Necessary suffering? Example?

[Trurl]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

 

[DCNBILL]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

Chemotherapy to eradicate a cancer.

 

[pig]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

everything involves suffering, ‘…by the sweat of your brow…’, and all that kind of thing.

 

[Trurl]

Chemotherapy to eradicate a cancer.

Good try, but that is technology driven. God’s omnipotence could eradicate cancer altogether, or create a painless cure for it. I am looking for an example where not even God’s omnipotence (which is only “limited by” logical contradictions) could eliminate the pain / suffering.

everything involves suffering, ‘…by the sweat of your brow…’, and all that kind of thing.

Get serious, please… i am not looking forward to see “cutesy” slogans.

 

[DCNBILL]

Good try, but that is technology driven. God’s omnipotence could eradicate cancer altogether, or create a painless cure for it. I am looking for an example where not even God’s omnipotence (which is only “limited by” logical contradictions) could eliminate the pain / suffering.

You ask a question and then change the rules? It would seem if God is creator He is creator of all things even giving us the ability to use technology. You are asking the age old question, can God create a rock so heavy He could not even lift it, so any answer would be unacceptable to you based on this criteria.

Note that God works on this earth through His creatures.

 

[pig]

Good try, but that is technology driven. God’s omnipotence could eradicate cancer altogether, or create a painless cure for it. I am looking for an example where not even God’s omnipotence (which is only “limited by” logical contradictions) could eliminate the pain / suffering.

Get serious, please… i am not looking forward to see “cutesy” slogans.

Its no slogan, it is a fact of life. You cannot get out of bed in the morning without not really wanting to [maybe its cold outside, Thurl], then you bang your head on the shelf, your shin on the table, burn your breakfast after suffering the trouble to make it… I could go on.

What you are probably trying to ask is that question, “Is there a rock too heavy for God to lift?”, or ‘can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?’.

 

[DCNBILL]

Its no slogan, it is a fact of life. You cannot get out of bed in the morning without not really wanting to [maybe its cold outside, Thurl], then you bang your head on the shelf, your shin on the table, burn your breakfast after suffering the trouble to make it… I could go on.

What you are probably trying to ask is that question, “Is there a rock too heavy for God to lift?”, or ‘can God create a rock too heavy for kim to lift?’.

:thumbsup:

 

[Ophelia23]

Almost everything good comes from some sort of hardship or difficulty. We must have our Good Friday in order to reach Easter. There are, of course, varying levels of suffering or hardship. Here are a few examples.

-Labor for birth, and the subsequent life of a child.
-Sitting through school, the subsequent education and freedom
-Working and toiling in the fields, the subsequent crop
-Remaining chaste and pure until marriage, the subsequent joy of giving all of one’s self to your spouse
-Working hard in a cubicle (true story), the subsequent paycheck!

These are just a few small, every day examples!

 

[Trurl]

You ask a question and then change the rules?

I did NOT change any rules. In th OP I was VERY explicitly asking for an example of “logically necessary” suffering. Something that cannot be avoided (again, God’s omnipotence notwithstanding) if that “greater good” needs to be reached.

 

[Trurl]

Almost everything good comes from some sort of hardship or difficulty. We must have our Good Friday in order to reach Easter. There are, of course, varying levels of suffering or hardship. Here are a few examples.

-Labor for birth, and the subsequent life of a child.
-Sitting through school, the subsequent education and freedom
-Working and toiling in the fields, the subsequent crop
-Remaining chaste and pure until marriage, the subsequent joy of giving all of one’s self to your spouse
-Working hard in a cubicle (true story), the subsequent paycheck!

These are just a few small, every day examples!

Are any of these “logically necessary”? Of course not.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Good try, but that is technology driven.

Gonna have to agree with DCNBILL. You asked a question, he gave a valid answer.

As to the is there something God can’t “logically” do, then the answer is probably no. If the answer is no, what do you think that would mean?

 

[Trurl]

Gonna have to agree with DCNBILL. You asked a question, he gave a valid answer.

I asked very clearly about logically necessary examples. His was not.

As to the is there something God can’t “logically” do, then the answer is probably no. If the answer is no, what do you think that would mean?

Aha! What that would mean is that there is no “necessary suffering”, and as such no “greater good defense” when it comes to the problem of evil. But, of course ONE example of “logically necessary suffering” would keep the defense alive… let’s see if someone can come up with one.

