How would you respond to this question?

[Marc_Anthony]

Then that would mean cancer is not a tool of justice (administering justice) but a summons to appear in court. So it’s irrelevant. Right? The poster specifically spoke of people who “deserve to die” not people who “deserve to have their eternal judgment issued in a more prompt manner.”

In any event, I would assume you know or have known someone with cancer (or any other serious disease) and thus realize that a mere summons is not an apt analogy to describe the pain that it causes.

Yes, I know people who have had cancer (my grandfather who had it died recently, though of something else entirely).

And what is a “mere” summons? Why is it “mere”? Perhaps God sees it as far more important than that.

Also remember that we are all sinners, and even the best of us need our temporal sins cleansed. For most of us, it is through purgatory, but perhaps the sufferings of somebody undergoing something like cancer may alleviate their suffering in purgatory. Ultimately it’s all about God’s justice.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes, I know people who have had cancer (my grandfather who had it died recently, though of something else entirely).

And what is a “mere” summons? Why is it “mere”? Perhaps God sees it as far more important than that.

The analogy was this: going to court, like being called to death… is not necessarily painful.

Being punished, like suffering with cancer… is always painful.

Also remember that we are all sinners, and even the best of us need our temporal sins cleansed. For most of us, it is through purgatory, but perhaps the sufferings of somebody undergoing something like cancer may alleviate their suffering in purgatory. Ultimately it’s all about God’s justice.

Sure, and perhaps Atlantis will rise up from the Ocean tomorrow and perhaps there are invisible unicorns that dance in my yard at night. Who knows?

The point is, we don’t know that. We can speculate all we want, but what good is that? We have to work with the observable evidence.

If we want to say it’s a mystery then I suppose we can say that, just have to recognize that “it’s a mystery” is not actually an answer. You know what I mean?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The point is, we don’t know that. We can speculate all we want, but what good is that? We have to work with the observable evidence.

If we want to say it’s a mystery then I suppose we can say that, just have to recognize that “it’s a mystery” is not actually an answer. You know what I mean?

Very well, it’s a mystery. Luckily for Christians, this is not a problem since we know that all things are willed toward what is good and right. How do we know this? I recommend reading the work of Dr. Ed Feser. If you’re not interested in buying anything yet, his blog is an excellent place to start learning about Thomism and how we can use this philosophy to learn about the nature of God. His blog can be found at edwardfeser.blogspot.com.

 

[capoly]

I understand the atheist position to a point but seriously, what does an atheist expect from a god that does not exist?

I do not want to derail the thread, but this needs to be corrected.

When a non-believer uses the word “God”, he does not speak of an existing being, who has certain attrubutes, and behaves in a certain manner. They use the word “God” as a shorthand for “The alleged being, is said to have certain charactistics - like omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (or loving) and who supposedly acts explicitely or allows implicitly certain actions or events” - in other words they speak of the concept of God and pretend for the sake of the discussion that this concept has an actual referent in reality. However it would be extramely cumbersome to use the expanded sentence, so they simply use the word “God”, hoping that people will know what they mean.

So when they speak of God doing or allowing something, they only say that if this being would exist and acted thus, it would be a logically self-contradictory state of affairs.

 

[sw85]

Justice? OK, let’s talk about justice, then.

The main example provided was cancer.

Cancer is, to an extent, indiscriminate. Yes, certain behaviors provoke certain cancers, but cancers can also be genetic, or caused through no direct fault of the victim.

Further, if we expand this concept to include all serious diseases, then we must recognize that some diseases have been cured by man.

Therefore, the concept of disease as a “tool of God’s justice” is flawed unless:

1. You accept the idea that man is able to thwart God’s deliverance of justice by looking into a microscope and thus God’s justice is weak (defeat-able by man’s hands) and unnecessary (in which case, why hasn’t God cured a single disease?)
2. You define justice in such a way that it is indiscriminate, choosing a selection from among the guilty and punishing them at random. This defies nearly every human conception of justice, dating back to the words of Pericles in 431 BC. The human conscience revolts against it, the same conscience which God has written upon. When we now encounter cases where grievous criminals escape justice, it is due to our lack of power (which God is not lacking for) or else some miscarriage of justice which is widely reviled.

