God’s benevolence vs. pain and suffering

[Hitetlen]

Definitions:

1. God, if exists, must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
2. Omniscient means that God knows everything that can be known.
3. Omnipotent means that God can perform everything but logically contradictory acts.
4. Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows unnecessary (or avoidable or justifiable/justified) pain and suffering.

Corollary:

1. God is logical. This follows from omniscience. Logic is knowable.

Problem: What is necessary pain and who should decide if a pain is necessary or not. This is the fundamental question, probably subject to contention. Here is the problem: in order to decide if a pain was necessary, one must be aware of the “good” side effect, and one must decide if the pain leading to that side effect was “worth the price, or not”.

1. To be aware of an alleged good outcome, one needs relevant knowledge (preferably omniscience, though it is not strictly necessary). Since we lack omniscience, it seems that only God is qualified to decide if there is a “good enough” outcome stemming from the pain and suffering. God does not inform us of these “possible” good outcomes, so we must make our decisions based upon what we know. Since God could choose to inform us about the alleged “goods” and chose not to, essentially we are left to our own devices, and are authorized to make value judgments according to the available information.
2. Who is qualified decide if the pain was worth the alleged good outcome? It cannot be God, since he is not the sufferer. Only the being affected by the pain and suffering is qualified to make that decision. That brings up two different categories of sufferers:

a) Animals, young children and mentally retarded people, who lack the sufficient bra(name removed by moderator)ower to make such decisions.

b) Sufficiently developed adults, who are able to make such decisions.

Of these two categories, the adults who are subject to pain and suffering, must decide for themselves if the pain was “worth it” – based upon what they know about the alleged “good outcome”. If they consider that it was “worth it”, then there is no problem, the pain is justified. If they decide that it was not, then it was not and the pain is unjustified. One cannot argue that “IF” we had been given the necessary information, then we “would have” deemed it necessary. Maybe yes, maybe no. What may be a sufficiently good reason for one person, may be woefully inadequate for someone else.

Also we cannot make those decisions for someone else; that would bring up the ludicrous picture of someone “enduring” someone else’s pain and suffering. More specifically, God cannot make these decisions for us. Since God is not a corporeal being, he cannot introspectively experience pain, which is a fully physical phenomenon, even if he would “know” about our pain, due to his omniscience. Even another human being cannot experience someone else’s pain as if it were his own. We all experienced a headache (for example) but that is not enough to subjectively experience someone else’s headache, even if it is qualified as a “horrible, splitting headache”.

The problem of the animals, children and retarded persons is more complex. Since the parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children, the “burden” of justifying the pain and suffering perpetrated unto their child falls on their shoulders. If the parents agree that the child’s suffering is justified by the outcome, again there is no problem,** the pain is justified**. If the parents decide that the suffering was too much, then it was too much, and the pain is unjustified.

Since we do not “own” the wild animals and do not have responsibility for them (the Bible’s vague assertion notwithstanding – after all there are far too many of them to “take care” of each and every animal), it is a simple question. No amount of pain and suffering of animals can ever be justified (a quick and painless killing may be justified). They are not moral beings; they are not responsible for their actions. The same applies to the mentally retarded people.

(continued)

 

[Hitetlen]

According to this analysis, there are unjustified and unjustifiable pains and sufferings. (At least one person who suffers or at least one parent whose child suffers, and who disagrees that this suffering is worth whatever good side effect it may have). Therefore a benevolent God does not exist, because God can only allow justifiable and justified pain and suffering. Q.E.D.

I could stop right here, but it is interesting to go on, and contemplate if a world without pain could exist. Indeed it can; a world which contains no living beings, or only beings without a nervous system (bacteria and vegetation). In this world there is no pain and suffering. It may not be a very exciting world, but it can be done. Even if some animals are introduced, it is still possible to have a world without pain and suffering, provided that the animals are all herbivores, and all the bacteria live in a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship with the animals. If there is a Gaia-type of world, it can be self-regulated (no overcrowding, which would lead to insufficient resources).