 

[Ophelia23]

Are any of these “logically necessary”? Of course not.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what “logically necessary” means. Please explain.

 

[Trurl]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what “logically necessary” means. Please explain.

Gladly!

Let’s take an old saying; “No pain, no gain”, which indicates that one must go through physical hardships to develop a healthy, strong, agile body. One must exercise, endure exhaustive endeavors, becuse that is “necessary” to reach the “greater good” of having a healthy and strong body. Indeed, it looks like a good candidate to the question of OP. However, it is not. True, in our current level of technology we do not have a “shortcut”. But there is no “logical necessity” that such an arduous process is required to achive that healthy body.

Another example woukld be your suggestion of going to school. Again, our current technology does not offer a “shortcut” to get educated quickly and “painlessly”. But our current level of technology is not the “best, most advanced” one.

Or another one. In the middle ages there was no anesthesiology. When an amputation needed to be perfomed, the poor patient was given a bullet to bite down upon (the phrase “to bite the bullet” came from this practice) while the barber (doctor?) performed the amputation. That was the best “technology” available back then. Today we have much better methods, but it is absolutely certain that our current technology can and will improve.

So, none of these “pains and sufferings” are logically necessary. A logically necessary pain / suffering would be that not even God could “bypass”. After all God’ alleged omnipotence allowsGod to do anything and everything except perform a logically contradictory action.

I hope this helps.

 

[Ophelia23]

Gladly!

Let’s take an old saying; “No pain, no gain”, which indicates that one must go through physical hardships to develop a healthy, strong, agile body. One must exercise, endure exhaustive endeavors, becuse that is “necessary” to reach the “greater good” of having a healthy and strong body. Indeed, it looks like a good candidate to the question of OP. However, it is not. True, in our current level of technology we do not have a “shortcut”. But there is no “logical necessity” that such an arduous process is required to achive that healthy body.

Another example woukld be your suggestion of going to school. Again, our current technology does not offer a “shortcut” to get educated quickly and “painlessly”. But our current level of technology is not the “best, most advanced” one.

Or another one. In the middle ages there was no anesthesiology. When an amputation needed to be perfomed, the poor patient was given a bullet to bite down upon (the phrase “to bite the bullet” came from this practice) while the barber (doctor?) performed the amputation. That was the best “technology” available back then. Today we have much better methods, but it is absolutely certain that our current technology can and will improve.

So, none of these “pains and sufferings” are logically necessary. A logically necessary pain / suffering would be that not even God could “bypass”. After all God’ alleged omnipotence allowsGod to do anything and everything except perform a logically contradictory action.

I hope this helps.

I’ll be honest here… it doesn’t help, not even a little. My understanding of something being logically necessary is that a logical conclusion can be reached based on… well… logic. These examples that you have provided don’t seem any more logically necessary than my own.

 

[Andrew1980]

Our suffering makes us more like Christ who also suffered for love of us. Suffering is a blessing as it helps conform us to Christ.

 

[Trurl]

My understanding of something being logically necessary is that a logical conclusion can be reached based on… well… logic.

I see your problem now. We are not talking about logical conclusions, rather logical prerequisites - which cannot be lessened without losing the good outcome! Maybe you are not familiar with the so-called “greater good” defense for the “problem of evil”. Look it up, or if you need it, I can explain.

Here is one more example: suppose a doctor and his friend take a field trip, and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake on his left hand’s “pinky finger”. The doctor wishes to save the friend’s life (which is the “greater good”) but he has no antidote in his pocket. The only way to save the life is to perform a quick amputation of the finger. The greater good is achieved, the person’s life is saved, the “price” - losing a finger - is well worth it. However, suppose the doctor does have an antidote, but does not use it. Instead he performs the amputation. In this case the amputation cannot be justified. So, just because there is a “greater good” at the end, that cannot justify the method applied. The only method that can be justified is the “minimal intrusion”, which cannot be “lessened” without losing the benefit.

This method would be the logically necessary prerequisite. Of course even the antidote is “clumsy” compared to the “best, perfect” method.