I’m not talking about cancer. I’m talking about suffering generally, in response to a narrowly-quoted snippet of lines originally posted by an atheist.

Also notice that I said “among other things.” i…e, justice isn’t exhaustive of the full list of goods people can entertain. Some other goods include things like almsgiving, self-sacrifice, patience, courage, etc., which presuppose evils and which would not exist or not need to exist in the absence of those evils. So there’s another reason there is suffering: God, in His goodness, gives us all greater and more abundant opportunities to do good with our limited time and resources.

Really, what I said is not even remotely controversial: in principle we suffer because the masses of men are horrible sinners. The modern mind shrinks from this only because of entitlement mentality.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The question pre-supposes that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would be obligated to tell us how to cure cancer.

I disagree. If the question were worded differently I might agree, such as “If there were an all powerful and knowing God then he would have told us the cure for cancer, and hasn’t” then I would agree with you. But the question as worded is asking for an explanation for a behavior . Let’s take another look at the question.

A person asked my husband, who asked me, and now I’m asking CAF: “If God is all powerful, all knowing etc. etc., then why doesn’t He just tell us the cure for cancer?”

My answer: ‘It is hard to communicate, when no one is listening.’

I don’t think that would be a good answer since not every one needs to be listening for a message to be communicated. It may also raise questions like “why not get the attention of some one that can understand the message in an unambiguous way.”

 

[capoly]

ISome other goods include things like almsgiving, self-sacrifice, patience, courage, etc., which presuppose evils and which would not exist or not need to exist in the absence of those evils.

A typical answer from someone who is not the sufferer himself. There is a German proverb: “aus der Not eine Tugend machen” (“to make a virtue of necessity”) which describes this kind of heartless rationalization. Somehow I don’t think that a child starving in Africa would rejoice that his suffering gives an opportunity to others to try to help (usually in vain). Of course that child might be just a selfish brat, who would prefer not to starve even if his lack of starvation would deprive some people from becoming virtuous helpers. I would venture to say that all the sufferers would gladly forego the chance of others to become “virtuous” if only the suffering would be missing from the world.

ISo there’s another reason there is suffering: God, in His goodness, gives us all greater and more abundant opportunities to do good with our limited time and resources.

Such a heartless way of viewing the suffering of others. I suggest reading the remarks of the second officer in The tale of the twevle officers. Quite an eye-opener.

 

[Jas2282]

A typical answer from someone who is not the sufferer himself. There is a German proverb: “aus der Not eine Tugend machen” (“to make a virtue of necessity”) which describes this kind of heartless rationalization. Somehow I don’t think that a child starving in Africa would rejoice that his suffering gives an opportunity to others to try to help (usually in vain). Of course that child might be just a selfish brat, who would prefer not to starve even if his lack of starvation would deprive some people from becoming virtuous helpers. I would venture to say that all the sufferers would gladly forego the chance of others to become “virtuous” if only the suffering would be missing from the world.

Such a heartless way of viewing the suffering of others. I suggest reading the remarks of the second officer in The tale of the twevle officers. Quite an eye-opener.

Just read the tale of twelve officers, very refreshing, I loved it… I want to read more articles like that. Thank you for sharing with us.

 

[sw85]

A typical answer from someone who is not the sufferer himself. There is a German proverb: “aus der Not eine Tugend machen” (“to make a virtue of necessity”) which describes this kind of heartless rationalization. Somehow I don’t think that a child starving in Africa would rejoice that his suffering gives an opportunity to others to try to help (usually in vain). Of course that child might be just a selfish brat, who would prefer not to starve even if his lack of starvation would deprive some people from becoming virtuous helpers. I would venture to say that all the sufferers would gladly forego the chance of others to become “virtuous” if only the suffering would be missing from the world.

