Could God eliminate all pain and suffering? why didn't he?

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, then here are a few questions: “Why is the water wet, since neither hydrogen nor oxygen is wet?”.

Quick mention: I did not say that everything has a cause. I am reasonably sure that I believe it, but it is hardly the reason why I believe in God.

But I enjoy the questions, so I’ll take a stab. Water is wet because the phenomenal experience we associate with water has a distinctive affect, an affect we designate with the word “wet”.

Or “why is ice slippery, when water is not?”.

Once again, we’re talking about the human experience of slipping, which is not contained in any element. Ice – notwithstanding its compositional similarity with water – is experienced as an entirely different thing from water. Thus, it is no more surprising that ice is slippery than that popcorn is tasty.

Or “why does the Sun and the Moon appear to be of the same size?”.

Because of our perspective. The fact that this is the case, by the way, is a phenomenal coincidence, if it is a coincidence at all.

Or “why is there nothing to the north from the North Pole”?.

Because magnetism has a range of application, and you cannot apply it beyond that range. (Sorry if the science is off here).

 

[john_doran]

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.

but every question “goes away” if you simply deny the existence of the subject of the question.

which, again, leaves you with solipsism.

wanstronian:

I prefer to stick to the simple fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God - despite what WSP might say.

no evidence? i think you mean “no evidence that compels your belief on the pain of irrationality”, or “no evidence that cannot be explained away to your satisfaction”.

what’s your evidence for the existence of other minds? or the past? or that your senses are reliable?

or, to use a more mundane example, what’s your evidence for the standard model of particle physics? or general relativity?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I prefer to stick to the simple fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God - despite what WSP might say.

ok, lets list some evidence.

1. contingent beings exist, necessitating a necessary being.
2. dozens of witness testimonies spread over thousands of years, all essentially describing the same relationship, the various books of Scripture.
3. the inescapable mathematics of Messianic Prophecy

here is just some of the evidence for G-d, your contention that it is a “simple fact” that there is no evidence for G-d is obviously false. is that then the basis of your atheism? can you still call your self rational if you dont examine the evidence? no you cant, your just practicing atheism as a faith in this context.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

If you can show me a prophesy that specified what is going to happen to whom, and when, then I’ll be incredibly surprised. Furthermore, if such a prophecy is inextricably linked with the existence of God - ie. if there is a contingent link - then I’ll believe in God. However, if you take an oblique reference to crucifixion as ‘proof’ that it’s a prophesy about Jesus, and then ignore the fact that there’s no evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (this has happened on this forum), then that is no kind of prophecy at all.

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.

What are they? How have they been independently verified to have been written before the event? These are genuine questions - I’m interested.

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.

Of course it doesn’t violate the PSR. The key letter in the acronym is the ‘S’. The existence of the universe is not sufficient reason to necessitate God. I can create several other explanations - just provide the validation criteria that I have to meet.

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.

Then provide some evidence. Unless you’re going to say, “We exist, therefore God exists,” like you have previously. If this is the ‘evidence’ that people are ‘intent on rejecting,’ then words fail me!

true rationalism questions everything. i was an athiest, now im not, almost entirely a rational process

“almost?”

, 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.

It sounds like you are admitting to not being rational! I’d agree with that, although I suspect that’s not what you meant. I’m not sure what you did mean though.

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.

Okay, I wasn’t clear. What I meant was, there was no reason for X to happen, in the context of intent. There was undoubtedly a cause for the universe, but we don’t, and probably never can, know what it was.

its contradictory to hold both the scientific method and X just happens. one or the other is true, and im going with the PSR.

Hopefully I’ve clarified above. I also think the PSR is a sensible basis for analysis of evidence. But ‘sufficient’ is subjective, and by any rational definition of ‘sufficient’, there is no evidence for the existence of God. The same level of evidential integrity in a law court, for example, would see the case dismissed in a matter of minutes.

 

[tonyrey]

I prefer to stick to the simple fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God - despite what WSP might say.

Do you regret the fact that you were born?

 

[tonyrey]

Failing to satisfy your belief is not a true indicator of inadequacy.

It is not a question of failing to satisfy my belief but of failing to account for the facts. The belief that God doesn’t exist accounts for precisely nothing.

