T
tonyrey
Guest
The senseless attack on God’s goodness is worthless.
- Status
E
ericc
Guest
Interestingly, the problem of suffering/evil presupposes God should create the world to behave in a certain way or that God should behave in a certain way. Ultimately, the question to ask is should God intervene?
- God created the world to behave in a certain way. Humans have freewill and laws of nature act in a certain way. Moral evil and its associated suffering can be attributed to freewill. A bad person, points a gun a someone innocent, injures/kills him. Should God intervene?
- You stay in a location that is known for earthquakes or once in 500 years experience a volcano eruption, or once in every 1000 yrs due to tectonic plates movement caused an undersea earthquake which leads to a major tsunami. Should God intervene? Should God intervene every time someone “innocent” (fill in the blanks babies, etc) suffers from these moments but he need not intervene if there is no one staying there, i.e. no one gets hurt. What if some idiot aka daredevil decided to squat there anyway, should God stop nature in its tracks to avoid hurting this person?
- Babies born with terminal illnesses.(We always showcase babies to show how bad God is?). Should God intervene although the great grand parents/grand parents/parents of the baby have in their genetic makeup that will lead to such illnesses. The defects in the gene of the upline may be due to a many reasons, exposure to chemicals, experimenting with drugs, radiation etc.
- Baby tripped and fell, knocked his head on the floor and died. Should God intervene? The floor miraculously turned to putty hence cushioning the impact.No moral or natural evil. Just pure accident.
- Every one dies, sooner or later. Should God intervene if a person were to die too soon according to your timetable? Should God intervene in all non-medical abortions? Should God intervene in all wars and diseases? Is he obliged to?
- A business decision to disinvest in another location increasing profits but causing massive loss of jobs leading to increase in crime/suffering in the area affected. Should God intervene and prevent such a business decision being made?
I have pondered on these sorts of questions for a long time and my conclusion eventually is that if God requires this world to work logically, he has to ensure that freewill and natural laws works. Many times, we have a wish list of what we would like the world to be, but we don’t see the big picture of what is possible holistically. If we want an exception here and there, could God create such a world, or is such a world a contradiction that it is logically impossible for him to create such a world?
G
Gorgias
Guest
This is the big question, right here. Not just about dying “too early”, but dying at all. Folks who want to question God’s goodness or power tend to spin the question in the direction of the ‘injustice’ of suffering, but honestly, what’s suffering when compared to death itself? If we’re worried about greater or lesser degrees of suffering, then really, we should be worried about the ‘injustice’ of death!
So, let’s rephrase the question: would a ‘moral God’ allow His creatures to die?
The answer to this one seems a lot more clear – probably because we’ve all endured some levels of suffering in our lives, or seen loved ones suffer, and therefore, have a personal negative experience of it that leads to an emotional response, but have not (yet) personally experienced death. The answer to this one seems to be: no, there’s no moral dilemma with death. That’s the way it is, and although it’s not ‘nice’, it’s not evidence of God’s ‘lack’ of ‘goodness’. For those of us who believe in God, we look to life after death as a good that is greater than the evil of death.
So, if we see death as something that doesn’t imply God’s lack of goodness, then I would argue that it follows that we should look at suffering in the same way. Could it be otherwise? If all things are possible, yes. Does the fact that it is not otherwise thereby demonstrate God’s lack of goodness? No.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I think the movie, The Perfect Stranger, address this issue in a satisfying way. It is done by Protestants, and there might be a couple of minor issues for Catholics, but it is a great film – available on YouTube (but we are buying it and giving it to relatives and friends):
Link: youtube.com/watch?v=XPPwQApwBsA
Link: youtube.com/watch?v=XPPwQApwBsA
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, I think one word describes it all;{ Discipline} this in the end will reveal our trust in God. Do we give up on Him and His will or do we put our trust in ourselves and other forms of idolatry ?
God Bless All
onenow1
God Bless All
onenow1
T
tonyrey
Guest
In other words objections to Divine Providence are based on fantasy rather than fact!
T
tonyrey
Guest
The objection demonstrates lack of common sense! To be condemned to live in this world forever would be hell… 
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I have to say, in all seriousness, that if there were to be no evil in the world because God in his infinite kindness would always prevent it, He would have started to prevent it by stopping Adam and Eve from biting into the forbidden fruit.
