Is there needless suffering?

[R_Daneel]

When asked about God’s love and the existence of suffering, the unanimous answer by Christians is this: “God’s love is not contradicted by the existence of suffering. Love and necessary suffering are not mutually exclusive. Love and needless suffering would be mutually exclusive.”. Well, so far, so good. What they say is not just logical, but also perfectly reasonable.

When asked about the apperently needless suffering we all experience (first or second hand) the answer is much less satisfying. The Christians assert that contrary to all appearances, all those horrible sufferings must have some beneficial effects, which more than compensate for the suffering. Of course they can never bring up any specific answer, they just repeat that it is a matter of faith. Obviously, such an answer is unacceptable to non-Christians, who go by the duck principle, which says: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it is most probably a duck - and not an elephant”.

Translated: “if it looks like unnecessary suffering, if it cannot be explained why that suffering is necessary, then it is most probably unnecessary suffering”. But Christians have a retort this one, too. They maintain that we are not privy to the information which would explain why those sufferings are actually beneficial, and this lack of information prevents us from forming a proper value judgment. Now this one is sheer cop-out. But, let’s accept it provisionally, and examine its ramifications.

Do Christians act according to these principles? Not on your life. When Christians themselves suffer, they seek remedy. They don’t just wallow in their own suffering, they seek professional help, to alleviate their suffering. They may be willing to “endure” other people’s suffering and assert that those sufferings are “good for them”, but when it comes to their own skin, their acts belie their own words.

But it goes further than that:

1. About the suffering brought forth by natural causes. The Catholic Church maintains lots of hospitals, which are dedicated to lessening the suffering. If all the suffering would be beneficial in some manner, then it is obvious that lessening the existing suffering interferes with those beneficial effects. The doctors run the risk of alleviating the suffering prematurely and thus prevent those unspecified “benefits” to take place. So having these hospitals contradicts the words about suffering. The acts contradict the words. If all those sufferings are part of God’s plan for the sufferers, then the doctors attempt to interfere with God’s plan. Why do they do that? Because they believe that suffering is not good, suffering should be lessened and cured. Observe: dedicated Catholic doctors attempting to lessen the suffering. Mindboggling, if they really believed that all suffering is beneficial - somehow.
2. About the suffering caused by human acts. The suffering caused by humans is called “evil” by the Church - thus expressing the unnecessary nature of such suffering. The perpetrators of such acts are called criminals, and are persecuted. But if all the suffering caused by these humans is necessary for some unspecified greater goods, then these people just further God’s plan for the victims. To condemn the tools whom God uses for his inscrutable purposes is incorrect. The perpetrators are just God’s tools. But the Church officially condemns genocides (correctly) as if she believed that such actions create unnecessary suffering. Unbelievable - if the Church says that all sufferings are necessary.
3. Lastly, some posters ask if anyone can prove that there is unnecessary evil in the world. I think the answer is simple. Let’s not go by the words, lets go by the acts. The Catholic Church asserts that some mental health problems (and thus sufferings) are caused by demons, and even has official exorcists to expel those demons. Therefore it is obvious that the suffering caused by those demons must be unnecessary, since the Church is adamant to exorcise the cause of the suffering.

So, when you wish to ask if there is unnecessary suffering in the world, look at the actions of the Catholic Church. Words are cheap, it is easy to say anything. Look at the actions and see that the actions contradict the words.

According to the acts of the Catholic Church, there is unnecessary suffering in the world. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God allows unnecessary suffering. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God is not “loving”.

Think about it.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[James_S_Saint]

Define “needless” in a meaningful way and think about it again.

 

[tonyrey]

If all those sufferings are part of God’s plan for the sufferers, then the doctors attempt to interfere with God’s plan.

If you read David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion you will realise that, sceptic as he was, he understood that belief in God does not necessarily entail divine control by “direct volitions”. In other words not all events are willed by God.

But if all the suffering caused by these humans is necessary for some unspecified greater goods, then these people just further God’s plan for the victims.

Sheer nonsense! The greatest good is human freedom without which we would be robots incapable of love and self-determination.

To condemn the tools whom God uses for his inscrutable purposes is incorrect. The perpetrators are just God’s tools.

How can they be tools when they have free will and the power to reject God’s commandment of love?