Actually it’s not even the simplest because it fails to unify the diverse aspects of reality.
Aside from being irrelevant in a general sense, your comment also ignores the original question - that of the purpose of suffering

Your inability to refute the fact that One Being unifies the diverse aspects of reality leads you to change the subject. It is hardly likely to be irrelevant when you yourself have brought up the subject of God’s existence! If it is irrelevant you are the one who introduced the irrelevance. You are also making an impossible demand: that I deal with two topics simultaneously! One at a time please!

Nor the most economical because nothing is more economical than One Being.
Aside from the absence of that being.

“Nothing” is extremely economical but unfortunately nothing explains nothing…nor is the universe self-explanatory… Excessive economy is not a merit but a defect.

Yes, and you are talking at cross-purposes and making absurd causal links.

Is there no causal link between logic and rationality? Are you denying that logic presupposes rationality? In that case you are being highly illogical:

1. Logic exists
2. Logic is produced by rationality.
   3.Therefore rationality exists.

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.

It is not the logical position but the metaphysical position of the absence of God that is under threat because it lacks an adequate source of rationality.

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.

“Efficient” is the most beautifully apt adjective you could have chosen because it is defined as “producing a desired effect, product, etc. with a minimum of effort, expense, or waste”. You regard your answer as producing the desired effect of conveying your belief that God doesn’t exist!

You are unable to admit the possibility of the alternative answer because it doesn’t fit with your disbelief.
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.

Your zeal for atheism is so strong that you are unable to cope with the elementary logic that “x just happens” is not a logical deduction from “he doesn’t exist”.
,

 

[puzzleannie]

God did create a world without pain and suffering and peopled it with beings possessed of intellect, knowledge and free will. When offered the choice by Satan, they freely chose pain and suffering, which is why it exists now in this world. To this day anyone who freely chooses to follow the false promises of Satan instead of the law written by God on the human heart insures that pain and suffering will continue to be business as usual on this planet.

 

[Lethe]

Skeptics always ask, “If there is a God, then why is there evil and suffering?” (I always thought it was a stupid question.)

Well, consider the opposite:

If there is no God, then why is there so much good in the world?

I always thought it was a stupid question until I studied it. Thinking about it really, truly makes you realise that some people have life so bad that God would have to either not be all loving, or not be all powerful to allow it. For example - any pain and suffering caused to young children, to disabled people, to innocents in general, especially when it ends in death and so leaves no way for the person to benefit from it.

The only thing that can stamp out the ‘problem of evil’ within a religion is, I think, to postulate an afterlife where things can be made right. Otherwise some people’s lives are just too horrific for me to believe in a God, or to respect one if it did exist.

 

[Dchsknight]

I would like to put this forward.

God did not create Pain, or Suffering or anything like that… WE did.

We were created to be Dependent, yet free beings, In perfect union with God, But we choose Independent yet Free.

Independence Killed Grace. We are not independent beings we dependent. Just look at the desire of a Man for a Woman. IF we were Independent there would be no desire.

In, however, God’s perfect love and grace, he choose to give us what we wanted. HE allowed us to be independent and free. that In a sense God did not create pain or suffering, He allows it. He allows it because he loves us and lets us choose our own way. He offers as much help and guidance to bring us back to him, But ultimatly we have free will and we must choose him.

There is an Idea God does not damn anyone to hell. Nor will he damn anyone, On judgment day he wants to say “COME IN, come home be with me.” But in our arrogance we choose sin. So God does not damn anyone, we damn ourselves.

We caused murder, through Cain and Able. WE cause greed, by chasing after what WE call Valuable and not what he calls Valuable. We cause Adultery and rape because Women dress in disrespectful ways and men look with disrespectful eyes. Our children run form us and hide because we beat them and use them for our pleasure. Children run in rebelion because we don’t love them enough to punish them and correct them. Strife and war is because of OUR greed and lusts for power. Abortion is our doing because as men and women we are unwilling to live up to our mistakes and take responsibility. None of what i just wrote or anything like it, is God’s doing. It is ours.

Aids and Std’s are a direct consequence of humanity dis regarding the beauty and value of the Marriage bed. Birth Defects and death in childbirth and direct consequences of humanities independence. Now dont take what i am saying to be, like i consider disabled people and the children born with what we consider “Defects” to be a punishment. That is not what i am saying, I am saying Humanity was Perfect, was… until we choose to stray from God’s perfect will and follow our own hearts and not his.