It is apparent not that God wants absolutely to prevent evil, but that he wants to see what we will do with evil when when the temptation to do it is unleashed upon us. God created us to see what we would do because God was unable to do it himself … that is, exercise the free will to choose between good and evil.
God is free to choose good over evil. God is not free to choose evil over good.
That is why God is always moral and never immoral.
It is apparent not that God wants absolutely to prevent evil, but that he wants to see what we will do with evil when when the temptation to do it is unleashed upon us. God created us to see what we would do because God was unable to do it himself … that is, exercise the free will to choose between good and evil.
God is free to choose good over evil. God is not free to choose evil over good.
That is why God is always moral and never immoral.
C
Cybophonia
Guest
Yes it does. Most of the things have natural biological causes so perhaps a baby being born with cancer or a serious disease or dying at birth does so also. It could also be a thing of divine providence and pedagogy. Christianly speaking…
I will copy a response that I’ve seen on another forum but doesn’t belong to me.
"Humans have free will (autexousia - self-determination), but are not omnipotent.
Free will (aut-exousia) is not to be confused with omnipotence. It means you are free to choose from several (not infinite!) options that are available to you and thus determine your future.
You cannot “free-will” yourself out of a terminal illness or choose to live in another galaxy. That’s not what free will is about. "
As far as I know the Church (before Schism) dealed a little with this particular free-will controversy in and out of the Chrystological context.
Suffering is due to the fall and free will. There will no longer be suffering at the resurrection at least for the good ones (Christian answer).
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi Tony
It takes a good Father to discipline His sons,God is a good ! 11 years ago prostate cancer scared the" hell" out of me
it no longer does even though it has metastasized I view this as a special grace that keeps the hell out of me in the race to find God; How I wish as, St. Paul did for the next life; however God had more for him to do in this life and I suppose for me also we must trust God to the end ! He makes all things work for the good even though we don’t see it now.God Bless All
onenow1
izza:
B
BackHand
Guest
Maybe my example of starvation was a bad example of suffering devoid of human cause. But this gets me thinking, there are very few occasions where a person would force someone to starve, so its the lack of human charity or apathy that leads to this sort of suffering. Not someone’s ill intention.
youtube.com/watch?v=X14e9Fwxa8w
I still disagree, God doesn’t have to choose evil to fall short of morality, he just has to be apathetic. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that even a good person or in this case a supreme entity, could still act in a immoral fashion. Someone who gives $1 million to poor people regardless of where they got it would probably be a good person overall right? But stealing $1 million from a bank is wrong, same thing with God, someone who gives you an eternity in paradise would probably be a good person right? Of course, but that still doesn’t change the fact that if he is apathetic to human suffering he has acted in a immoral way.
That may be, that doesn’t mean my definition is wrong.Oh. I see. So, then… your definition presumes your conclusion? Yeah… that’s called ‘begging the question’. It’s a logical fallacy of circular reasoning, and it just doesn’t hold up.
What can we observed in the natural world? A person can make immoral decisions, they can follow out on those decisions even if they are evil, without being hindered by God. People also experience natural suffering such as getting struck by lightning, or man-made, like getting shot.
Conclusion
So free will is the only reason a completely loving and powerful God doesn’t interfere with humanity’s suffering, then…
Definition
Free Will: Is Your ability to make decisions regardless of morality, with the capacity to act on those decisions to the best of your ability, while not being hindered to experience both, natural and man-made (or at least involved), positive and negative events.
I hope that wasn’t circular, logical fallacies can be so tricky.
I’m trying to prove that definition wrong, I’m arguing two things, one that there are certain events that are devoid of free will, such as a man walking down the street getting struck by lightning or a freak brain aneurysm. And two that as important as free will is there certain situations where it is of lesser importance when compared to the well-being of people. If God turns a deranged murderers axe into silly putty this could be considered a violation of his free will (According to the definition I believe God has!) to act out his decisions to the best of his ability, but were talking about the free will of a deranged murderer versus the well-being of his victims. So intervention should be considered a moral necessity.
Good so do I
Yes I agree, it’s all about the decision.