 

[Trishie]

Of course there is unnecessary suffering…most of the suffering caused to people by other people is unnecessary, and often the result of the selfishness or thoughtlessness of individuals and/or communities There is also much unnecessary suffering caused by personal misjudgment, obsessions and mistakes etc. There are many illnesses caused by poor diet, stress, and even genetic make-up. I suspect that the autoimmune problems in my family, and I have consequent illness, were probably due in part to the fact that my Scottish ancestors, both maternal and paternal, belonged to the same proud clan that married amongst its members for centuries…these are past choices and circimstances that may affect genetics, you could hardly call it necessary suffering, it’s consequences. Much human suffering is 'consequences '.

Natural disasters aren’t necessary. They too are consequences, of natural events and conditions, and probably generally worsened by human action on the planet, particularly in the last few hundred years.

The spiritual aspect comes in regarding the response people have to the consequences, whether or not we deal with them wisely and compassionately, with commonsense and caring, or we allow them to mentally or emotionally, and even spiritually, destroy us.

Thank you for your reflections,

Regards, Trishie

 

[R_Daneel]

If you read David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion you will realise that, sceptic as he was, he understood that belief in God does not necessarily entail divine control by “direct volitions”. In other words not all events are willed by God.

Not relevant. Whether something is actively willed by God, or passively allowed by him, the result is the same.

Sheer nonsense! The greatest good is human freedom without which we would be robots incapable of love and self-determination.

I don’t share your opinion.

How can they be tools when they have free will and the power to reject God’s commandment of love?

They must be tools, since God never allows “really evil” acts to happen, only “seemingly evil” acts. Besides, on what grounds do you call those acts “evil”? Do you have all the pertinent information available to you to make a correct value judgment? According to the Catholic teaching, God only allows “seemingly evil” acts. Those perpetrators may “think” that they act against God’s will, but that is impossible - God will never allow “purely evil” acts (at least that is what the Catholic Church teaches). They even risk their own eternal salvation, which is the greatest sacrifice a human can make - the highest level of love there can be. So maybe they should be called saints… hmmm?

A question: how does it feel to argue against yourself? I am using the very same tactics as employed by apologists.

R. Daneel Olivaw.

 

[R_Daneel]

Of course there is unnecessary suffering…most of the suffering caused to people by other people is unnecessary, and often the result of the selfishness or thoughtlessness of individuals and/or communities There is also much unnecessary suffering caused by personal misjudgment, obsessions and mistakes etc. There are many illnesses caused by poor diet, stress, and even genetic make-up. I suspect that the autoimmune problems in my family, and I have consequent illness, were probably due in part to the fact that my Scottish ancestors, both maternal and paternal, belonged to the same proud clan that married amongst its members for centuries…these are past choices and circimstances that may affect genetics, you could hardly call it necessary suffering, it’s consequences. Much human suffering is 'consequences '.

Natural disasters aren’t necessary. They too are consequences, of natural events and conditions, and probably generally worsened by human action on the planet, particularly in the last few hundred years.

The spiritual aspect comes in regarding the response people have to the consequences, whether or not we deal with them wisely and compassionately, with commonsense and caring, or we allow them to mentally or emotionally, and even spiritually, destroy us.

Thank you for your reflections,

Regards, Trishie

I agree with you. But then what does it mean that “God is love”? It is the Catholic teaching that God never allows “purely evil” acts, that he only allows “necessary evil” - where necessary means that some greater good will come forth from the suffering, which greater good cannot be achieved without the suffering. Gratuitous suffering, needless suffering is not allowed God - according to the Catholic Church.

Now I argee with you that most suffering in the world is unnecessary. Therefore my conclusion is that God is not “good”, if he exists at all.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[Trishie]

As most suffering is caused by people because they are not living Christian principles of “love God above all, and others as much as you love yourself” , and due to the consequences of their unwise choices and lifestyles, however obscure the cause, your conclusion is about the wrong person. When people are not good or wise, that only offers possible deductions about people, not about God!

 

[R_Daneel]

As most suffering is caused by people because they are not living Christian principles of “love God above all, and others as much as you love yourself” , and due to the consequences of their unwise choices and lifestyles, however obscure the cause, your conclusion is about the wrong person. When people are not good or wise, that only offers possible deductions about people, not about God!

