Playing Devils Advocate e3: The problem of natural suffering

[tonyrey]

Can you produce a blueprint of a world without suffering? If not your objection is worthless…

You have evaded the issue:

Can you produce a blueprint of a world without suffering?

Why should i think that it is not possible for the world to be anything other than red in tooth and claw?

If you had lived in Africa for ten years you would realise “red in tooth and claw” is a gross exaggeration.

Firstly, is it logically impossible for God to create a world with less natural suffering than what we have in this world? If it is not self evidently clear that it is impossible, then i can claim the possibility. A blue print is not necessary since it is you who has the burden of proof to show that the suffering we experience could not have been otherwise.

You need to explain how **all **suffering could be prevented.

Secondly a better world doesn’t have to be a world where we experience no pain whatsoever. I Can certainly imagine a world where Gratuitous Suffering does not exist. It can be a world where organisms don’t eat each-other to survive; a world were a lion does not eat a human child; a world where people are not born with no arms or legs. Why couldn’t God create such a world? Some suffering is meaningful, but others kinds of suffering, especially the psychological kind, seem very excessive and unnecessary.

Gratuitous Suffering begs the question: “seem” is the key word. Your objection is based on opinion not on facts.

The reason why God would permit these things is very hard to grasp if not impossible; and certainly no one is obligated to believe in a being who permits great natural suffering and yet gives no real comprehensible reason for why it’s happening. Why am i left to guess why a God would create a hostile environment in which to put human beings?

The onus is on you to provide a detailed description of your imaginary Utopia in which there are no defects, disasters, diseases or deformities.

And why should the burden of proof be on the atheist to disprove the idea that God knows something that is beyond our comprehension. If something seems careless and indifferent, then why should i think that God or reality is anything but that?

“seems” is an unsound basis for a conclusion.

Sure i can have faith that God has a good moral reason for doing what seems evidently wrong, but such a faith does not command rational accent any-more than the belief that we must sacrifice virgins to keep the God’s happy. I mean, why create a hostile evolving world, when he can create a world that is not evolving and mutating into lethal viruses?

Neither of these things seem necessary unless you can argue that evolution is necessary in the sense that evolution was the only way that God could have created our world.

“a world that is not evolving” is worthless.

To say i made the world hostile to teach human beings a lesson, is like me throwing a child into a pit full of broken glass, letting him get cut up, and then saving the child from the pit and saying,

“it’s to teach you how good i am for saving you and how helplessly dependent you are on my power! Look how much i love you”

Any normal person who hasn’t got something to lose would say that i am a malicious lunatic megalomaniac drunk on power, not to mention a child abuser" is a straw man!
I just can’t accept the idea that God will do absolutely “anything” to produce Good.

You are confusing the actions of the Creator with the actions of His creatures as if they are not responsible.

Surely God would not rape a women to bring about a greater good. No, so there are limits to what God can do for the greater good. I don’t believe that God would harm creatures to create Good; that does not seem to me like a loving God. I don’t believe that God would rob a human being of his or her dignity in order to compel people to do good. Why is that any different from tyranny? We assume that because their might be a greater good that therefore any action to produce that good is justifiable.

You need to explain how the limits to human freedom could be imposed…

We have something to lose if we don’t justify God (we lose the promise of heaven) and so the motive is there to cover up injustices. But we would quickly see abuse for what it is if we were judging ordinary people that don’t have the power to create heaven for us.

Ad hominem. With equal facility one could say:

“We have something to lose if we don’t reject belief in God (we lose the promise of absolute independence) and so the motive is there to tolerate injustice when it suits us.”

In a Godless universe we could do precisely what we like with total impunity - if we were clever enough…

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

Secondly a better world doesn’t have to be a world where we experience no pain whatsoever. I Can certainly imagine a world where Gratuitous Suffering does not exist. It can be a world where organisms don’t eat each-other to survive; a world were a lion does not eat a human child; a world where people are not born with no arms or legs. Why couldn’t God create such a world? Some suffering is meaningful, but others kinds of suffering, especially the psychological kind, seem very excessive and unnecessary.

Wait didn’t God create this world in the Garden of Eden? Plus how could some suffering be meaningful and other suffering not be? What gives it it’s meaning? Does something only obtain it’s purpose when you can wrap your head around the reason for it? .

The reason why God would permit these things is very hard to grasp if not impossible; and certainly no one is obligated to believe in a being who permits great natural suffering and yet gives no real comprehensible reason for why it’s happening.

Yeah this is probably why there was only one Apostle at the foot of the Cross.

Why am i left to guess why a God would create a hostile environment in which to put human beings?

You’re not left to guess but to have faith. If you have been given the gift to notice that there is suffering which is meaningful then it shouldn’t be a stretch for you to believe that God permits the rest of it for a good reason as well.

And why should the burden of proof be on the atheist to disprove the idea that God knows something that is beyond our comprehension. If something seems careless and indifferent, then why should i think that God or reality is anything but that?

