God doesn’t exist” includes the word God. If you thought that the word *God *was unnecessary to the point you were making, you wouldn’t have used it. You conclusion was that God does not exist, so I do not see how the nature of God (in this context, the meaning of the word God) played no part in your conclusion.
This is your dogma. You have yet to prove it.
I would tend to agree that ontological arguments are never convincing. Any person who doubts the existence of anything (except, perhaps, their own thoughts) cannot reliably convinced using argument. I’m not quite sure how the above argument is ontological, however. It doesn’t assume that God exists; it just considers what would be the case if He did.
A
azirtsed
Guest
well just bear with my simple idea…i think that God can eliminate all the burdens if He will to do so…and what we are experiencing wiether both evil and good it is so because we are in journey towards perfection, we are bound to perfection.
S
Spock
Guest
- Status