How could a moral God allow suffering?

[Gorgias]

One, this doesn’t explain gratuitous suffering or suffering without cause.

For example some babies are born with cancer or other serious diseases through absolutely no fault of their own or anyone else’s.

OK… so what you mean isn’t suffering without cause, but rather, suffering that a person doesn’t directly bring upon himself. There’s a cause, after all, to all of your examples. So, then, how do we understand injustice, which is what you’re really getting at, isn’t it? I think I would respond that the answer has to do with man’s fallen nature, through which we lost the ‘garden’ and gained the ‘thistles’. Is it fair, then, that there is suffering in the world? It depends on how wide is the scope under consideration. Ultimately, if we have infinite scope, we see that suffering on earth pales in comparison to the beatitude of heaven, so there’s no real notion of ‘injustice’, since the scale upon which ‘suffering’ is experienced is so much smaller than the scale upon which ‘heaven’ is experienced.

Two, free will is overrated

You’ll need to define what you mean by ‘free will’ to be able to make a statement like that. Be forewarned, though: that definition isn’t as easy to agree upon as it might seem at first blush…

Let’s say a woman is about to be raped, God has the power to stop it, but chooses not to because the rapist has free will. I can understand this point of view as free will is very valuable and is one of the characteristics of being human. But what about the free will of the woman? She obviously doesn’t want to get raped, so if God doesn’t interfere, someone’s free will is going to get violated anyway, so why not interfere on the side of the woman? This sort of makes me think that God is choosing the free will of a rapist over the well-being of an innocent woman, in what way could that possibly be moral?

I would answer that what is being violated isn’t the woman’s free will. I would define free will as the ability to choose for one’s self a course of action. Whether one is able to embark on that course of action is another consideration entirely, and is not a question of ‘will’ but of ‘act’.

Also it could be argued this opens up a paradox.

It could be argued – and it has! – but these are easy to defeat.

God is all-powerful He is also completely and utterly kind.
Yet there is suffering.
So God is not all-powerful,
Conclusion there is no God

Have you ever read the Book of Job? This is essentially the conundrum Job wrestles with. He knows that he’s a good guy, and yet, ‘unjust suffering’ has been visited upon him. In his suffering, he tries to understand: it seems to him that God is either unjust, or not all-powerful. God’s answer to Job, at the end of the book, might be helpful to you in your questions.

 

[BackHand]

First, we are adults. If you are an atheist or agnostic, and all evidence points to that fact, please say so. You are far from alone in these forums. We do not fear or hate either atheists or agnostics. We invite them.

I also don’t think that you are coming from the standpoint of an immortal soul (or of a “soul” at all, really). You cannot be, by the nature of your comments.

Is this true?

As far as being a agnostic atheist, I honestly don’t know, I suppose I could to be considered an agnostic, and the more I think about it the more likely it seems. It’s nice to know I’m accept though thanks.

Anyways.

Are you arguing that having an eternity in heaven justifies the suffering on earth? I’ve heard that before and I still disagree. You could have an eternity in heaven without suffering on earth. You live a happy life you have food,shelter, security. But you have to choose God. Then based on your actions and choices you would go to heaven or Hell. Also many people have turned away from God due to suffering, if God stopped that suffering he could then prevent people from turning away from him. And that is my main question why doesn’t he?

 

[esieffe]

It is so easy, especially when we have done everything so right, to ask this question. The roots of free will run so very deep. How can we know that a decision made by an executive somewhere across the globe to allow chemicals to be used in a process that directly impacts us due to lack of testing, transparency, and corner cutting, threaten us. But it does.

Our food, air, and water supplies are all contaminated, and yet we have it good compared to many countries. Take a genetic weakness, and exploit that with a pesticide that doesn’t break down and you have a birth defect.

Before processed foods were allowed in Japan in the 60s and 70s cancer was almost unheard of. DDT is a pesticide that was commonly used up until the mid 1970s world wide. DDT cannot be broken down. Today it can be found in the oceans.

While there are ways to avoid some of these toxins, the still largely remain hidden menaces. It is expensive to go organic, and we can’t be sure if the label is even being properly applied. This is all traced back to sin and free will. The dollar. Until we mature as a species, and adhere to commandments that were given to us centuries ago, we will always be at risk. This is one reason I believe the Holy Father frowns as much as he does at the corporate establishment. When people think only of short term gain, and are willing to bear the possibility of others who suffer along with weak financial punitive damages, making the risk well worth it, all from a very SECULAR society, nothing will change.