God should be forced into action because we hold him to much higher standards then we would an ordinary person, and no I don’t think tragedies of any magnitude outshine God’s goodness, however that misses the point if God could intervene and stop any amount of suffering, without interfering with free will then he should. Not doing so would lead to him being apathetic, something that I think you consider to be immoral.
B
BackHand
Guest
Yes I think I do see where I’m contradicting myself, when I said free will has to do with decision, I meant my own personal view of free will, when I said free will was overrated because of the action “of a deranged ax murderer” Outweighing that of someone innocent, I meant the definition of free will that I argue God has. That is to say that God in my opinion views free will as both the decision and the ability to attempt to carry that decision out. This is opposed to my own belief of free will which is only the ability to make decisions. But now I’m slightly paranoid that I posted something to the contrary I’m going to have to go back and look!
See above
I meant God giving food to a starving man wouldn’t interfere with his free will, because he is still free to do whatever he likes regardless of whether he is starving or well fed, and he could give him food by a raining bread out the sky or something like that.
And a good one!Erm… the Job reference was one example…
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are right! When we suffer it helps us to appreciate how much Our Lord loves us. He chose to share our trials and tribulations to convince us that even though we may not be aware of His presence God is with us at every moment of our lives:Hi Tony
It takes a good Father to discipline His sons,God is a good ! 11 years ago prostate cancer scared the" hell" out of me
God Bless All
onenow1
- Romans 8
T
tonyrey
Guest
How would you justify the assumption that God **never **intervenes?
Free will is notthe** only** reason.
If God intervened on every occasion it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will - which is to choose what to believe and how to live.
How would you justify the assumption that God **never **intervenes?
E
ericc
Guest
Part 1.
Why would one want to live forever in a body that ages and gives us problems?Do you want to be surrounded by relatives that live forever?
Short answer is that this world will not last with non-dying humans. Over population. Since no one dies, how will wars be fought? What is the end result? Slavery?. Criminals will do what they please because they can not die. He can not kill you, but he can torture you, rape you, forever? That’s scary. Imagine a Hitler/Stalin that never dies. On a more mundane what-if, if people never dies, then no resources are required to sustain them. You don’t need , food, water, air, you will never drown, jumping into a volcano is not a problem. You can jump from the tallest building smack into the ground and remain alive, you will never overdose on drugs or alcohol. We have free will, so we amuse ourselves all day long? Weird world. Everyone will be crazy. Reminds me of that movie Highlander.Part 2
Does God has a moral duty to keep us alive forever? No, short answer being he owes us nothing. He has no obligation to keep the world running at all. He could just will it out of existence if he wanted to. Almost like as if I have an obligation to keep the amoeba/germs/molds/insects in my house alive.
It is good (within limits) to suffer. Imagine we have no nerves that can feel pain. One hand is already roasting in the BBQ pit and we are still clueless. Imagine a heart that can feel no pain, no compassion, no sadness. How lopsided life would be.
O
onenow1
Guest
:
God Bless
onenow1
I believe God’s original plan was for man to live forever. The apple story I think signifies something far more terrible then what actually happened in their disobedience. :twocents:Part 1.
Why would one want to live forever in a body that ages and gives us problems?Do you want to be surrounded by relatives that live forever?
Part 2
Does God has a moral duty to keep us alive forever? No, short answer being he owes us nothing. He has no obligation to keep the world running at all. He could just will it out of existence if he wanted to. Almost like as if I have an obligation to keep the amoeba/germs/molds/insects in my house alive.
It is good (within limits) to suffer. Imagine we have no nerves that can feel pain. One hand is already roasting in the BBQ pit and we are still clueless. Imagine a heart that can feel no pain, no compassion, no sadness. How lopsided life would be.
God Bless
onenow1
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ok, but even so, “lack of human charity or apathy” is still “human cause”, so you can’t claim that it’s “devoid of human cause.”
Maybe my example of starvation was a bad example of suffering devoid of human cause. But this gets me thinking, there are very few occasions where a person would force someone to starve, so its the lack of human charity or apathy that leads to this sort of suffering. Not someone’s ill intention.
Two thoughts: first… FAKE!