God does not cause pain or suffering. God does not create it or revel in it. We caused it, We created it and we revel in it still to this day.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you can show me a prophesy that specified what is going to happen to whom, and when, then I’ll be incredibly surprised. Furthermore, if such a prophecy is inextricably linked with the existence of God - ie. if there is a contingent link - then I’ll believe in God. However, if you take an oblique reference to crucifixion as ‘proof’ that it’s a prophesy about Jesus, and then ignore the fact that there’s no evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (this has happened on this forum), then that is no kind of prophecy at all.

you can try tp put restrictions on the evidence all you want. but that wont make it go away or be easily dismissable.

that said many people have given the subject a better treatment than me. here are some places to start.

thedevineevidence.com/prophecy_jesus.html

jewishvoice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Who_is_MessianicProphecies

i can give you more sources on the mathematics of it, if you need them.

What are they? How have they been independently verified to have been written before the event? These are genuine questions - I’m interested.

yes, the Jews, the dead sea scrolls, and others, the website comments on the normal skeptical objections.

Of course it doesn’t violate the PSR. The key letter in the acronym is the ‘S’. The existence of the universe is not sufficient reason to necessitate God. I can create several other explanations - just provide the validation criteria that I have to meet

its not subjective, it refers to the minimal cause necessary to cause an event. thats just a plain out dodge.

and the universe does necessitate G-d, id be interested in any explanation you have for our existence that doesnt necessitate a nessecary being.

Then provide some evidence. Unless you’re going to say, “We exist, therefore God exists,” like you have previously. If this is the ‘evidence’ that people are ‘intent on rejecting,’ then words fail me!

youve been given evidence, adress it. i expect you to actually know the arguments.

"almost?"It sounds like you are admitting to not being rational! I’d agree with that, although I suspect that’s not what you meant. I’m not sure what you did mean though.

years spent as an atheist had me sure religion must be full of it, when i realized, as have a great many atheists, that there was a G-d even if i didnt like it, rationalism is destroyed as a method to explore G-d. i lived by the sword of rationalism, i died by the sword of rationalism. it falls away where one begins trying to have a relationship with G-d. its just not much use there. one realizes the smallness of their intellect in the face of G-d.

There was undoubtedly a cause for the universe, but we don’t, and probably never can, know what it was.

this is the beginning of the end for your atheism, as it was for mine, youll fight for a few more years, maybe decades, i did for about 10 years myself. it will eat at you though, that cause will forever pester you in the still of the night. now we just need to decide what that cause is. for that i think you may be best served by the various arguments from contingency.

Hopefully I’ve clarified above. I also think the PSR is a sensible basis for analysis of evidence. But ‘sufficient’ is subjective, and by any rational definition of ‘sufficient’, there is no evidence for the existence of God. The same level of evidential integrity in a law court, for example, would see the case dismissed in a matter of minutes.

indeed not. if you have several dozen witness statements describing essentially the same series of events, then you have a very strong case. Scripture is little more than witness statements.

though i suggest that the universe itself is plenty of evidence for the existence of G-d.

 

[tonyrey]

The only thing that can stamp out the ‘problem of evil’ within a religion is, I think, to postulate an afterlife where things can be made right. Otherwise some people’s lives are just too horrific for me to believe in a God, or to respect one if it did exist.

I believe that is an irrefutable argument. There has be cosmic justice…

 

[wanstronian]

Do you regret the fact that you were born?

No.

 

[wanstronian]

It is not a question of failing to satisfy my belief but of failing to account for the facts. The belief that God doesn’t exist accounts for precisely nothing.

Nor should it. The absence of something should not, by definition, account for anything!

Your inability to refute the fact that One Being unifies the diverse aspects of reality leads you to change the subject.

I really don’t understand your logic in presenting conjecture as fact. It is not fact - or at least it’s not proof - until you can show it to be true using empirical evidence.

It is hardly likely to be irrelevant when you yourself have brought up the subject of God’s existence!

I brought it because it was the most logical response to the question.

If it is irrelevant you are the one who introduced the irrelevance.

No, you introduced the irrelevance when you asserted that God unifies the diverse aspects of reality. This is irrelevant because you have no evidence that he exists, let alone unifies anything.

You are also making an impossible demand: that I deal with two topics simultaneously! One at a time please!

No, I was pointing out that your conjecture does not add to the OP’s question. Nor, admittedly, does mine, but I simply stated an opinion that I have since been compelled to defend.