These people know that they will get away with it on earth, and simply don’t think or don’t care what will happen in the afterlife if they even believe in one.

 

[BackHand]

The “quote” function, Makes everything much easier.

Suppose that you are a sketch artist. You make a sketch, but become displeased with it, as it did not turn out as you hoped. So, you wad it up and recycle it. Have you acted immorally? You created it and you disposed of it, as you had the absolute right to do. And, so it is with God and all of creation.

For those who believe in an eternal, omniscient and loving God, He is perfection, while we have fallen, sinful natures. The fallen nature of this earth is why sin and suffering exists in the first place.

God is above that, since He is incapable of being less than perfect. Thus, everything He does is perfection. He does not cause suffering, but can bring good from it. No one, and nothing else can do that.

That it does

Okay I can accept mental suffering, I can even accept some physical suffering. However what if that painter went blind? Blind people can’t paint very easily, but if God fixes that painter’s eyes, then the painter can joyfully go back to his/her impressionist painting.
I’m not arguing that God should become some sort of antidepressant and unnaturally change the mood of humanity, I suppose I have to concede that a utopia where everything is right in every single way is unrealistic. This is especially true when it comes to our emotions. However this does not address the other type of suffering where no one is to blame, and nothing good comes out of it.
You say God is omniscient well this creates a paradox if he knows everything then he would know how to make our world a utopia, if he doesn’t know how to make this world into a utopia, then he’s not omniscient.

 

[Trishie]

You say God is omniscient well this creates a paradox if he knows everything then he would know how to make our world a utopia, if he doesn’t know how to make this world into a utopia, then he’s not omniscient.

If earth was heaven then there need be no Heaven.
Our earth life is transitory, heaven’s joy and perfection is eternal.

 

[BackHand]

I think my main problem with suffering and a Omnibenevolence God is that so much of the suffering on earth can be prevented without interfering with free will. Let’s say a woman and her child are walking down the street late at night she passes out because she accidentally ate some food she is allergic to. Another person is walking on that street, that person would most likely stop and help the woman and her child, most good people would. However God would not. He would not interfere, he would let the woman die, and the poor child would be without a mother. The point is he could interfere, he has the power to stop the woman from passing out without interfering with her free will, and here’s how, the woman unknowingly eats the food, but God prevents the allergic reaction, simple right? Now tell me how has her free will been violated? She still ate the food, she still walked down the street, the only thing that changes is she does not die from a allergic reaction. No one poisoned her, she wasn’t trying to commit suicide so I would argue that having a allergic reaction was not her intention, thus it would be outside of her free will. She wanted to have an allergic reaction as much as I want people get cancer. As in she didn’t and neither do I.

 

[Trishie]

I think my main problem with suffering and a Omnibenevolence God is that so much of the suffering on earth can be prevented without interfering with free will. Let’s say a woman and her child are walking down the street late at night she passes out because she accidentally ate some food she is allergic to. Another person is walking on that street, that person would most likely stop and help the woman and her child, most good people would. However God would not. I

That is part of our task on earth, to be God’s instrument of good and kindness to each other. We are acting thus, helping each other, through His life in us even where we fail to recognize that He is acting in us He who from all love and goodness comes. He loves each person so much that what kindness we do for others, He feels Himself.

Jesus explains the significance to our eternal joy and peace, that is in our practical acts of kindness and generosity, in Matthew 25 verses 31-40

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.

34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36
I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”

37Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

Those on His left, referred to as ‘goats’ did not live in practical kindness to others.

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s say a woman and her child are walking down the street late at night she passes out because she accidentally ate some food she is allergic to. Another person is walking on that street, that person would most likely stop and help the woman and her child, most good people would. However God would not. He would not interfere, he would let the woman die, and the poor child would be without a mother. The point is he could interfere, he has the power to stop the woman from passing out without interfering with her free will

This isn’t a question of ‘free will’, though. You’re simply asking why there’s imperfection and disease in the world. The existence of evil in the world is due to humanity’s rejection of God (cf. ‘Fall of Adam’ in Genesis), not due to God’s action (or inaction). God already has a ‘remedy’ to this, though: Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross earned for us the possibility of a return to beatitude – not here on this earth, but in the eschaton.