But, second: I guess what you’re really trying to point out isn’t this particular example, but rather, the question of whether natural evil, and the suffering it causes, is proof of God’s lack of justice. I would recommend that you look to Aquinas for a good discussion of this question. This article on Aquinas’ thought on this matter is a good one. Basically, Aquinas argues that, if natural evil is an unavoidable part of materiality, then one cannot suggest that God acts unjustly by allowing it. So, for Aquinas, the answer is that God cannot be held to blame for natural evils in the world, since, although there is the potential for a lack of natural evil, and that was the case in the Garden of Eden, it is not necessary for God’s goodness or omnipotence to maintain the world in that state (especially given humanity’s choice to prefer sin).
I guess that you would have to be able to demonstrate that God is “apathetic to human suffering” to make that point stick. To anything you might offer, I would be able to counter that God sent His Son, in order to free us from the inability to escape from suffering and death.
It certainly does, if the validity of your definition relies on your conclusion (and your conclusion relies on your definition).
That’s one definition of free will. However, other definitions don’t rely on “the capacity to act on those decisions” as part of the definition of free will. You’d have to be able to demonstrate that your definition is the most reasonable one, before we could continue on, using your definition.
After all, the word “will” itself speaks to mental states, not physical actions…Natural evil has nothing to do with free will. Why do you continue to insist it’s an example of thwarted free will?
Again, irrelevant to a discussion of free will. Rather, this has to do with physical imperfections. Are you really trying to talk about free will, here? Or, rather, are you talking about the fact that we’re not perfect, and that God’s at fault for making us in a way that isn’t 100% perfect in all its aspects?
Why a ‘moral necessity’? Given that God offers eternal life, why do you claim that death gives rise to a moral imperative for God?
OK… if this is your case, then please explain why He should.
No, not apathetic, but with something else in mind.
An example: your teenaged child is learning how to manage interpersonal relationships. You can see that, in their current relationship, they’re gonna get their feelings hurt, but you also see that the lessons that this teaches them will be valuable in a larger context, and will allow him to grow and become a responsible adult. So, your lack of intervention doesn’t show ‘apathy’, it shows that you have your mind on a greater goal – and one that your child doesn’t have the perspective to see at the moment. In other words, there’s no moral imperative for you to act; and that lack of action does not imply apathy or evil on your part.
G
Gorgias
Guest
This is still problematic. Why would God have the definition of free will that you claim He has? Why would you hold that a human definition of anything, let alone free will, should be different than God’s definition?
OK… so, you’re pretty far afield from a discussion of free will. Now, you’re asking why God hasn’t created a world that’s perfect. In fact, you’re asking about the justice of the punishment God gave Adam, when he was banished from the Garden of Eden. God explicitly said that work would be hard, and we’d be at the mercy of resources we could coax from the world. Are you saying, then, that God’s punishment was unjust?
K
KingCoil
Guest
QUOTE=Charlemagne III;12076754 ]I have to say, in all seriousness, that if there were to be no evil in the world because God in his infinite kindness would always prevent it, He would have started to prevent it by stopping Adam and Eve from biting into the forbidden fruit.
It is apparent not that God wants absolutely to prevent evil, but that he wants to see what we will do with evil when when the temptation to do it is unleashed upon us. God created us to see what we would do because God was unable to do it himself … that is, exercise the free will to choose between good and evil.
God is free to choose good over evil. God is not free to choose evil over good.
That is why God is always moral and never immoral. /QUOTE ]
That is all silly thinking, command of God to not eat of the fruits of the forbidden tree, etc., to test man’s obedience…
And it comes about with making God in behavior and emotion like us humans.
After we have ascertained the existence of God as creator of the universe, and of everything that is not God Himself, how do we relate to Him?
Well, make up stories of how He made a world perfect for us but we spoiled it and He got angry, etc., etc., etc.
That’s the dogma of original sin.
In religions from the Far East like in Hinduism and in Buddhism, they explain suffering from or by the concept of karma, namely, you have done something in your previous incarnation and now are rewarded or punished accordingly.
The trouble with this karma concept is that it is blind and it has no beginning, so how did it ever get to be binding on humans, when if you do think about it intelligently grounding yourselves in logic and in facts, how can a blind and beginning-less program get to come to exist and working to reward or punish man for his previous acts in previous incarnations?
That is going into infinite regress which is an invalid concept in the first place, and cannot have any possibility of existence in actual reality.