The “problems” of pain and suffering start with the introduction of carnivores (even though carrion-eaters could be introduced without also introducing pain). In a world of carnivores there is pain and there is suffering, they cannot be avoided. Why to create such a world? To look down and observe the pain? That is not benevolent. The carnivores do have a possibly useful purpose; keep the population in check, to help to avoid overcrowding. That is a poor excuse, however. There is no logical reason to use such crude methods, when others can be devised. Essentially there is no good, known reason why carnivores are needed. As long as God does not tell us otherwise, their existence is not justified and therefore the pain associated with their existence is not justified either.

Finally, a world with conscious beings, humans. If all conscious beings were all herbivores, the world still could be without pain. With a self-regulating Gaia-type world, there would be no need for competition, everyone could get their food or their mate and there would be no conflicts. So pain and suffering are still not necessary.

Finally, let’s consider our current world, without regulation, with scarce resources and having carnivores. On top of that there are self-conscious beings, with individual agendas, which frequently contradict each other. That is a “great” candidate for having pain and suffering and there is a lot of them.

Can pain and suffering be eliminated or at least decreased? It certainly can be decreased, but maybe it cannot be eliminated. If the resources were not scarce, if there would be a built-in “brake” to avoid overcrowding, a lot of pain and suffering would be immediately eliminated. (There is no way to estimate a correct percentage.)

Therefore, since a world without pain and suffering is possible, and even our current world could have a lessened amount of pain, God cannot be called benevolent.

Final possible argument: we don’t know “why” God created the current world. Some believers assert that God wants to be “obeyed out of love”. God allegedly wants to be worshipped also out of love. Both of these could be done by creating “robots” or beings with “predisposition” toward loving and obeying God. It would be simulated “love”, but that is not a hindrance. (These are the “wishes” of a self-aggrandizing tyrant, who not only wants to rule, but also wants his subordinates to be grateful for whatever fortune or misfortune happens to them. Of course the apologists cannot offer any evidence that this is what God actually wants. It is just an assumption.)

Creating persons with limited or nonexistent free will would be a valid solution to the problem of pain and suffering. God chose a different way, for whatever reason. In this case, there are two possibilities: 1) in the current world there is a hypothetical way to eradicate all pain and suffering, or 2) this is not possible. If there is one, and God does not do it, he is not benevolent. If there is no way to do that, than God chose a world, where pain and suffering cannot be eliminated, even though there are worlds without pain and suffering (as proven above). The solution now is that God does not care “enough” about the pain of his created beings. (Possibly because it is not he, who has to suffer.) That is not the sign of a benevolent being either. In this case God chose to purposefully create a world with suffering, even though he was not “forced” to do so. To create an inferior world when one could create a better one is illogical.

(continued)

 

[Hitetlen]

Lastly, is there a better possible world? Indeed it is, allegedly it was the Garden of Eden, before the fall. So we know that there is a better possible world, which was not actualized to be permanent. God could have made it permanent, for example by not putting that infamous tree into the Garden (or he could have used other means, for example not forbidding the consumption of its fruit).

So God purposefully created an inferior world, when he could have created a better one. That is the sign of an illogical (or dumb) creator. Since God must be logical, therefore God does not exist.

 

[Della]

Hitetlen:

Lastly, is there a better possible world? Indeed it is, allegedly it was the Garden of Eden, before the fall. So we know that there is a better possible world, which was not actualized to be permanent. God could have made it permanent, for example by not putting that infamous tree into the Garden (or he could have used other means, for example not forbidding the consumption of its fruit).

So God purposefully created an inferior world, when he could have created a better one. That is the sign of an illogical (or dumb) creator. Since God must be logical, therefore God does not exist.

This only holds up if God created the Garden of Eden to be a perfect place which was meant to last forever. Since he put in it something that could destroy our life in it, and since man had free will to make that choice, he must have had some other, higher purpose in mind for the Garden of Eden, which was lost when man took what he was forbidden to have–at that time. C. S. Lewis dealt with this question quite nicely in Perelandra. I put it to you that you do not know the mind of God. Fortunately, God does.