 

[BackHand]

OK… so what you mean isn’t suffering without cause, but rather, suffering that a person doesn’t directly bring upon himself. There’s a cause, after all, to all of your examples. So, then, how do we understand injustice, which is what you’re really getting at, isn’t it? I think I would respond that the answer has to do with man’s fallen nature, through which we lost the ‘garden’ and gained the ‘thistles’. Is it fair, then, that there is suffering in the world? It depends on how wide is the scope under consideration.

I meant two things when I said suffering without cause, I meant suffering without purpose, Like cancer, or starvation, And yes suffering that a person did not bring upon himself/herself. But to clarify I also meant suffering that no one else brought upon them . That is to say suffering devoid of any human cause. Of course suffering always has a origin.

Ultimately, if we have infinite scope, we see that suffering on earth pales in comparison to the beatitude of heaven, so there’s no real notion of ‘injustice’, since the scale upon which ‘suffering’ is experienced is so much smaller than the scale upon which ‘heaven’ is experienced.

I disagree, that’s like saying it’s okay for someone to steal $1 million from the bank and donated it to poor people. No matter how much good comes out of donating that million dollars, it won’t change the fact that the original act of stealing it was immoral. God may give us eternal bliss, but if he does not prevent suffering that falls outside of the definition of free will, like some of the examples I’ve given, or places a murder above a victim, then has not acted in a moral way and no amount of heaven will change that fact, although it may make up for.

You’ll need to define what you mean by ‘free will’ to be able to make a statement like that. Be forewarned, though: that definition isn’t as easy to agree upon as it might seem at first blush…

Well okay I’ll do my best to define it using logic, God is all good, and according to many people here the only reason he doesn’t interfere when we suffer is because we have free will, God doesn’t interfere with any type of suffering, when someone gets cancer or stubs there toe God allows it to happen, therefore all suffering could be considered a part of free will. So without a textbook definition I argue that all suffering according to God, is considered to fall under the definition of free will. And interfering with any part of that suffering, again according to my observation of God’s actions (or lack thereof), would interfere with free will. So I said free will is “overrated” because God could in fact interfere with certain types of suffering, albeit mainly physical, without interfering with a person’s free will. Personally I think free will is a person’s ability to make decisions, not necessarily their ability to carry them out. An example of this would be a person who wants to fly, this person can make that decision because he has free will, well that doesn’t actually mean that he’ll successfully fly, but he has the free will to make the attempt. Just because he doesn’t fly doesn’t mean he lacks free will. But let’s say you view free will as the ability to not only make decisions but act upon them (Also I mean realistic things to act on like…). If a deranged ax murderer starts chopping a bunch people with his ax, it is my view that God should do something to prevent him from killing people. And this is why I think free will is overrated because God is choosing the free will of a deranged ax murderer ( or rapist murderer pedophile etc.) Over the lives of innocent people.

I would answer that what is being violated isn’t the woman’s free will. I would define free will as the ability to choose for one’s self a course of action. Whether one is able to embark on that course of action is another consideration entirely, and is not a question of ‘will’ but of ‘act’.

Even if her free will isn’t being violated she still is being raped, and God is choosing the free will of a rapist over an innocent woman. I see we have a very similar definition of free will.So how does God giving Food to a starving man interfere with his “ability to choose his own course of action” he still gets to choose his own course of action but he does so on a full belly.

It could be argued – and it has! – but these are easy to defeat.

oooooo Sassy Mrassshey! Care to elaborate? I’m very curious as to what you have to say.

Have you ever read the Book of Job? This is essentially the conundrum Job wrestles with. He knows that he’s a good guy, and yet, ‘unjust suffering’ has been visited upon him. In his suffering, he tries to understand: it seems to him that God is either unjust, or not all-powerful. God’s answer to Job, at the end of the book, might be helpful to you in your questions.

No I have not, but maybe I’ll give it a read as I have some free time.

 

[Gorgias]

I meant two things when I said suffering without cause, I meant suffering without purpose, Like cancer, or starvation

Hmm… yet, cancer is suffering that proceeds from (as I mentioned) the weakness that humans inherited through original sin. Starvation proceeds from inequities in production and distribution – that is, through human failures of charity. In other words – both of these do have causes.