Not really. First, the amount of human suffering pales in comparision to the pain and suffering of animals who perish in natural disasters. But that is not relevant here. What is relevant is that humans are not the highest authority in the world - God is (according to Cristians). Nothing can happen what is either not directly willed by God, or indirectly and passively tolerated by God.

That is the point of this thread. How can God’s alleged and supposed “love” be reconciled by the amount of unnecessary suffering?

You are quite unique and refreshingly so. Practically no one has ever admitted that there is unnecessary suffering in the world. And unnecessary suffering flatly contradicts the assumed “love” of God.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Evil” merely means the opposition to Life.

“Needless” merely means that we have an option available if we will take it, to accomplish our lives. Thus “Needless suffering” merely means that suffering is occurring that we could avoid IF we will.

Thus, YES, there most certainly is “needless suffering” as defined above. If you choose to take the God perspective, then there is no suffering at all and no need at all. That is a pointless perspective for a human to take.

God doesn’t really even get into the picture. God provides both the problem for life to face as well as the solution for life to choose. You can blame God for the problem, but without that problem there would be no life at all and without the solution, there would be none either.

The point and purpose of life is to LEARN to distinguish evil from all else or good from all else and act on what is learned, the result would be the same if done accurately.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

That is sheer nonsense! If you deliberately cause a person’s death you are directly responsible and guilty of murder for which there is no excuse - unless it is in self-defence. If you allow a person to die there is prima facie evidence for manslaughter but you will be acquitted if you can prove that it was the lesser of two evils…

             *The greatest good is human freedom without which we would be robots incapable of love and self-determination.*

I don’t share your opinion.

What is a greater good than freedom?

                                                                   *How can they be tools when they have free will and the power to reject God's commandment of love?*

They must be tools, since God never allows “really evil” acts to happen, only “seemingly evil” acts.

This is an absurd argument. If some one tortured you you would soon change your mind… It also implies that needless suffering is not really evil but only seemingly evil! So you are arguing against yourself!

Besides, on what grounds do you call those acts “evil”? Do you have all the pertinent information available to you to make a correct value judgment?

It is not **my **value judgment but that of all civilised persons who accept the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

According to the Catholic teaching, God only allows “seemingly evil” acts. Those perpetrators may “think” that they act against God’s will, but that is impossible - God will never allow “purely evil” acts (at least that is what the Catholic Church teaches).

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Please provide a reference.

They even risk their own eternal salvation, which is the greatest sacrifice a human can make - the highest level of love there can be. So maybe they should be called saints… hmmm?

More nonsense! You risk your eternal salvation when you sacrifice **others **to get what you want. It is the highest level of self-love there can be.
If you put yourself before everyone else and think “For all I care they can go to hell!” you show you’re incapable of real love and you deliberately choose to exist solely for yourself, with yourself.and by yourself… in hell…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree with you. But then what does it mean that “God is love”? It is the Catholic teaching that God never allows “purely evil” acts, that he only allows “necessary evil” - where necessary means that some greater good will come forth from the suffering, which greater good cannot be achieved without the suffering. Gratuitous suffering, needless suffering is not allowed God - according to the Catholic Church.

Now I argee with you that most suffering in the world is unnecessary. Therefore my conclusion is that God is not “good”, if he exists at all.

R. Daneel Olivaw

To formalize:

1. If there is a God, He would not allow unnecessary suffering.
2. Unnecessary suffering exists.
   .: There is no God.

Alright, then, let’s concede premise #1. And let’s look at premise #2. In order to evaluate this, we will need a definition of “unnecessary” and “suffering”. If you prefer to dodge this request and talk in generalities, then how can we possibly evaluate your claims?

In essence, what I’m looking for is this: are you saying that God needs to be a utilitarian, i.e. to maximize pleasure and minimize pain? Or are you saying that God needs to follow rights theory, i.e. not harm anyone without consent, etc.? Or are you saying something else?

 

[PAboy57]

Mr. R Daneel,

I’m sure God has a plan for everything that happens. If someone causes unnecessary suffering they will get what they have coming to them. Those who love and honor God and suffer will get their reward in Heaven. If we have the ability to ease the pain of someone suffering, and that is their desire, then it is the humane thing to do. While things may appear to be needless to us in our finite state of mind, I’m sure God will share the wisdom with us when we go to Heaven. Take care.

