How could a moral God allow suffering?

[Bradski]

Unless you can prove according to some objective method, and not your own assumptions, that animals are in fact self-aware and possess a rational consciousness, you’re simply begging the question.

Good grief. It IS a serious argument being put forward! Let me get this straight…you are proposing that God is not allowing animals to suffer pain because there is no method of actually discerning that they do. Is that correct? You are proposing that animals are not sentient therefore there’s no problem?

There is a concept: ‘cruelty to animals’. If you accept that concept, then you accept that they feel pain. If not, then you should have no problem in people treating animals any manner whatsoever. So let’s see if you do accept it…

There’s a man outside your house beating a dog to death with an iron bar. Do you feel any obligation to prevent him? If so, why?

And how precisely is your position any more beneficial?

Who says my position is more beneficial? I didn’t. Did someone else? I’m not proposing any benefits. I’m asking you if you can tell me the purpose of animal suffering.

I used to have that pathetic need to have everything explained to an absurd degree but such pursuits are as egocentric as they are vain and pointless. It’s the only position which accounts for all of the data. Christian tradition holds that there is the possibility of freedoms at work no less than the human that we are not aware of, and wherever there is freedom there is the possibility of evil.

What’s with accounting for data? And what’s with this business of evil? Why are you bringing it up? You’re giving answers to questions I haven’t asked. It’s suffering we are discussing Amandil. Not evil. And not human suffering. Suffering experienced by everything except us. For the last few billion years.

Not at all. I’ve already gone over it as well, I’m not doing it again.

Explain the suffering in the natural world? Well, look…there’s no need to do it again. If you think you’ve done it already, then just point me to the post where you did explain it.

Please don’t pawn your absurd notions onto me or Christianity.

I believe that there is no purpose. Everything ‘just is’. You do not. You believe there is a purpose. Except that I’m not sure you’ve explained the purpose in a few billion years of agony and torment. Although I feel like I’m going through both trying to keep this discussion on course…

I believe that nature “is” and that it is ontologically good. That whatever happens is according to God’s design, and that all defects which exist in creation will be reconciled at the consummation of all things.

So will God reconcile the agony of the rest of creation? I mean, the rest as opposed to just us? I get that you believe that we suffer for a purpose, but we’re going nowhere with the reasons why animals suffer. Will they get considered at the final reckoning?

You just answered your own question. God is also a “proud Dad”, your Dad and mine, with billions of kids which in which He and His Son offered His life and died for.

Good grief. I don’t want to know about God’s sacrifice (which wasn’t really a sacrifice as He knew His son was going to rise again, so that doesn’t really count, does it). I wanted to know what you would consider as a noble sacrifice yourself. You personally. Under what circumstances you would die for others.

So let’s try again. It’s not a difficult question: Would you donate all your organs and die in the process to save a few strangers? If not, what are the criteria you would us to make the decision?

 

[opusAquinas]

Maybe God is allowing suffering uh because we are being punished??? After all we were thrown out of paradise???

 

[Amandil]

Why is it inadequate? Because it believes in a God that does not interfere in the lives of humans?

Statements like this make me to wonder how you would fare if right after your birth your parents simply left you alone to fend for yourself because they didn’t want to interfere in your life?

oldcelt:

Because we openly accept that the blame for the suffering in this world falls on our species?

So does Christianity. The difference is that a just God would work to rectify the injustice that caused such suffering.

Your god apparently just simply ignores it because its not his “problem”.

oldcelt:

Because we believe in true free will, not an all-knowing God with some master plan for each of us?

Aside from the obvious false dichotomy, what you call “free will” begs the question. What is free will? And how do you know that your will is free? You may only be given the illusion of freedom yet OTOH be doing precisely what your god wants you to? You could be nothing more than his puppet.

oldcelt:

Deism simply breaks the supernatural down to the rational basics. We don’t expect help from or cast blame on the deity.

And how is you you converted from your Catholic upbringing to deism if not by casting blame on God?

Yey there’s nothing rational about deism, your claim to rationale is merely a facade. Instead it seems a rather desperate attempt to reconcile heretical catechesis and the disappointment of egocentric prayers gone unanswered. God didn’t give me what I wanted so he must not care. All the other rationale which follow exist simply to bolster that presupposition.

The more you describe your god the more similar it appears to the “Allah” of Islam. A “Master” instead of a loving Father.

oldcelt:

We look at the world as it is and try to draw whatever conclusions are available.

While demonstrating extraordinary bias against those proofs which don’t fit your ideas.

oldcelt:

More than adequate for me.