But to clarify I also meant suffering that no one else brought upon them . That is to say suffering devoid of any human cause.

OK. Such as…?

I disagree, that’s like saying it’s okay for someone to steal $1 million from the bank and donated it to poor people.

Nope, I don’t think that’s a reasonable analogue. There’s a distinct logical flaw in your analogy. In your example, a person has actively chosen to take a deliberate sinful action, in the hopes of making good come from it. On the other hand, it’s not that God sins, but that He allows others to sin. Can you see how your example fails to make this distinction?

Well okay I’ll do my best to define it using logic, God is all good, and according to many people here the only reason he doesn’t interfere when we suffer is because we have free will

No: one of the reasons is based on a free-will argument. Not all.

God doesn’t interfere with any type of suffering, when someone gets cancer or stubs there toe God allows it to happen, therefore all suffering could be considered a part of free will.

No: you’re conflating “desire for good things” with “free will”. If I stub my toe on the sidewalk, how can that be considered an impingement of my ‘free will’? See how important the definition of ‘free will’ is? Here’s my case: I will (freely) to walk down the road safely. God does not interfere with this free will decision. Then, I act on my free will decision. If nothing keeps me from acting (e.g., school crosswalk guard hollering ‘stop’, red lights, freak tsunami), I’ll start walking (and even if these things happen, they still haven’t impinged on my free will!). If, in the course of my walk, I stumble, then that mis-step still doesn’t have anything to do with my ‘free will’!

So without a textbook definition I argue that all suffering according to God, is considered to fall under the definition of free will.

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.

Personally I think free will is a person’s ability to make decisions, not necessarily their ability to carry them out.

Aah! There we go! OK, then: free will has to do with decision, not subsequent action. I agree!

that doesn’t actually mean that he’ll successfully fly, but he has the free will to make the attempt.

Close: it means that he has the free will to decide to try. Other factors might impinge his ability to make the attempt, but those don’t touch his free will.

But let’s say you view free will as the ability to not only make decisions but act upon them

Then I’d say that your view is flawed. Now, I’ll grant you that this is a contested definition; yet, I think that it’s a flawed view of free will, nevertheless…

(Also I mean realistic things to act on like…). If a deranged ax murderer starts chopping a bunch people with his ax, it is my view that God should do something to prevent him from killing people.

Fair enough. Tell me, though: why? Why should God be forced into action? Is the death of a person, even at the hands of an axe murderer, an evil that outstrips His goodness or His ability to turn evil to good?

And this is why I think free will is overrated because God is choosing the free will of a deranged ax murderer ( or rapist murderer pedophile etc.) Over the lives of innocent people.

Hmm… now you’ve really confused me: on one hand, you state that you agree that ‘free will’ has to do with decision, not action; but, on the other hand, you state that the reason that “free will is overrated” has to do with the action (of an axe murderer) that thwarts the action (of his victim), and not with their decisions. Can you see where you’re contradicting yourself here?

Even if her free will isn’t being violated she still is being raped, and God is choosing the free will of a rapist over an innocent woman.

Again, definition is critical here: you’re confusing ‘free will’ (i.e., decisions) with ‘action’ (i.e., a rapist’s action which victimizes a woman).

I see we have a very similar definition of free will.So how does God giving Food to a starving man interfere with his “ability to choose his own course of action” he still gets to choose his own course of action but he does so on a full belly.

Can you restate this? I’m not certain I understand the example you’re proposing. How does “God give food to a starving man”?

oooooo Sassy Mrassshey! Care to elaborate? I’m very curious as to what you have to say.

Erm… the Job reference was one example…

 

[po18guy]

Are you arguing that having an eternity in heaven justifies the suffering on earth?

Yes! Visualize a wall that begins next to you and extends into infinity. On that wall is painted a line which represents your existence. The line also extends into infinity. The first inch of that line is red, representing your suffering here on earth - and let’s face it, life is not all suffering. The rest of that line represents an existence that is so perfect that the human mind cannot comprehend it. I think that is worth some pain as an entry fee.

You could have an eternity in heaven without suffering on earth.

Are you really looking for a worldly utopia?