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

Lastly, is there a better possible world? Indeed it is, allegedly it was the Garden of Eden, before the fall. So we know that there is a better possible world, which was not actualized to be permanent. God could have made it permanent, for example by not putting that infamous tree into the Garden (or he could have used other means, for example not forbidding the consumption of its fruit).

So God purposefully created an inferior world, when he could have created a better one. That is the sign of an illogical (or dumb) creator. Since God must be logical, therefore God does not exist.

Hitetlen, I wish you would write posts that are concise and on one topic. They’re more likely to be read.

1. On God not being an adequate judge of justifiable pain because he doesn’t “feel” it:

Being all-knowing is superior to the partial knowledge of what pain feels like, and so God is qualified to be the judge. Pretty obvious.

1. On God not creating the maximally-good universe:

If the universe was maximally-good it would be God and thus not be subject to creation. Creation must be something other (less) than God.

1. The rest I didn’t read.

 

[Hitetlen]

Della:

This only holds up if God created the Garden of Eden to be a perfect place which was meant to last forever. Since he put in it something that could destroy our life in it, and since man had free will to make that choice, he must have had some other, higher purpose in mind for the Garden of Eden, which was lost when man took what he was forbidden to have–at that time. C. S. Lewis dealt with this question quite nicely in Perelandra. I put it to you that you do not know the mind of God. Fortunately, God does.

I do not insinuate to “know” God’s mind. He chose not to reveal it to me. Therefore I am justified to make inferences from what I know. The inference is simple. If a creator can create something that can fulfill his purpose, and does not do it (for whatever reason), that creator is not logical.

If God is logical, then the only sensible assumption is that the Garden was created as an elaborate “trap” to give God a reason to chase the humans out of it, since they succumbed to the temptation - as God knew they would. Of course he could have chased them out without all this hullaballoo, but that would have prevented him to play the role of a self-righteous judge, who - in his “just” anger - punishes a misdeed, which was unavoidable due to the entrapment.

In this case God created this world to observe pain and suffering, and therefore he is cruel.

 

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

Hitetlen, I wish you would write posts that are concise and on one topic. They’re more likely to be read.

1. On God not being an adequate judge of justifiable pain because he doesn’t “feel” it:

Being all-knowing is superior to the partial knowledge of what pain feels like, and so God is qualified to be the judge. Pretty obvious.

1. On God not creating the maximally-good universe:

If the universe was maximally-good it would be God and thus not be subject to creation. Creation must be something other (less) than God.

1. The rest I didn’t read.

If you did not read it, how do you know if it is one topic? Some topics just do not lend themselves to cutesy one-liners. Fortunately you were not forced to read it.

As to your points. Knowing about something intellectually is not the same as knowing it introspectively. God’s omniscience does not mean that God knows everything, it only means that God knows everything that can be known. An internal feeling is subjective, therefore it cannot be known. Not that it matters a whole lot. If you had read what I wrote, you would see that I only argued that the only one who is qualified to judge if a pain is worth the alleged good side effect is the one who experiences the pain.

Your other point: the world does not have to be maximally good, just a place without pain and suffering. There are infinitely many “less-than-perfect” worlds, all different. Ours is pretty lousy, and it could be improved upon.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

God does not inform us of these “possible” good outcomes, so we must make our decisions based upon what we know. Since God could choose to inform us about the alleged “goods”

Rev7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

…

Rev21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

…

John16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

…

Mat5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

…

ho hum.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Have you ever noticed how an Olympic athlete, in the midst of intense self inflicted pain – can smile as they cross the finish line?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As to your points. Knowing about something intellectually is not the same as knowing it introspectively. God’s omniscience does not mean that God knows everything, it only means that God knows everything that can be known.