But not for me. You cannot give any rationale for your existence based upon your deistic god. There is no rational reason why the deistic god, if he is a god and according to any proper understanding of the term, would create anything. A god that egocentric and aloof wouldn’t even bother out of curiosity, because being a god he could not possibly be curious, he would have to know all things, that is what omniscience is. Also that god would need to sustain your existence at all times because you are by necessity a contingent being: you require things which you do not possess and which are not you for your existence.

If a deistic god would not create you, neither would he create what you need to sustain your existence, I.e.the world.

So since non-existence is a real possibility, and since a deistic god would not create anything, there is no possibility that you would exist.

But you do exist.

Therefore deism cannot possibly be true.

 

[tonyrey]

If life is as atrocious as you imply you should agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if no one had ever existed on this planet - and arrange for a swift exit rather than postpone the inevitable descent into oblivion…

To attribute your existence solely to “the untold agony and suffering over countless millions of years” is blatantly absurd. You are overlooking the untold joy and pleasure experienced by billions over countless millions of years…

I can see the benefit of praying for your enemies (maybe pray that they stop all that raping and pillaging for example or perhaps simply see the error of their ways) but sacrificing yourself for someone you don’t know? It seems to be a given that it’s a good thing to do. I certainly would for close family members (if all other options failed) as would possibly most people. But not many would do it for anyone else and for the life of me I can’t see a problem with that.

Insularity is at the root of the blood-stained history of humanity. Nevertheless love your family and to hell with everyone else!

In fact, I’m sure my family would be mightily unimpressed if I swapped my life for another’s. Let’s face it, you have a responsibility to them as well as to yourself and I’d say that trumps all other considerations.

Including peace and harmony in society? Never mind. If we’re all right everything else can be blasted to bits!

And loving your enemies? That’s meant to be a good thing? Hey, if it stops whatever problem there was in the first place which caused him to be my enemy, then all good. Otherwise…

Otherwise vendettas and the vortex of violence can be allowed to continue indefinitely. Gandhi was obviously misguided…

 

[Amandil]

Good grief. It IS a serious argument being put forward! Let me get this straight…you are proposing that God is not allowing animals to suffer pain because there is no method of actually discerning that they do. Is that correct? You are proposing that animals are not sentient therefore there’s no problem?

I’m not proposing anything except that you have failed to make your case, that you’re begging the question.

I refuse to accept premises which have not been adequately thought out or demonstrated to be sound.

There is a concept: ‘cruelty to animals’. If you accept that concept, then you accept that they feel pain. If not, then you should have no problem in people treating animals any manner whatsoever. So let’s see if you do accept it…

There’s a man outside your house beating a dog to death with an iron bar. Do you feel any obligation to prevent him? If so, why?

Now you’re conflating the issue. “Cruelty to animals” is necessarily an act relative to humans. Since Christianity holds that man was created to be a priest and steward of creation, then man morally speaking cannot do as he pleases with creation but instead must treat it with care according to the good. Hence to stop him is a moral imperative, not because the animal possesses “rights” but because the human is committing a crime against his own dignity as well as scandalizing others.

If you were a consistent atheist, a man beating his dog with an iron bar would be a matter of indifference since you have no real moral obligation to interfere, since the man would be demonstrating the Darwinian imperative of Natural selection. Just as you have no real moral obligation to feed the poor or shelter the homeless. Much more important things to seek after like the next fleeting pleasure.

This is another instance where the believer is shown to take such things as your hypothetical situation much more seriously than the atheist.

In any case animal predation is not “animal cruelty”.

I’m asking you if you can tell me the purpose of animal suffering.

“This is my body, given up for you.”

What’s with accounting for data? And what’s with this business of evil? Why are you bringing it up? You’re giving answers to questions I haven’t asked. It’s suffering we are discussing Amandil. Not evil. And not human suffering. Suffering experienced by everything except us. For the last few billion years.

What is suffering, Bradski? Define it.

And did you not just shift your debate tact above to a human committing a “cruelty” against a dog?

Again, you can’t have it both ways.

Explain the suffering in the natural world? Well, look…there’s no need to do it again. If you think you’ve done it already, then just point me to the post where you did explain it.

You need to define “suffering” before this can go any further.

I believe that there is no purpose. Everything ‘just is’. You do not. You believe there is a purpose.

The purpose is love. If you don’t understand what love is, look at a crucifix.

So will God reconcile the agony of the rest of creation? I mean, the rest as opposed to just us? I get that you believe that we suffer for a purpose, but we’re going nowhere with the reasons why animals suffer. Will they get considered at the final reckoning?

God already did reconcile it. And there is no reason for us to believe that they will not be considered at the end.

Good grief. I don’t want to know about God’s sacrifice (which wasn’t really a sacrifice as He knew His son was going to rise again, so that doesn’t really count, does it).