Also many people have turned away from God due to suffering,

Free will! God grants us the ability - every human on earth - to reject Him and exist forever apart from Him. He is freedom’s most radical advocate.

…if God stopped that suffering he could then prevent people from turning away from him. And that is my main question why doesn’t he?

Love. When we love someone, we desire what is good for them, even if it may cost us. When you love someone, you will give your life so that they may live. We live in a modern world which is insular and seeks to avoid or minimize all pain. But, growing up is pain. Learning to walk is pain. The aging process is pain. There is no way to escape it. Gravity causes us to fall. Fingers get pinched in doors.

But, one concept that a huge number of Christians do not know is that suffering is redemptive. We have Christ as our example, and we claim (desire) to be parts of His Body. Thus, as He suffered for our sake, we also will suffer. It is what we do with that suffering and how we accept it that makes all of the difference in the world. We are intended to willingly suffer for our love of God.

Perhaps you have heard of those who are known as “victim souls” - individuals who bear suffering for the sake of others - who bear suffering so that others will not have to suffer a particular pain or sorrow.

Wasted suffering is one of the greatest tragedies of our age. Particularly for those who know and love God. For the others, suffering - even life itself - is just a relentless negative factor in a meaningless existence.

 

[tonyrey]

“If God prevented everyone from being victims of misfortunes it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe in which we are free to choose what to believe and how to live. We would know that a benevolent Power is protecting us from harm and aware of everything we think and do at every moment of our lives.”

How could God prevent the flood from happening for everyone without interfering with the laws of nature?

Also I still went on my hike so my free will is preserved. Furthermore it would be nice to know that there is a benevolent power protecting us, sort of like when we were children are mother and father’s or other parents protection made us feel safe, that sounds like a good thing to me.

The difference is that we would know God is controlling everything and like Big Brother observing us constantly. We would live in fear of doing something wrong…

*“If God intervened on every occasion that a woman is going to be raped it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe in which we are free to choose what to believe and how to live. We would know that a benevolent Power is protecting us from harm and aware of everything we think and do at every moment of our lives.”
*

Again that doesn’t sound so bad, a man tries to rape a woman, God interferes in some way, woman doesn’t get raped. That sounds pretty orderly to me. Besides should people really be allowed to commit rape and murder? I’m not arguing that God should change the mentality of a rapist, rather I think he should prevent his actions, those are two very different things. It’s against the law to murder someone, a police officer would try to prevent you from murdering someone, thereby stopping your actions or intentions but not your free will.

Free will also consists not only of choosing what to do but what to think and what to decide.
*

“The onus is on you to provide a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia in which there are never any failures, accidents, misfortunes, diseases, disasters or deformities…
It is absurd to expect to have everything for nothing. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. There is no such thing as a free lunch for sentient beings:”

Okay maybe a complete utopia would be impossible, however are you suggesting that God couldn’t make this world at least a little bit better? Maybe provide food for the millions of people starving in Third World countries. The world wouldn’t be a utopia yet it would be a heck of a lot better. And sure there would be disadvantages to this hypothetical world, you couldn’t commit genocide, there would be no sad commercials on the television describing pain and misery, so I suppose there are some things that we would have to give up. And besides I’m not God I’m not the one who is supposed to be all-powerful, while a complete utopia would be very hard if not unattainable, a world where every country as is as rich as a Western nation is very possible. Terrible though it is, the world could be in a far worse state with starvation everywhere. It is impossible for us to know precisely how much suffering could be avoided not only by depriving everyone of free will but also making them less ignorant. Most of the misery in the world is not caused by malice but by inaction and indifference. Even in the richer Western nations there is needless injustice and deprivation. To suggest that the Creator of the universe could make the world better implies a degree of insight and knowledge that no creature possesses. It could amount to filial ingratitude - or at least presumption…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a classic theological question, one that I have never had properly answered, I’m sure it’s been asked before but I’ll try to add my own spin to it, let’s get started!
This question tends to go along the lines of
" Look at all the grief and misery in the world! How could God allow all this suffering, how could he allow rape and murder?!?"
Which usually receives the following answer, “Well you see, suffering exists because God allows humanity to have free will, if there is no suffering, then there is no free will, we would be mindless robots!”

However I have some problems with that answer which I will summarize into two main critiques.