And it is typical of atheists to dismiss 2,500+ years of theological reflection by declaring it “heartless rationalization.” Have you read Aquinas? Augustine? Aristotle? Pascal? If so, on what grounds do you presume to dismiss them with a wave of your hand?

(For that matter, have you even spent any time in Africa yourself, since you care so much about the poor children there? Or does the high road not have an off-ramp there?)

The above is exactly what I meant when I said that the modern mind shrinks from these truths only out of entitlement mentality. Nobody “deserves” an easy or abundant life, and yes, that includes me (and you). For that matter, none of us deserve life, period. They’re gifts.

 

[capoly]

And it is typical of atheists to dismiss 2,500+ years of theological reflection by declaring it “heartless rationalization.”

Where is the proof that all that “theological reflection” is based on reality? That it is more than just empty, wishful thinking? Show me the sufferers who prefer suffering just to give others the opportunity to become “virtuous”. Would you prefer the suffering? I seriously doubt it. If you have a toothache, don’t you run to the dentist? Or is it only other people’s suffering what you are willing to endure?

The above is exactly what I meant when I said that the modern mind shrinks from these truths only out of entitlement mentality. Nobody “deserves” an easy or abundant life, and yes, that includes me (and you). For that matter, none of us deserve life, period. They’re gifts.

Maybe we do not “deserve” anything. But a good, loving parent provides a good life to their children, not because they “deserve” it, but because they love those children. Look up what “love” happens to be, if you have time.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

A typical answer from someone who is not the sufferer himself. There is a German proverb: “aus der Not eine Tugend machen” (“to make a virtue of necessity”) which describes this kind of heartless rationalization. Somehow I don’t think that a child starving in Africa would rejoice that his suffering gives an opportunity to others to try to help (usually in vain). Of course that child might be just a selfish brat, who would prefer not to starve even if his lack of starvation would deprive some people from becoming virtuous helpers. I would venture to say that all the sufferers would gladly forego the chance of others to become “virtuous” if only the suffering would be missing from the world.

Such a heartless way of viewing the suffering of others. I suggest reading the remarks of the second officer in The tale of the twevle officers. Quite an eye-opener.

The Tale of the twelve Officers is interesting, but I think that we probably have a different idea of what the moral is. You seem to think that the moral is to show how silly attempts to solve the problem of evil are.

I think the moral is that the story shows just how silly it is when we decide to play God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Where is the proof that all that “theological reflection” is based on reality? That it is more than just empty, wishful thinking?

Capoly, this seems like a response just as bad as some of the theistic responses possible. We might as well say, "Where is the proof that all of this “denial of God stuff is based on reality? That it is more than just empty, wistful thinking in order to avoid the responsibility of doing good?”

The answer is obvious. Reason dictates otherwise. You can disagree with the reasoning, but dismissing it out of hand like that really doesn’t make sense.

 

[Jas2282]

funny thing is, after reading the tale of the twelve officers… It didn’t make me less of a believer, instead it made me see more of Gods complexity. I enjoyed that. after all he wouldn’t be God if he thought like us.

 

[capoly]

The Tale of the twelve Officers is interesting, but I think that we probably have a different idea of what the moral is. You seem to think that the moral is to show how silly attempts to solve the problem of evil are.

It attempts to show that the in-so-far suggested solutions do not hold any water. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to suggest a plausibe explanation.

Capoly, this seems like a response just as bad as some of the theistic responses possible. We might as well say, "Where is the proof that all of this “denial of God stuff is based on reality? That it is more than just empty, wistful thinking in order to avoid the responsibility of doing good?”