Only a being that knows all things can make the claim that something is meaningless. The Atheist sees suffering and claims there is no God because God does not operate as they would. The burden of proof is now on the atheist to prove that they posses all knowledge. Yet for Christians the opposite is true because they do not claim to know all but to have faith in God who knows all. They admit they cannot always comprehend why God allows things; but they profess they have faith that He does them for their benefit. Their faith is based on the simple conclusion that -as Fulton J Sheen would say- there is never an Easter Sunday without a Good Friday.

Sure i can have faith that God has a good moral reason for doing what seems evidently wrong, but such a faith does not command rational accent any-more than the belief that we must sacrifice virgins to keep the God’s happy. I mean, why create a hostile evolving world, when he can create a world that is not evolving and mutating into lethal viruses?

Mankind was created to be the worlds caretakers. Lethal viruses were never God’s intention to be a threat to mankind; however, man by his free will introduced them -by sin- into the world. The world we have today is a result of our lack of conformity to the Divine Will.

Neither of these things seem necessary unless you can argue that evolution is necessary in the sense that evolution was the only way that God could have created our world.

Animals eating animals and plants eating plants is not something which can be looked at as immoral. A lion that eats its young is not an evil lion; it is just a lion. If there is no moral evil associated with these things then they can be viewed as good and reasonable.

To say i made the world hostile to teach human beings a lesson, is like me throwing a child into a pit full of broken glass, letting him get cut up, and then saving the child from the pit and saying…,

This not what happened in the Garden of Eden. The world we have today which is hostile toward mankind (it’s caretaker) is a result of it’s caretakers abuse of God’s gifts. God created a perfect natural world; however, when man rebelled against God he also rebelled against nature. Since nature is always on God’s side nature rebelled against man.

I just can’t accept the idea that God will do absolutely “anything” to produce Good. Surely God would not rape a women to bring about a greater good. No, so there are limits to what God can do for the greater good. I don’t believe that God would harm creatures to create Good; that does not seem to me like a loving God. I don’t believe that God would rob a human being of his or her dignity in order to compel people to do good. Why is that any different from tyranny? We assume that because their might be a greater good that therefore any action to produce that good is justifiable.

God allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery by his brothers; yet, he became a ruler in Egypt second only to Pharaoh. There are many types of things like this happening in the Old Testament. The greatest instance of this; however, is Christ and his Passion and Death, and then His Resurrection from the grave in the New Testament. These types of things still happen today but are usually only acknowledge by a very few; most of the time it’s recovering addicts who have an amazing appreciation toward the mystery of redemptive suffering.

We have something to lose if we don’t justify God (we lose the promise of heaven) and so the motive is there to cover up injustices. But we would quickly see abuse for what it is if we were judging ordinary people that don’t have the power to create heaven for us.

This not true since God does not send someone to hell because they have a difference of opinion but rather a person sends themselves to hell because they exalted their opinion to the level of “truth” when it is not “truth.” Non serviam.

 

[Bahman]

The only thing which is missing in your idea of heaven is the suffering of Jesus.

And why Jesus should suffer when creation is perfect?

 

[Bahman]

What are you asking? If i could think of a world without natural suffering?

Why should i think that it is not possible for the world to be anything other than red in tooth and claw?

Firstly, is it logically impossible for God to create a world with less natural suffering than what we have in this world? If it is not self evidently clear that it is impossible, then i can claim the possibility. A blue print is not necessary since it is you who has the burden of proof to show that the suffering we experience could not have been otherwise.

Secondly a better world doesn’t have to be a world where we experience no pain whatsoever. I Can certainly imagine a world where Gratuitous Suffering does not exist. It can be a world where organisms don’t eat each-other to survive; a world were a lion does not eat a human child; a world where people are not born with no arms or legs. Why couldn’t God create such a world? Some suffering is meaningful, but others kinds of suffering, especially the psychological kind, seem very excessive and unnecessary.

The reason why God would permit these things is very hard to grasp if not impossible; and certainly no one is obligated to believe in a being who permits great natural suffering and yet gives no real comprehensible reason for why it’s happening. Why am i left to guess why a God would create a hostile environment in which to put human beings? And why should the burden of proof be on the atheist to disprove the idea that God knows something that is beyond our comprehension. If something seems careless and indifferent, then why should i think that God or reality is anything but that? Sure i can have faith that God has a good moral reason for doing what seems evidently wrong, but such a faith does not command rational accent any-more than the belief that we must sacrifice virgins to keep the God’s happy. I mean, why create a hostile evolving world, when he can create a world that is not evolving and mutating into lethal viruses?

Neither of these things seem necessary unless you can argue that evolution is necessary in the sense that evolution was the only way that God could have created our world.

To say i made the world hostile to teach human beings a lesson, is like me throwing a child into a pit full of broken glass, letting him get cut up, and then saving the child from the pit and saying,

“it’s to teach you how good i am for saving you and how helplessly dependent you are on my power! Look how much i love you”

Any normal person who hasn’t got something to lose would say that i am a malicious lunatic megalomaniac drunk on power, not to mention a child abuser; and that is certainly what it looks like, even if it is not.