 

[w_stewart]

Do Christians act according to these principles? Not on your life. When Christians themselves suffer, they seek remedy. They don’t just wallow in their own suffering, they seek professional help, to alleviate their suffering. They may be willing to “endure” other people’s suffering and assert that those sufferings are “good for them”, but when it comes to their own skin, their acts belie their own words.

But it goes further than that:

1. About the suffering brought forth by natural causes. The Catholic Church maintains lots of hospitals, which are dedicated to lessening the suffering. If all the suffering would be beneficial in some manner, then it is obvious that lessening the existing suffering interferes with those beneficial effects. The doctors run the risk of alleviating the suffering prematurely and thus prevent those unspecified “benefits” to take place. So having these hospitals contradicts the words about suffering. The acts contradict the words. If all those sufferings are part of God’s plan for the sufferers, then the doctors attempt to interfere with God’s plan. Why do they do that? Because they believe that suffering is not good, suffering should be lessened and cured. Observe: dedicated Catholic doctors attempting to lessen the suffering. Mindboggling, if they really believed that all suffering is beneficial - somehow.

Does the meaning of suffering change if it is alleviated?

Does necessary suffering become unnecessary when it is alleviated?

1. About the suffering caused by human acts. The suffering caused by humans is called “evil” by the Church - thus expressing the unnecessary nature of such suffering. The perpetrators of such acts are called criminals, and are persecuted. But if all the suffering caused by these humans is necessary for some unspecified greater goods, then these people just further God’s plan for the victims. To condemn the tools whom God uses for his inscrutable purposes is incorrect. The perpetrators are just God’s tools. But the Church officially condemns genocides (correctly) as if she believed that such actions create unnecessary suffering. Unbelievable - if the Church says that all sufferings are necessary.

The evil acts of these people may bring greater good and God may will them in the sense that He allows them to happen. But does it justify their evil deeds?

1. Lastly, some posters ask if anyone can prove that there is unnecessary evil in the world. I think the answer is simple. Let’s not go by the words, lets go by the acts. The Catholic Church asserts that some mental health problems (and thus sufferings) are caused by demons, and even has official exorcists to expel those demons. Therefore it is obvious that the suffering caused by those demons must be unnecessary, since the Church is adamant to exorcise the cause of the suffering.

Again, does the meaning and purpose of suffering change when such suffering is alleviated?

 

[Spirithound]

When asked about the apperently needless suffering we all experience (first or second hand) the answer is much less satisfying. The Christians assert that contrary to all appearances, all those horrible sufferings must have some beneficial effects, which more than compensate for the suffering. Of course they can never bring up any specific answer, they just repeat that it is a matter of faith.

There is no empirically available answer because spiritual needs are not empirically detectable.

1. Dedicated Catholic doctors attempting to lessen the suffering. Mindboggling, if they really believed that all suffering is beneficial - somehow.

1. Unbelievable - if the Church says that all sufferings are necessary.

1. Therefore it is obvious that the suffering caused by those demons must be unnecessary, since the Church is adamant to exorcise the cause of the suffering.

According to the acts of the Catholic Church, there is unnecessary suffering in the world. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God allows unnecessary suffering. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God is not “loving”.

To say that a certain suffering is necessary is to say that it is a remedy for something, or an inoculation against something in the future. Do you know any doctor who fills a syringe with a random amount of a vaccine? No, therefore any remedy or inoculation must be in a certain quantity.

To make your points stick, you need to show that all the agents of lessening suffering are intervening at non-optimal times. Good luck with that, as spiritual needs are not empirically detectable.

 

[TiggerS]

Does the meaning of suffering change if it is alleviated?

Does necessary suffering become unnecessary when it is alleviated?

I think if some personal suffering is alleviated to a point perhaps where there is no more pain (although not necessarily), then identification with The Cross of Jesus changes to identification with His Resurrection and joy and triumph, thanksgiving.
Obviously if God Wills that a personal particular suffering should be alleviated then it is personally unnecessary to that degree - else The Lord would not alleviate it.

The evil acts of these people may bring greater good and God may will them in the sense that He allows them to happen. But does it justify their evil deeds?

As you have stated more or less, God does not will evil! Rather He may permit evil - Catholic Catechism:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/311.htm

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:
For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Nothing justifies evil! The good effect that The Lord draws out of evil as cause could be said to be a cause and an effect.