One, this doesn’t explain gratuitous suffering or suffering without cause.

For example some babies are born with cancer or other serious diseases through absolutely no fault of their own or anyone else’s. So would God be interfering with free will if he cured the babies of their disease? Or what about victims of hurricanes or tsunamis or other naturally occurring tragedies? What do unfortunate random circumstances have to do with free will? Why couldn’t God save these people?

Two, free will is overrated

Let’s say a woman is about to be raped, God has the power to stop it, but chooses not to because the rapist has free will. I can understand this point of view as free will is very valuable and is one of the characteristics of being human. But what about the free will of the woman? She obviously doesn’t want to get raped, so if God doesn’t interfere, someone’s free will is going to get violated anyway, so why not interfere on the side of the woman? This sort of makes me think that God is choosing the free will of a rapist over the well-being of an innocent woman, in what way could that possibly be moral?

Also it could be argued this opens up a paradox.
God is all-powerful He is also completely and utterly kind.
Yet there is suffering.
So God is not all-powerful,
Conclusion there is no God
Or
God is not all kind
Conclusion God is evil

I am very interested to see your responses!

I would answer them this way. There are four possibilities. One, God is Perfect and all Good. Second, He is both Good and Evil. Third, he is evil. Fourth, there is no God.

In every one of these scenarios evil still exists and we all experience it and, to a broad extent we do it and cause pain to ourselves, others, and to the universe at large.

In four we have no one to get mad at. Who would we blame?
In three, we better not compain, we better keep our mouths shut or things might get worse.
In two we are in about the same boat as four, but have a little hope that God will be Good most of the time. But it would be prudent not to complain.
In one we place our trust in God’s goodness and justice and pray that he will bring good out of all evil and that things may get better if we get better.

Linus2nd

 

[DanAl]

“Well you see, suffering exists because God allows humanity to have free will, if there is no suffering, then there is no free will, we would be mindless robots!”

The free-will defence/theodocy fails on several grounds. I’ll just mention a few.

1-God would not be completely sovereign over his creation, he’s impotent to an extent and part of his creation out of his control.

2-The virgin Mary was free and remained sinless. It seems one can be free and avoid committing moral evils.

3- The blessed will never sin. Do they have free-will? It would be odd that God wants determined “robots” as co-lovers. It seems that one can remain free and avoid evil.

4- It is possible for God to create the world in such a way that we can be free-and unable to sin. He can make criminals faint or have a Damascus like conversion before they commit a crime.

One, this doesn’t explain gratuitous suffering or suffering without cause.

Thread carefully here. It is better to say that some evil seems gratuitous to you. How can I tell with *certainty *that something is a gratuitous evil? I can’t. I do not know what God knows.

Also, It would be counter intuitive to say that God is sovereign of the universe and controls everything and say that he allows suffering without any purpose behind it.

But what about the free will of the woman? She obviously doesn’t want to get raped, so if God doesn’t interfere, someone’s free will is going to get violated anyway, so why not interfere on the side of the woman? This sort of makes me think that God is choosing the free will of a rapist over the well-being of an innocent woman,

We need to distinguish free-will from a free-action.Let’s say a man is imprisoned, did he lose his power of free-will? No, he still has that ability or potential. What he lost is his freedom to act in certain way.

To be coerced does not remove free-will, it only removes the power to act in a certain way.

God is all-powerful He is also completely and utterly kind.
Yet there is suffering.

Careful here, there are several ways to understand omnipotence and goodness.

Can God create a four sided triangle? Can he violate the principle of identity and create a man that is a woman at the same? no, these are logical contradictions.

There is disagreement over details regarding God’s omnipotence among Catholics. Could he create a chimera? or fire that feels cold? or water that doesn’t boil no matter how much heat is used? Can he make thinking stones?

God’s goodness is even more problematic. Is God morally good? That would imply he is under obligations. But where did these obligation come from? God owes us nothing, so why he’s obligated to act a certain way? God would not be completely sovereign since he’s under certain obligations. God would not be God since there’s something more fundamental than himself and he must obey it in order to be morally good.

For me God’s goodness refers to his benevolence, giving out gifts and prizes that we do not deserve, like beatitude and immortality.

Goodness also means that he is perfect and lacks nothing.