One cannot prove a universal negative. I do not try to “disprove” God’s existence. But I suggest that “2500+ years of theological reflection” cannot trump the cry of one suffering child. When it comes to philosophy (any philosophy!) there can be two outcomes: the results of the philosophical musings are in synch with reality (and in that case, what is their use?) ot they are contradicted by reality (and in that case they belong to the garbage heap).

By the way, the denial of God’s existence is not based upon an innate desire of trying to deny responsibity, or desiring to lead a hedonostic existence, it is based upon the woeful lack of evidence.

 

[capoly]

funny thing is, after reading the tale of the twelve officers… It didn’t make me less of a believer, instead it made me see more of Gods complexity. I enjoyed that. after all he wouldn’t be God if he thought like us.

That is a good, logical outcome. Congratulations.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It attempts to show that the in-so-far suggested solutions do not hold any water. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to suggest a plausibe explanation.

I disagree. Let’s look at a few of the answers:

If we accept that Officer 5 actually IS omniscient than his answer make perfect sense. It’s only silly because we don’t believe that.

Officer 9’s answer is only ridiculous if you believe that his paradise is not adequate compensation for Mrs. K’s suffering. But how do we know that Heaven isn’t adequate compensation? I think it is.

One cannot prove a universal negative. I do not try to “disprove” God’s existence. But I suggest that “2500+ years of theological reflection” cannot trump the cry of one suffering child.

Of course, as long as we assume that the theological reflection doesn’t solve the problem of evil, which is what it attempts to do. If it succeeds to solve that problem, than your point is merely an argument from emotion. And I disagree with your conclusion that the theological reflections fail in their attempts to solve the problem of evil.

When it comes to philosophy (any philosophy!) there can be two outcomes: the results of the philosophical musings are in synch with reality (and in that case, what is their use?) ot they are contradicted by reality (and in that case they belong to the garbage heap).

Yep.

By the way, the denial of God’s existence is not based upon an innate desire of trying to deny responsibity, or desiring to lead a hedonostic existence, it is based upon the woeful lack of evidence.

If I said, “I don’t believe you,” That response would be no different than you saying belief in God is the same as wishful thinking. I think it’s based on logic.

 

[Newbie2]

“If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?”

 

[tabycat]

Perhaps say “God probably did send us someone with the cure for cancer. Unfortunately he was aborted.”

God sent alot of people who had cures for many,many things, but they were, unfortunately, aborted. :console:

 

[Jas2282]

“If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?”

You mean like Jesus getting nailed to a cross?

 

[capoly]

I disagree. Let’s look at a few of the answers:

Sure. It is a good idea to examine the different answers in depth. Since you suggest to look at officer 5 and 9, does that mean that you find the other answers unsatisfactory? Just curious.

If we accept that Officer 5 actually IS omniscient than his answer make perfect sense. It’s only silly because we don’t believe that.

Nope. From omniscience it does not follow the property of benevolence. Besides, to assert that there is perfectly satisfactory answer, but not even trying to give it would require the recipient to subscribe to blind faith. Why should we accept that the answer is incomprehensible to us?

Officer 9’s answer is only ridiculous if you believe that his paradise is not adequate compensation for Mrs. K’s suffering. But how do we know that Heaven isn’t adequate compensation? I think it is.

There is a problem here. The compensation must be a logical corollary to the suffering. If the suffering is not logically connected to the compensation, then the compensation cannot logically justify the prior suffering.

Of course, as long as we assume that the theological reflection doesn’t solve the problem of evil, which is what it attempts to do. If it succeeds to solve that problem, than your point is merely an argument from emotion. And I disagree with your conclusion that the theological reflections fail in their attempts to solve the problem of evil.

I am all ears. Anyone could show a logical and rational line of arguments how the problem of evil can be “solved”, that person would qualify for a huge Nobel prize. Observe, the argument must be rationally constructed and should be convincing to atheists. Believers do not need to be convinced. The usual cop-out (that atheists are intentionally “blind”) should be avoided. No atheist can refuse to accept an argument if the refusal would lead to a logical contradiction.