“Nothing” is extremely economical but unfortunately nothing explains nothing…nor is the universe self-explanatory… Excessive economy is not a merit but a defect.

And God explains nothing, because there is no explanation for God, nor evidence for his existence.

Is there no causal link between logic and rationality? Are you denying that logic presupposes rationality? In that case you are being highly illogical:

1. Logic exists
2. Logic is produced by rationality.
   3.Therefore rationality exists.

As I’m sure you’re aware, I’m not denying anything of the sort. I’m pointing out that claiming that the existence of logic does NOT presuppose a rational ultimate being, which is what you were implying.

It is not the logical position but the metaphysical position of the absence of God that is under threat because it lacks an adequate source of rationality.

Only if that happens to be your belief structure. It is not logically contingent.

“Efficient” is the most beautifully apt adjective you could have chosen because it is defined as “producing a desired effect, product, etc. with a minimum of effort, expense, or waste”. You regard your answer as producing the desired effect of conveying your belief that God doesn’t exist!

, No, that’s just what you’re inferring. What I am stating is that the universe is more efficient without having to have an infinitely complex entity having designed and built it.

Your zeal for atheism is so strong that you are unable to cope with the elementary logic that “x just happens” is not a logical deduction from “he doesn’t exist”.

And if you read my post more carefully you will see that I didn’t make such a deduction, I just made two statements. It is you who inferred a logical link, therefore it is your logic that is questionable. Or at least, your reading skills.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

If God doesn’t exist, his nature is irrelevant. Your inferral of my meaning of the word “nature” may be at issue here. You are the one who started talking about the “If God is good…” argument.

This is your dogma. You have yet to prove it.

Quelle suprise - a theist demanding that an atheist prove a negative. Of course it can’t be proven, but the absence of evidence of a higher purpose to the universe is good enough, for the same reason as the absence of evidence for unicorns is considered adequate reason for not believing in them.

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.

If the argument itself is kept hypothetical - an example of how an argument might run, then I agree. If ever used ‘in anger’ then it is a waste of time.

 

[wanstronian]

Quick mention: I did not say that everything has a cause. I am reasonably sure that I believe it, but it is hardly the reason why I believe in God.

But I enjoy the questions, so I’ll take a stab. Water is wet because the phenomenal experience we associate with water has a distinctive affect, an affect we designate with the word “wet”.

Once again, we’re talking about the human experience of slipping, which is not contained in any element. Ice – notwithstanding its compositional similarity with water – is experienced as an entirely different thing from water. Thus, it is no more surprising that ice is slippery than that popcorn is tasty.

Because of our perspective. The fact that this is the case, by the way, is a phenomenal coincidence, if it is a coincidence at all.

Because magnetism has a range of application, and you cannot apply it beyond that range. (Sorry if the science is off here).

But I think here, you confuse intent with process, or “why” with “how come.”

 

[wanstronian]

I believe that is an irrefutable argument.

In the strictest sense of the word “irrefutable” you are correct. It cannot be disproved. But there’s no rational basis for believing it.

There has be cosmic justice…

Who says? Why does there ever have to be justice? By what law?

 

[MindOverMatter]

could God have made the world without pain and suffering?and why didn’t he?

Your premise is without merit. Why does one assume that God could remove all pain and suffering?

 

[MindOverMatter]

In the strictest sense of the word “irrefutable” you are correct. It cannot be disproved. But there’s no rational basis for believing it.

Why? Have you ever felt guilty?

 

[MindOverMatter]

But I think here, you confuse intent with process, or “why” with “how come.”

Explain how.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Nor should it. The absence of something should not, by definition, account for anything!

You assume the absence of God. I think it was quite reasonable for people to believe or infer the existence of atoms before they were discovered by science, even though they did not have the exact details. Of course, until they had empirical evidence they could not confirm their existence or their exact nature; but reasonable belief is not confined to the empirical method alone. God cannot be proven or disproved by the scientific method. However somethings, so long as they follow inferentially, necessarily or logically, are reasonable to believe without consideration to the empirical method. That other people have minds, is a reasonable belief. Such a belief might be wrong, but that doesn’t mean that its unreasonable to believe it. That physical reality cannot in principle account for its own existence including the laws of nature, is reason enough to believe that the explanation exists outside of physics. There is no good reason not to believe this. The only thing getting in your way is not rationality, but prejudice against a belief that does not suit your agenda.