Again, does the meaning and purpose of suffering change when such suffering is alleviated?

Generally speaking the intrinsic meaning and purpose of suffering never changes although in essence it remains a mystery; however in a specific instance where some personal type of suffering is alleviated, then it is an identification (as stated above) with the Resurrection of Jesus and joy and triumph, thanksgiving. Jesus passed through a journey of suffering to the resurrection - and we also undergo this journey to some degree and at some time.

 

[R_Daneel]

That is sheer nonsense! If you deliberately cause a person’s death you are directly responsible and guilty of murder for which there is no excuse - unless it is in self-defence. If you allow a person to die there is prima facie evidence for manslaughter but you will be acquitted if you can prove that it was the lesser of two evils…

Wrong example! If you deliberately commit an act of blowing up a city block you will be convicted for the act. If you know about it beforehand, have the ability to prevent it and fail to do so, you will be convicted as an accessory. The sentence will be same.

What is a greater good than freedom?

To be with God. To enjoy God’s love first hand, for an eternity. That is the greatest good imaginable.

And since God is infinitely loving, all the allowed suffering can only have one purpose: to make sure that everyone will enjoy God’s love - both the victim of the suffering and the perpetrator (if there is one). After all God loves every one equally, and would not “pave the way” for one at the expense of the other. That would mean unequal love - which you reject. The mere fact that we are not privy to the details of this process is not an evidence that we are incorrect. You know: “absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence”. Have faith, my friend!

This is an absurd argument. If some one tortured you you would soon change your mind… It also implies that needless suffering is not really evil but only seemingly evil! So you are arguing against yourself!

No, my friend, I am merely borrowing the arguments from the Catholic posters. I am very glad you call them nonsense (since they are) because you condemn your fellow brethren who spout all this nonsense. Thank you!

It is not **my **value judgment but that of all civilised persons who accept the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Human concotions cannot stand in God’s way.

More nonsense! You risk your eternal salvation when you sacrifice **others **to get what you want. It is the highest level of self-love there can be.

Of course it is nonsense. But that is what logically follows from the Catholic argument.

This is your syllogism:

1. God is love.
2. Love only allows suffering if it leads to some greater good.
3. The greatest possible good is to be with God.
4. Therefore the existing sufferings (whether they come from natural causes or deliberate actions) must have the greatest good attached to them.

The logical continuation:
5) Therefore, if we interfere with the course of events (either by alleviating or preventing the suffering) we intefere with God’s plan - which is to have everyone be with him for all eternity.

And interfering with God’s plan or trying to prevent God’s plan is the ultimate evil. Isn’t that obvious? The logic is impeccable. You may call the argument unsound, if you deny one of the prerequisites. Which one will you reject?

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[R_Daneel]

To formalize:

1. If there is a God, He would not allow unnecessary suffering.
2. Unnecessary suffering exists.
   .: There is no God.

Alright, then, let’s concede premise #1. And let’s look at premise #2. In order to evaluate this, we will need a definition of “unnecessary” and “suffering”. If you prefer to dodge this request and talk in generalities, then how can we possibly evaluate your claims?

In essence, what I’m looking for is this: are you saying that God needs to be a utilitarian, i.e. to maximize pleasure and minimize pain? Or are you saying that God needs to follow rights theory, i.e. not harm anyone without consent, etc.? Or are you saying something else?

No, your summary is incorrect. I did not stipulate 2). I am saying that 2) does not hold. For the purposes of this thread I stipulated that all sufferings have the maximal greatest good attached to them - which greatest good is to be with God.

And therefore I stipulated that any interference with God’s plan is wrong. However, we see such attempts all the time. The Catholic Church itself maintains hospitals to lessen or prevent suffering. There are human institutions to punish and prevent the human caused sufferings. All these point to the fact that both the Catholic Church, and humans in general believe that 2) is indeed correct. There is no need to go any furter. It is hypocrisy to say “there is no needless suffering” and act as if there were.