Hmmm, I thought God’s omniscience was unlimited.
He knows even irrational things, but he knows they are irrational.

How do you know that a subjective pain is not experiencable by God? He has power, and all knowledge. I don’t see any contradiction. Subjective privacy isn’t immune to God’s probing omniscience.

Mat25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
Mat25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Mat25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mat25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

Have you ever noticed how an Olympic athlete, in the midst of intense self inflicted pain – can smile as they cross the finish line?

Yes, because they deem the result worthy of the pain. What of it? I already accounted for that. Using the same example, did you observe that the second athlete at the finish line frequently breaks down in tears? And those are not the tears of joy.

But that all is irrelevant. Self-inflicted pain is volitional, if one inflicts pain on himself, he can only himself to blame. Someone dying of hunger because God did not send the rain to alleviate the drought does not experience a self-inflicted pain.
Huiou Theou:

Hmmm, I thought God’s omniscience was unlimited.

You were wrong. Omniscience only means to know everything that can be known. If something cannot be known, God does not know it.
Huiou Theou:

How do you know that a subjective pain is not experiencable by God? He has power, and all knowledge. I don’t see any contradiction. Subjective privacy isn’t immune to God’s probing omniscience.

He can know about it, but cannot subjectively experience it - not being a corporeal being.

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

Your other point: the world does not have to be maximally good, just a place without pain and suffering. There are infinitely many “less-than-perfect” worlds, all different. Ours is pretty lousy, and it could be improved upon.

You’d still be something other than God, which would be suffering and/or unacceptable to you, and you still be complaining about it.

Consider this: From your vantage point, you really have no idea of how good creation is or is not.

 

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

You’d still be something other than God, which would be suffering and/or unacceptable to you, and you still be complaining about it.

No I would not. I have only a few significant things to “complain” about.

DeFide:

Consider this: From your vantage point, you really have no idea of how good creation is or is not.

Of course I do. To use an old phrase: “a doctor does not need to have cancer in order to diagnose it”.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Using the same example, did you observe that the second athlete at the finish line frequently breaks down in tears? And those are not the tears of joy.

But not always. Hence it is not a universal evil to get the bronze.
Some second place winners still smile (eg. those who did not expect to even get third place.)

You were wrong. Omniscience only means to know everything that can be known. If something cannot be known, God does not know it.

Give an example? (Non falsifyable, right?)
God knows the example (by definition) and knows that it is irrational.

He can know about it, but cannot subjectively experience it - not being a corporeal being.

You have a small god. The Catholic God took on corporeal flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. God now has a corporeal body – and then some.

I would agree, that God without creation – could not suffer pain.
But, the willingness to create means the willingness to suffer.
For an infinitely good God forknew intellectually – if not exerientially – that evil would be a manifestation of hate against God himself.

IF there is a difference between experiential knowledge, and even perfect intellectual knowledge – then no person can judge whether or not any other persons suffering was “worth it”.
Eg. How can I know if punishing anyone is worth it.
Eg. How can you condemn God for punishing anyone.

Having suffered, you have revealed an assumption that your knowledge extends to other human beings. Hence you condemn God. But that seems mildly illogical.

No I would not. I have only a few significant things to “complain” about.

A corolary is that the discussion is really a personal complaint?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Definitions:

1. God, if exists, must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
2. Omniscient means that God knows everything that can be known.
3. Omnipotent means that God can perform everything but logically contradictory acts.
4. Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows unnecessary (or avoidable or justifiable/justified) pain and suffering.

Corollary:

1. God is logical. This follows from omniscience. Logic is knowable.

This is not what God is - it’s a verbal sketch of some glimpses of what we can know that we see of God.​

God can be known, by His own gift to creatures - it dioes not follow that He is logical: because logic is a human construction devised to assist our weakness to think about God in a consistent and articulate manner. God, being God and no mere godlet devised by man, exceeds logic - which can glimpse one or two things about God, albeit in a wretchedly inadequate manner; but cannot “see God face to face”.