Atheists love infinite regress but they suspend their intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
Now, with Christians and other monotheists like Muslims and orthodox Jews, it is all God’s doing; so just play the drama He is supposed to have imposed on us – but the drama is actually scripted by brilliant humans who thought it up for an all in one explanation for our existence and our condition of being in a non-perfect world today, but in the end times the just will have a terrific life with God.
KingCoil
It is apparent not that God wants absolutely to prevent evil, but that he wants to see what we will do with evil when when the temptation to do it is unleashed upon us. God created us to see what we would do because God was unable to do it himself … that is, exercise the free will to choose between good and evil.
God is free to choose good over evil. God is not free to choose evil over good.
That is why God is always moral and never immoral. /QUOTE ]
That is all silly thinking, command of God to not eat of the fruits of the forbidden tree, etc., to test man’s obedience…
And it comes about with making God in behavior and emotion like us humans.
After we have ascertained the existence of God as creator of the universe, and of everything that is not God Himself, how do we relate to Him?
Well, make up stories of how He made a world perfect for us but we spoiled it and He got angry, etc., etc., etc.
That’s the dogma of original sin.
In religions from the Far East like in Hinduism and in Buddhism, they explain suffering from or by the concept of karma, namely, you have done something in your previous incarnation and now are rewarded or punished accordingly.
The trouble with this karma concept is that it is blind and it has no beginning, so how did it ever get to be binding on humans, when if you do think about it intelligently grounding yourselves in logic and in facts, how can a blind and beginning-less program get to come to exist and working to reward or punish man for his previous acts in previous incarnations?
That is going into infinite regress which is an invalid concept in the first place, and cannot have any possibility of existence in actual reality.
Atheists love infinite regress but they suspend their intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
Now, with Christians and other monotheists like Muslims and orthodox Jews, it is all God’s doing; so just play the drama He is supposed to have imposed on us – but the drama is actually scripted by brilliant humans who thought it up for an all in one explanation for our existence and our condition of being in a non-perfect world today, but in the end times the just will have a terrific life with God.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
Well, I am off to find out how the brilliant minds of the Christian faith deal with atheists who insist that there is no intelligent design, there is no God creator of the universe, and it is the cosmos all the time, the cosmos that is paradoxically for atheists today unlike for the ancient Greek world thinkers, cosmos is all beauty and order. for atheist scientists it is all chaos, randomness, and blindness but for the what shall I call it, ah karma, of evolution!
Now this evolution is also a conundrum which atheists have chosen to not have any insight into, they choose ignorance, not to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
For example, the nose in our face, that is the product of random mutation for the survival of the species; but hey, pray tell me, how has random mutation stopped operating as soon as it has come to a mutation that is suited for what, ah, survival of the fittest.
That is their dogma of random mutation on the one hand and natural selection on the other; so what they premise on one side the side of random mutation, they take away on the opposite side, the side of natural selection which is also inexorable because it has what? STABILITY!
The founding fathers of America strike the perfect solution to this conundrum but atheists don’t like it; these founding fathers tell Americans that survival of mankind is due to nature and whoa there, nature’s God.
Well, I am off to read what the brilliant minds here say about quantum mechanics dispensing God from His role of creation, because nothing can get the job done with what? virtual particles which pop in and our of existence without any cause.
KingCoil
Now this evolution is also a conundrum which atheists have chosen to not have any insight into, they choose ignorance, not to do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
For example, the nose in our face, that is the product of random mutation for the survival of the species; but hey, pray tell me, how has random mutation stopped operating as soon as it has come to a mutation that is suited for what, ah, survival of the fittest.
That is their dogma of random mutation on the one hand and natural selection on the other; so what they premise on one side the side of random mutation, they take away on the opposite side, the side of natural selection which is also inexorable because it has what? STABILITY!
The founding fathers of America strike the perfect solution to this conundrum but atheists don’t like it; these founding fathers tell Americans that survival of mankind is due to nature and whoa there, nature’s God.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Declaration of Independence of America
Declaration of Independence of America
Well, I am off to read what the brilliant minds here say about quantum mechanics dispensing God from His role of creation, because nothing can get the job done with what? virtual particles which pop in and our of existence without any cause.
KingCoil
- Status