 

[7armyrugrats]

It sounds as if you will have an argument for any example anyone gives which, honestly, is as “logical” as a pre schooler (or teenager). According to the Book of Genesis, all was perfect in the Garden of Eden until the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was eaten. After that Adam and Eve’s eyes were open to “logic” such as you are arguing, and as a result we all need to WORK for any GAIN. Before that time, all we needed was handed to us for no effort. We never suffered, never worked, never died. As humans we separated ourselves from God and His kingdom. Even today, the very few things He asks of us seem to be too great (attending Mass, daily prayer, loving our neighbor as ourselves). As a group we still choose to reject God by eating from the forbidden tree. God gave us free will so it is our choice to make. He gave us free will because if He (or anyone) forced us to love, obey, honor, etc., it would not be REAL love, obedience, honor, etc. It means nothing if it comes from duress. To suffer for the greater good would not be necessary if we remained faithful to God in the Garden of Eden. But since we chose (and continue to choose on a daily basis!) to separate ourselves from Him, it is now a reality. Just as parents could easily give their children all they would ever need, yes God COULD do that for us as well. Unfortunately, just as children often do to their parents, we reject God’s gifts more than we even realize or are willing to admit. So it’s not that we NEED to suffer, it is that we CHOOSE to suffer.

 

[ColdComfort]

Gladly!

Let’s take an old saying; “No pain, no gain”, which indicates that one must go through physical hardships to develop a healthy, strong, agile body. One must exercise, endure exhaustive endeavors, becuse that is “necessary” to reach the “greater good” of having a healthy and strong body. Indeed, it looks like a good candidate to the question of OP. However, it is not. True, in our current level of technology we do not have a “shortcut”. But there is no “logical necessity” that such an arduous process is required to achive that healthy body.

Another example woukld be your suggestion of going to school. Again, our current technology does not offer a “shortcut” to get educated quickly and “painlessly”. But our current level of technology is not the “best, most advanced” one.

Or another one. In the middle ages there was no anesthesiology. When an amputation needed to be perfomed, the poor patient was given a bullet to bite down upon (the phrase “to bite the bullet” came from this practice) while the barber (doctor?) performed the amputation. That was the best “technology” available back then. Today we have much better methods, but it is absolutely certain that our current technology can and will improve.

So, none of these “pains and sufferings” are logically necessary. A logically necessary pain / suffering would be that not even God could “bypass”. After all God’ alleged omnipotence allowsGod to do anything and everything except perform a logically contradictory action.

I hope this helps.

One cannot love without having the choice to not love. One cannot be virtuous without having the choice to sin. God could create a world of Sims where there is no moral evil leading to suffering but there would be no love and virtue and the possibility of their opposites.

God created all things good. Our first parents brought sin and death into the world. In his mercy God ‘foresaw’ this and from time eternal ‘planned’ to send His Son to redeem the world and humankind. He gives us the hope of a greater good of living with Him face to face for all eternity. Even now we retain the choice of co-operating with His grace or not.

Your question may be a problem for a deist who thinks we currently live in the best of all possible worlds. It is not a problem for a Christian considering the doctrine of original sin.

 

[Andrew1980]

I think you are grasping at straws here Trurl. Its sounds like you believe that if God could eliminate all suffering that he should. As though suffering in and of itself is evil. God allows humans to both choose evil and for us to suffer.

The existance of evil is due to the fact that God has given us the gift of free will. The gift of free will means that we, as humans, have a choice to reject love and become self seeking. We can choose to do evil. God does not wish evil for us, but gives us the right to choose.

Suffering comes to humans as a result of the human’s race acceptance of evil. We opened a big can of worms when we started to choose our own ways and rejecting God ways. Thus now, even the most innocent end up sharing in the suffering of mankind (Jesus, the unborn, children, etc). God COULD stop this suffering if he chose to, but he doesn’t. He allows our free will to playout in most circumstances to their final result. Thus we can see that the evil of physically abusing a child has consequences. The child suffers greatly. If God was to step in and miraculous prevent the child from ALL suffering would abuse still be seen as wrong? Who is hurt by it? Not the child, not the abuser, no one.

The existance of evil in the world is obvious. Suffering is a result of our choice of evil. Suffering, however, is not evil itself. Suffering is often times a blessing. It helps the drug addict seek recovery, it helps me learn compassion and understanding, it helps unite us to Christ. Personally, I don’t know where I would be without suffering. I doubt I would have ever grown out of my selfish habits.