Only one “procedure” can fully apprehend God, and that is God’s Love for God, which is itself God; that is why only God can know God fully. Human resources for doing so are so miserably poor, that only God can help man to apprehend God - and it is by being apprehended by Christ and being indwelt by Him and thereby assimilated to God, that we love God. We cannot know God by mere logic - that, so far as it goes, can do no more than help us know about God; which is not the same as knowing God.

No - God is not logical; Love is not. There is absolutely nothing logical about the Cross - and it is by nothing less than the Cross that God proves His Love of His those who hate Him, and His Righteous Hatred of their sin. The Cross is an eternal rebuke to all attempts to plumb the heart of God by “logic”.

Christ’s agony contains all the agonies of all creatures - our offering up of our troubles is no more than an obedient compliance with this fact; irt is something we have to do, as parts of His body.

As for sub-human creaturely suffering - IMHO, we recapitulate it; that is why we have a priestly and royal function in Christ & to Christ - to offer to Him the sufferings of man, and and of the creatures lower than man. And He recapitulates ours. ##

Problem: What is necessary pain and who should decide if a pain is necessary or not. This is the fundamental question, probably subject to contention. Here is the problem: in order to decide if a pain was necessary, one must be aware of the “good” side effect, and one must decide if the pain leading to that side effect was “worth the price, or not”.

1. To be aware of an alleged good outcome, one needs relevant knowledge (preferably omniscience, though it is not strictly necessary). Since we lack omniscience, it seems that only God is qualified to decide if there is a “good enough” outcome stemming from the pain and suffering.

That is why there is a Cross - one thing it deals with, is subhuman suffering; we can’t; we often cause it. All suffering is one single suffering - each human and animal suffering is the sipping of a cup which Christ alone has drunk in full.​

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

We must not let our natural sympathy, our “fellow-feeling” with other creatures, lead us into trying to play God; some things cannot be fully known by man, nor provided by him - such as, a full answer to subhuman pain. But Christ does have, and is, that answer; we do not, and are not. Over-stepping our limits is a temptation - not a good; all evils, even the worst, tempt because they are not wholly evil.

To answer adequately problems which tease the intellect, one has to go beyond the intellect - the intellect is too limited to give a full answer; only the Love of God is large enough to do this, because that Love is God, and God is “merely” Love. That’s why seeking the Kingdom and Righteousness of God has to be sought above all else; all else is “thrown in” with them. If we seek only the goods of the intellect, which are far lesser things - we will find neither the Kingdom, nor His Righteousness, nor the goods of intellect. To receive all that is in Christ - we must know Him in Whom Alone they can be known fully

(C.S. Lewis says all this far better ) ##

God does not inform us of these “possible” good outcomes, so we must make our decisions based upon what we know. Since God could choose to inform us about the alleged “goods” and chose not to, essentially we are left to our own devices, and are authorized to make value judgments according to the available information.

1. Who is qualified decide if the pain was worth the alleged good outcome? It cannot be God, since he is not the sufferer. Only the being affected by the pain and suffering is qualified to make that decision. That brings up two different categories of sufferers:

a) Animals, young children and mentally retarded people, who lack the sufficient bra(name removed by moderator)ower to make such decisions.

b) Sufficiently developed adults, who are able to make such decisions.

Of these two categories, the adults who are subject to pain and suffering, must decide for themselves if the pain was “worth it” – based upon what they know about the alleged “good outcome”. If they consider that it was “worth it”, then there is no problem, the pain is justified. If they decide that it was not, then it was not and the pain is unjustified. One cannot argue that “IF” we had been given the necessary information, then we “would have” deemed it necessary. Maybe yes, maybe no. What may be a sufficiently good reason for one person, may be woefully inadequate for someone else.