Now this could be understood when it comes to fallible humans and their silly institutions (police, judicial systems). But not possible to undertsand when it comes to the infallible Catholic Church - guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church’s efforts to maintain those hospitals are either misguided (lessening or preventing necessary suffering) or the Catholic Church is attempting to say one thing and practise the opposite - and both of these are impossible. You are presented with a nice and unsolvable dilemma - resting on the presumption that God’s love only allows necessary suffering - which rests on the assumption that “God is love”.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[R_Daneel]

Mr. R Daneel,

I’m sure God has a plan for everything that happens. If someone causes unnecessary suffering they will get what they have coming to them. Those who love and honor God and suffer will get their reward in Heaven. If we have the ability to ease the pain of someone suffering, and that is their desire, then it is the humane thing to do. While things may appear to be needless to us in our finite state of mind, I’m sure God will share the wisdom with us when we go to Heaven. Take care.

But this would not be the best solution. You know: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”. To assume that God would use sub-optimal way is to assert that God does not possess the infinite wisdom. To allow some unnecessary suffering, and later punish the perpetrator is wrong, in two aspects. Once, later “reward” does not retroactively erase the injustice of the act. And second: the punishment of the perpetrator is not in the best interest of the perpetrator either - since it prevents the perpetrator from reaching the best state of affairs - to be with God. And since God loves everyone equally, it stands to reason that God would prevent needless suffering, rather than allowing it, and then punishing the perpetrator.

And the definition of love still is: “to act in the best interest of the loved one”.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And therefore I stipulated that any interference with God’s plan is wrong. However, we see such attempts all the time. The Catholic Church itself maintains hospitals to lessen or prevent suffering. There are human institutions to punish and prevent the human caused sufferings. All these point to the fact that both the Catholic Church, and humans in general believe that 2) is indeed correct. There is no need to go any furter. It is hypocrisy to say “there is no needless suffering” and act as if there were.

If we alleviate suffering, it is not needless suffering, because it is not suffering. Perhaps the purpose of the suffering was to influence a person to be merciful on the sufferer!

1. God is love.
2. Love only allows suffering if it leads to some greater good.
3. The greatest possible good is to be with God.
4. Therefore the existing sufferings (whether they come from natural causes or deliberate actions) must have the greatest good attached to them.
5. Therefore, if we interfere with the course of events (either by alleviating or preventing the suffering) we intefere with God’s plan - which is to have everyone be with him for all eternity.

#4 is illogical; it does not follow from 2 and 3. Love insists that suffering lead to some greater good, not necessarily that it lead to the greatest good. Suffering, often, leads to the greater good that we may have mercy upon each other, which benefits both parties. And who is to say that the benefit of mercy does not outweigh the experience of suffering?

Furthermore, your mention of God’s plan in the syllogism is confusing. No one can “interfere” with God’s plan, because their acting in that way would be part of God’s plan. It’s a contradiction, which proves that, whatever we do, we are in some sense acting in God’s plan.

 

[R_Daneel]

If we alleviate suffering, it is not needless suffering, because it is not suffering.

When a doctor gives you a pain-killer, that would eliminate the suffering, but it would not erase the previous suffering, would it?

Perhaps the purpose of the suffering was to influence a person to be merciful on the sufferer!

So you mean that God allows the suffering of a person, so that another one could benefit from it?

#4 is illogical; it does not follow from 2 and 3. Love insists that suffering lead to some greater good, not necessarily that it lead to the greatest good.

#4 follows from the assertion that God loves everyone equally, and that God’s love is infinite. An equal and infinite love would lead to the greatest possible good for everyone.

Suffering, often, leads to the greater good that we may have mercy upon each other, which benefits both parties. And who is to say that the benefit of mercy does not outweigh the experience of suffering?

You would say it, if you were the victim of a torture. Only the ones who do not themselves suffer would say something like that.

Furthermore, your mention of God’s plan in the syllogism is confusing. No one can “interfere” with God’s plan, because their acting in that way would be part of God’s plan. It’s a contradiction, which proves that, whatever we do, we are in some sense acting in God’s plan.

Right. So the criminals who commit those hideous tortures, rapes and murders are only tools in God’s hands to carry out his plan. That is what I said. The ones, who wish to prevent such acts would attempt to interfere… But maybe you mean something else. Suppose a wicked child molester plans to kidnap, rape and murder a child. If he succeeds, than that was God’s plan. If he fails, than that was God’s plan. Sorry, my friend, you cannot twist is to your liking. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

R. Daneel Olivaw