Finally we can say God is morally good in a very special sense. He owes us nothing and there’s nothing external that can impose any obligations on him. But, God can make promises or tell us what he will do and since God is always truthful and sovereign of creation he will perform them: “Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”

 

[DanAl]

The free-will defence/theodocy fails on several grounds. I’ll just mention a few.

1-God is not completely sovereign over his creation, he’s impotent to a certain extent and part of his creation out of his control.

2-The virgin Mary was free and remained sinless. It seems one can be free and avoid committing moral evils.

3- The blessed will never sin. Do they have free-will? It would be odd that God wants determined “robots” as co-lovers. It seems that one can remain free and avoid evil.

4- It is possible for God to create the world in such a way that we can be free-and unable to sin. He can make criminals faint or have a Damascus like conversion before they commit a crime.

Thread carefully here. It is better to say that some evil seems gratuitous to you. How can I tell with *certainty *that something is a gratuitous evil? I can’t. I do not know what God knows.

Also, It would be counter intuitive to say that God is sovereign of the universe and controls everything and say that he allows suffering without any purpose behind it.

We need to distinguish free-will from a free-action.Let’s say a man is imprisoned, did he lose his power of free-will? No, he still has that ability or potential. What he lost is his freedom to act in certain way.

To be coerced does not remove free-will, it only removes the power to act in a certain way.

Careful here, there are several ways to understand omnipotence and goodness.

Can God create a four sided triangle? Can he violate the principle of identity and create a man that is a woman at the same? no, these are logical contradictions.

There is disagreement over details regarding God’s omnipotence among Catholics. Could he create a chimera? or fire that feels cold? or water that doesn’t boil no matter how much heat is used? Can he make thinking stones?

God’s goodness is even more problematic. Is God morally good? That would imply he is under obligations. But where did these obligation come from? God owes us nothing, so why he’s obligated to act a certain way? God would not be completely sovereign since he’s under certain obligations. God would not be God since there’s something more fundamental than himself and he must obey it in order to be morally good.

For me God’s goodness refers to his benevolence, giving out gifts and prizes that we do not deserve, like beatitude and immortality.

Goodness also means that he is perfect and lacks nothing.

Finally we can say God is morally good in a very special sense. He owes us nothing and there’s nothing external that can impose any obligations on him. But, God can make promises or tell us what he will do and since God is always truthful and sovereign of creation he will perform them: “Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”

 

[KingCoil]

QUOTE=BackHand;12070901 ]

quote=KingCoil ]

*"But why a new world in the end and that after the present world has ended?

Very simple, it is because the present world was created by God to be all good and beautiful, but the first couple Adam and Eve spoiled it by committing the original sin of disobedience, eating from the forbidden tree.

That made God angry and He threw them out of the garden of delights into the vale of tears; but He said that He would send someone to undo the evil of their disobedience, and that is His Son made man, Jesus Christ.

So, that explains why you are suffering or not having the kind of existence and life you want."*
/quote ]

So I’m getting punished for the crimes of other people? All the terrible horrible things that happened in the world, happen because two people once ate some fruit, okay.
Also if Jesus undid Original Sin then why does suffering still exist? As far as my life goes i actually have a pretty good life of my own I have food, shelter, people who love me, education, but other people certainly do not. I just like debating the topic.

/QUOTE ]
​

Dear Black, thanks for your reaction, I love to do philosophy here because generally moderators keep out, unless they suddenly get active because some ‘disgruntled’ poster thinks that he has to report another poster owing to his (the disgruntled poster) say annoyance with the latter.

Now, before anything else, keep in mind that you report yourself to be Catholic here, so you are actually in danger for questioning of sinning against faith and obedience to the magisterium of the Catholic Church, that is bad for you.

You are not to think for yourself, but to accept everything that the Catholic Church teaches; but when you get to be better informed, you know that there are a lot of teachings and disciplines which are after so much talk and talk and talk, are optional – that means you will still be okay with Jesus and God even though you questions them.

You say,
As far as my life goes i actually have a pretty good life of my own I have food, shelter, people who love me, education, but other people certainly do not. I just like debating the topic.

I will just remind you that God can just entertain Satan and accept the challenge of Satan to throw some trials in your path, and see whether you will still be a faithful obedient child of God and follower of Jesus.