Also we cannot make those decisions for someone else; that would bring up the ludicrous picture of someone “enduring” someone else’s pain and suffering. More specifically, God cannot make these decisions for us. Since God is not a corporeal being, he cannot introspectively experience pain, which is a fully physical phenomenon, even if he would “know” about our pain, due to his omniscience. Even another human being cannot experience someone else’s pain as if it were his own. We all experienced a headache (for example) but that is not enough to subjectively experience someone else’s headache, even if it is qualified as a “horrible, splitting headache”.

The problem of the animals, children and retarded persons is more complex. Since the parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children, the “burden” of justifying the pain and suffering perpetrated unto their child falls on their shoulders. If the parents agree that the child’s suffering is justified by the outcome, again there is no problem,** the pain is justified**. If the parents decide that the suffering was too much, then it was too much, and the pain is unjustified.

Since we do not “own” the wild animals and do not have responsibility for them (the Bible’s vague assertion notwithstanding – after all there are far too many of them to “take care” of each and every animal), it is a simple question. No amount of pain and suffering of animals can ever be justified (a quick and painless killing may be justified). They are not moral beings; they are not responsible for their actions. The same applies to the mentally retarded people.

(continued)

[end of reply]

 

[Anonymous_1]

Hitetlen:

Yes, because they deem the result worthy of the pain. What of it? I already accounted for that. Using the same example, did you observe that the second athlete at the finish line frequently breaks down in tears? And those are not the tears of joy.

But that all is irrelevant. Self-inflicted pain is volitional, if one inflicts pain on himself, he can only himself to blame. Someone dying of hunger because God did not send the rain to alleviate the drought does not experience a self-inflicted pain.

You were wrong. Omniscience only means to know everything that can be known. If something cannot be known, God does not know it.

He can know about it, but cannot subjectively experience it - not being a corporeal being.

God has provided a world with an ABUNDANCE of provisions. Hey I have a question. What are you doing about the person dying of hunger and malnourishment because the drought caused a poor harvest and a famine? If there nothing you can do? I tell you that God is providing for these people through the love, care, sacrifice, and efforts of His faithful servants throughout the world. We are His body, they are His hands…

Omniscience only means to know everything that can be known. If something cannot be known, God does not know it.

This is logically absurd. Only that which can be known can be known. Therefore if God knows everything that can be known then God knows everything.

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

But not always. Hence it is not a universal evil to get the bronze.
Some second place winners still smile (eg. those who did not expect to even get third place.)

No, not always. What is your point?

IF there is a difference between experiential knowledge, and even perfect intellectual knowledge – then no person can judge whether or not any other persons suffering was “worth it”.

No “if” needed. None of us is qualified to make that judgment call for others.
Huiou Theou:

Eg. How can I know if punishing anyone is worth it.

We do not speak of punishment here, only pain and suffering.
Huiou Theou:

Eg. How can you condemn God for punishing anyone.

I don’t “condemn” God, I am saying that he is not benevolent.
Huiou Theou:

Having suffered, you have revealed an assumption that your knowledge extends to other human beings.

Not at all, actually the exact opposite. I maintain that only the sufferer is justified to make a value judgment about his or her suffering. If the sufferer voluntarily wishes to empower someone else to make that call, that is fine.

 

[Hitetlen]

Anonymous_1:

God has provided a world with an ABUNDANCE of provisions. Hey I have a question. What are you doing about the person dying of hunger and malnourishment because the drought caused a poor harvest and a famine? If there nothing you can do? I tell you that God is providing for these people through the love, care, sacrifice, and efforts of His faithful servants throughout the world. We are His body, they are His hands…

Not so fast. Yes, sometimes it is possible that humanitarian aid can provide the necessary help. But not always and most certainly not fast enough. There are many instances when the pain and suffering can not be alleviated in time, because of logistical difficulties, even with the best intentions. Or do you wish to assert otherwise?

An example might be when no one even knows about the calamity at all, for example if a wanderer gets lost on an ice-field and falls into a crevasse. Whom will you blame for his condition?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I am justified to make inferences from what I know.

you know nothing.
in first place you do not know what we believe in:
“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.”

and of course you always “forget” incomprehensible