What incoherent nonsense.

I wanted to know what you would consider as a noble sacrifice yourself. You personally. Under what circumstances you would die for others.

So let’s try again. It’s not a difficult question: Would you donate all your organs and die in the process to save a few strangers? If not, what are the criteria you would us to make the decision?

I’ll die however I’m called to die. And whatever I suffer I offer to God for the possible salvation of others, including you. It would be absurd to make up some ridiculous speculation just to satisfy your vain curiosity.

 

[Bradski]

I’ll pass on the majority of your post. But thanks for taking the time to type it.

But I will ask the question again: if sacrificing yourself for others is to be considered a good thing, what are the circumstances under which you would do the same?

I fail to see why this is such a difficult question to answer. I’m not interested in when you are ‘called to die’. I want to know when you yourself will make that decision for others. I’ve said I would do it for close family members. But not for strangers.

And you would do it for…?

And on the not unreasonable assumption that Amandil will not produce anything that could be considered as a concise answer, the question is open to anyone who might feel the need to respond.

 

[opusAquinas]

I’ll pass on the majority of your post. But thanks for taking the time to type it.

But I will ask the question again: if sacrificing yourself for others is to be considered a good thing, what are the circumstances under which you would do the same?

I fail to see why this is such a difficult question to answer. I’m not interested in when you are ‘called to die’. I want to know when you yourself will make that decision for others. I’ve said I would do it for close family members. But not for strangers.

And you would do it for…?

And on the not unreasonable assumption that Amandil will not produce anything that could be considered as a concise answer, the question is open to anyone who might feel the need to respond.

You are not obligated to sacrifice your life for others.

 

[Bradski]

To attribute your existence solely to “the untold agony and suffering over countless millions of years” is blatantly absurd. You are overlooking the untold joy and pleasure experienced by billions over countless millions of years.

Are you related in some way to Amandil? There seems to be a similarity in either answering questions that haven’t been asked or making statements that do not reflect the meaning in any post to which you are responding.

But anyway… This is a new tack. Along the lines of: yes, there has been untold agony, but…also a lot of pleasure.

I’m not sure what point that makes. At least it does assume the ‘untold agony’ etc. It’s a start,
I guess,

Do you have any idea what the purpose has been?

 

[Bradski]

You are not obligated to sacrifice your life for others.

Well, I wasn’t asking if one is obliged or not. And I’d agree, it’s far from being compulsory. But if self sacrifice is such a grand and wonderful thing to do so, then under what circumstances would you be prepared to do it?

Max sacrificed himself for one person. Would you donate your organs to save many? If not, then please explain your reasons. I mean, there must be some…

 

[opusAquinas]

Well, I wasn’t asking if one is obliged or not. And I’d agree, it’s far from being compulsory. But if self sacrifice is such a grand and wonderful thing to do so, then under what circumstances would you be prepared to do it?

Max sacrificed himself for one person. Would you donate your organs to save many? If not, then please explain your reasons. I mean, there must be some…

I think you are supposed to give your life for God. Kolbe did it because I assume he felt God was calling him to do this. Now it doesn’t mean everybody does, does it? God told us to be perfect as He is.

 

[Bradski]

I think you are supposed to give your life for God. Kolbe did it because I assume he felt God was calling him to do this. Now it doesn’t mean everybody does, does it? God told us to be perfect as He is.

So you only do it if you feel that Gd is calling you to do it. So if you think He isn’t calling when you’re asked about the organ donation, you don’t do it.

Ditto the child on the tracks. But do you need to be called? Or can you make the call yourself?

 

[Amandil]

I’ll pass on the majority of your post. But thanks for taking the time to type it.

But I will ask the question again: if sacrificing yourself for others is to be considered a good thing, what are the circumstances under which you would do the same?

Why are the “circumstances” so important? We don’t get to choose the circumstances, we simply accept them in faith. So the question really is irrelevant.

I fail to see why this is such a difficult question to answer. I’m not interested in when you are ‘called to die’. I want to know when you yourself will make that decision for others. I’ve said I would do it for close family members. But not for strangers.

“46] For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?”

It’s not a “difficult” question but an absurd one. We’re not called to make such distinctions. For example you’re just as much my “brother” as Adolf Hitler, and my grandmother is as much a mother to me as Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

That you make such distinctions, as I have already said, says more about you and the egocentric nature of your beliefs than about God or theists.

 

[Amandil]

So you only do it if you feel that Gd is calling you to do it. So if you think He isn’t calling when you’re asked about the organ donation, you don’t do it.

Ditto the child on the tracks. But do you need to be called? Or can you make the call yourself?