In my case, when I count my blessings I always thank God for them, and ask Him to just please just don’t now throw some trials in my path to test me.

Now, do you understand what I am saying all the time, perhaps I have not mentioned it here, that religion is a drama between you and God, and it is a human drama, I mean scripted according to human thinking and doing – and God also gets presented as another human but nth times more powerful, intelligent, and yes free, arbitrarily free to do anything He just wishes to do, and that is because He is the potter and you and I are the clay, does the clay has anything to say about why the potter chooses to make him a vessel for toilet and another a vessel for the storage of perfume?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

*“Morals is a human concept and does not apply, under any circumstance, to the Creator. *”
How does God not have morality? I’m not sure I get what your saying, sure I think God doesn’t have subjective morality or anything like that. Because morality to one person could mean something very different to another. Rather I think he follows a absolute set of values. I would highly disagree with the statement “that God does not have morality”. He doesn’t just do what he wants, that’s the description of an unscrupulous individual.

The way I see it, morality depends upon God since He is the master over-all whatever.

What He wants is moral, what He does not want is immoral.

Now if you impose some criteria on Him then He is no longer over-all master, but the author of those criteria is the master over-all.

I see however the principles of logic to be binding on God because if the principles of logic are not binding on God, then it is all impossible at all to understand God and wherefore good-bye to divine revelation.

But it is obvious and that is logic, that the author of logic is God Himself, in fact He is logic embodied in His substance.

What is that I learned in philosophy? the Christian philosophy that is, philosophy in a Christian university, philosophy 101, that being is one, true, beautiful, and now I add logical, so that God and oneness, truth, beauty, logic are interchangeable.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

So the only reason people need God is because of suffering, that’s an incredibly bleak outlook of religion, one that I really can’t subscribe to. And if most suffering did not exist we wouldn’t be independent of God, we would still depend on him for spiritual needs, it would just be physical needs that would be taken care of. We would still need God as a reason to live, a reason not to fear death (after a very happy life), so there are still areas where we would be very much dependent on God.

Watch out, Black, you are in danger of sinning against faith and obedience to the magisterium.

Linus2 will confirm that to you, he is to all appearances a self-appointed censor deputatus here.

Allow me to correct your English, even though I am not a native speaker of English, no matter that there are all kinds of folks who do use English as their mother tongue, and it is also difficult for them all to understand themselves mutually.

You say [the crossed out word is from you]:

So the only reason people need God is because of suffering, that’s an incredibly bleak outlook of religion, one that I really can’t subscribe to. And if most suffering did not exist we wouldn’t be -]independent/-] dependent of God, [but] we would still depend on him for spiritual needs, it would just be physical needs that would be taken care of. We would still need God as a reason to live, a reason not to fear death (after a very happy life), so there are still areas where we would be very much dependent on God.

Regards,
KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I have not seen anyone here attempt a one all purpose reconciliation of Christian faith and God with the frustrated wish-list of Christians, like for a world without suffering.

Forgive me, but that is how a lot of posters proceed in this forum, not caring for the core problem or issue, but going into all directions aside from solving the core problem, in the present context, how to reconcile the Christian faith and God with the wish-list of Christians.

Modesty aside, I am the only one to have attempted a one for all reconciliation.

Read my first post again in this thread:



“Tell you want, you stay with me and I will let you into a secret…”

And this is the secret, the Christian faith is a drama that you have chosen to play out with God, and that drama is scripted for humans but also making God as a human though with nth powers and knowledge, albeit still acting like any human, with his ideas about how to keep guys under him in their places, and how to punish those who are troublesome to say the least.

So, conduct ourselves like most contented guys living under a good master one like unto ourselves, human; but if you don’t like it, that boss God will make up for you in the end when we will have a perfect world, and the boss God will also be there, and we will host continually everyday a parade in his honor.

That is, when we take time out from enjoying ourselves resting on a chaise longue under the shade of fragrant trees, in the full blast of spring, beside a gently gurgling stream, tasting choice morsels of sweets and other gastronomic delicacies.

What else do you guys long for?

KingCoil

 

[oldcelt]

Because we are on our own in this. A moral God could not permit or cause much of what we see and have seen on this planet. Therefore, if He is involved in any way in the day to day affairs of mankind, He can no longer be moral.