If you cannot understand what a sin of omission is, then we are truly wasting our time with you.

 

[Bradski]

Why are the “circumstances” so important? We don’t get to choose the circumstances, we simply accept them in faith.

So you don’t get to choose them. You simply accept them in faith. What are they? Describe them to me so I know when you would accept them and when you wouldn’t.

This is really not difficult…

And it might be better if you avoided the pronoun ‘we’ when referring to any comment you would like to make in relation to anything I post as I’m not sure that anyone else would necessarily agree with you. Or at least, you are making an assumption that is probably not correct.

 

[opusAquinas]

So you only do it if you feel that Gd is calling you to do it. So if you think He isn’t calling when you’re asked about the organ donation, you don’t do it.

Ditto the child on the tracks. But do you need to be called? Or can you make the call yourself?

Self-preservation is part of the natural law. Self-sacrifice is an extraordinary act.

 

[Bradski]

Self-preservation is part of the natural law. Self-sacrifice is an extraordinary act.

This is turning out to be a lot more difficult than I imagined.

I agree that it is an extraordinary act. No question about it. But if it is so worthy, what are the criteria for actually doing it. I have stated mine: close family being foremost.

What are yours? Just close family? Those you know? Any given stranger? Ten lives for one?

 

[opusAquinas]

This is turning out to be a lot more difficult than I imagined.

I agree that it is an extraordinary act. No question about it. But if it is so worthy, what are the criteria for actually doing it. I have stated mine: close family being foremost.

What are yours? Just close family? Those you know? Any given stranger? Ten lives for one?

NO ONE!

 

[opusAquinas]

God allows suffering because we are being punished.

 

[oldcelt]

Statements like this make me to wonder how you would fare if right after your birth your parents simply left you alone to fend for yourself because they didn’t want to interfere in your life?

So does Christianity. The difference is that a just God would work to rectify the injustice that caused such suffering.

Your god apparently just simply ignores it because its not his “problem”.

oldcelt:

Because we believe in true free will, not an all-knowing God with some master plan for each of us?

Aside from the obvious false dichotomy, what you call “free will” begs the question. What is free will? And how do you know that your will is free? You may only be given the illusion of freedom yet OTOH be doing precisely what your god wants you to? You could be nothing more than his puppet.

And how is you you converted from your Catholic upbringing to deism if not by casting blame on God?

Yey there’s nothing rational about deism, your claim to rationale is merely a facade. Instead it seems a rather desperate attempt to reconcile heretical catechesis and the disappointment of egocentric prayers gone unanswered. God didn’t give me what I wanted so he must not care. All the other rationale which follow exist simply to bolster that presupposition.

The more you describe your god the more similar it appears to the “Allah” of Islam. A “Master” instead of a loving Father.

While demonstrating extraordinary bias against those proofs which don’t fit your ideas.

But not for me. You cannot give any rationale for your existence based upon your deistic god. There is no rational reason why the deistic god, if he is a god and according to any proper understanding of the term, would create anything. A god that egocentric and aloof wouldn’t even bother out of curiosity, because being a god he could not possibly be curious, he would have to know all things, that is what omniscience is. Also that god would need to sustain your existence at all times because you are by necessity a contingent being: you require things which you do not possess and which are not you for your existence.

If a deistic god would not create you, neither would he create what you need to sustain your existence, I.e.the world.

So since non-existence is a real possibility, and since a deistic god would not create anything, there is no possibility that you would exist.

But you do exist.

Therefore deism cannot possibly be true.

God started creation, what we needed, including earth evolved, we evolved, my parents mated, I exist.

My conversion was not about blaming God, but better understanding him, unfiltered by centuries of someone else’s ideas.

Since you accuse me of false dichotomy, you are admitting that there are even more possibilities…I agree completely. As I have said repeatedly, we are all acting on faith.

So far as the paragraph beginning with yey, I would suggest that you don’t go into psychoanalysis. Not one thing you said was even close to the mark. People can have views that differ from yours without it being some sort of personality flaw.

And can you explain why God must remain involved for life to sustain itself? All my contingencies are satisfied nicely right where I am. Again, you are stating your beliefs as if they were facts. Argument from authority is a common fallacy, and you may want to look up the other terms you have been using to insult others, particularly begging the question.

 

[fred_conty]

Originally posted by oldcelt
Your god apparently just simply ignores it because its not his “problem”.

No we believe that he made it his problem when he became one with us and died on a cross so that death and suffering may be thing of the past. He loved us that much, and promised that we would be more than happy when the time comes.

And in another vein which Bradski asked…what would you die for? Many of our soldiers have died to protect our freedom. Many firemen and policemen have given their lives for us.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.