I just can’t accept the idea that God will do absolutely “anything” to produce Good. Surely God would not rape a women to bring about a greater good. No, so there are limits to what God can do for the greater good. I don’t believe that God would harm creatures to create Good; that does not seem to me like a loving God. I don’t believe that God would rob a human being of his or her dignity in order to compel people to do good. Why is that any different from tyranny? We assume that because their might be a greater good that therefore any action to produce that good is justifiable.

We have something to lose if we don’t justify God (we lose the promise of heaven) and so the motive is there to cover up injustices. But we would quickly see abuse for what it is if we were judging ordinary people that don’t have the power to create heaven for us.

Why there should be natural suffering? To justify human will. Moreover, suffering is a force that help human to find solutions to reduce suffering and adopt better to the state of nature. What we are supposed to do in a world without natural suffering and suffering due to evil? Is it logically possible to create a world in a state of being without suffering? Yes. What is the purpose of creating such a world and what creature are supposed to do? You tell me.

 

[tonyrey]

And why Jesus should suffer when creation is perfect?

Creation is perfect but subject to the limitations of physical existence:

CCC 385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures….

Jesus suffers because human beings inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

 

[Bahman]

Creation is perfect but subject to the limitations of physical existence:

I know, but in our perfect example of creation, creator and creatures are living in perfect harmony so there is no need for anybody to suffer including Jesus. I also don’t understand Christian argument sometimes, sometimes they say that God is emotionless, then say Jesus is God and suffer for every beings.

 

[tonyrey]

I know, but in our perfect example of creation, creator and creatures are living in perfect harmony so there is no need for anybody to suffer including Jesus.

Your example assumes that perfect harmony in a physical world is possible.

I also don’t understand Christian argument sometimes, sometimes they say that God is emotionless, then say Jesus is God and suffer for every beings.

We Christians believe Jesus is both human and divine. In Heaven He does not suffer physically but He empathises with our suffering.

 

[Bahman]

Your example assumes that perfect harmony in a physical world is possible.

I assumed that creatures are created in Heaven (in presence of God).

We Christians believe Jesus is both human and divine. In Heaven He does not suffer physically but He empathises with our suffering.

Could divine be in state of time?

 

[tonyrey]

Your example assumes that perfect harmony in a physical world is possible.

Could divine be in state of time?
The divine encompasses time.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Bradski]

Can you produce a blueprint of a world without suffering? If not your objection is worthless…

You probably have a bible handy so read Genesis. Seems that all the animals were vegetarian then. But Adam was a bad boy and it all went pear shaped.

One day you’re eating grass and everything is hunky dory, the next you’re eating your own children.

All seems a bit harsh to me.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman;11212992:

I assumed that creatures are created in Heaven (in presence of God).

Human beings are created on earth.

But Jesus is human so it is embedded in state of time, in the same time God which has to be outside time so which is contradictory.

 

[tonyrey]

You probably have a bible handy so read Genesis. Seems that all the animals were vegetarian then. But Adam was a bad boy and it all went pear shaped.

One day you’re eating grass and everything is hunky dory, the next you’re eating your own children.

All seems a bit harsh to me.

Genesis is allegorical. Do you think evil is a myth?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;11214410:

Bahman;11212992:

I assumed that creatures are created in Heaven (in presence of God).

But Jesus is human so it is embedded in state of time, in the same time God which has to be outside time so which is contradictory.

You are assuming the Creator is in the same category as His creatures and subject to physical laws…

 

[Bradski]

Genesis is allegorical.

Don’t you think it’s feasible? That God could have, if he so desired, made the world that way?

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t you think it’s feasible? That God could have, if he so desired, made the world that way?

The Catechism has the answer:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the **limitations **proper to creatures…

Do you think evil is a myth? If not why do you distinguish good from evil?

 

[tonyrey]

…If not why do you distinguish good from evil?

Perhaps “how” would be a more pertinent question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

God made the angels even happier than men, one might suppose. They too rebelled. It seems to be an aspect of created beings that they will never live up to the perfection of their Creator. What God asks is that we prove ourselves to be worthy of being created. The first step in proving that worthiness is thanking him for our existence. Gratitude is followed by praise and obedience. Ingratitude is not followed by much of anything.

 

[tonyrey]

God made the angels even happier than men, one might suppose. They too rebelled. It seems to be an aspect of created beings that they will never live up to the perfection of their Creator. What God asks is that we prove ourselves to be worthy of being created. The first step in proving that worthiness is thanking him for our existence. Gratitude is followed by praise and obedience. Ingratitude is not followed by much of anything.

Except lack of joy, lack of love and lack of appreciation!

 

[DanAl]

The problem of natural suffering.

What excuse can be given for allowing Natural suffering?

True, the necessity of freewill explains Moral Evil.

However, it is not at all clear or self evident that natural suffering is necessary.

Why would a loving God create an evolving world full of dangerous things, suffering, death, disease, organisms consuming each-other, and then put humans beings in the thick it, essentially leaving humanity to the whim of nature “red in tooth and claw”?

What reasonable theodicy can seriously be given for this?

This to me seems like a malicious God evidently, therefore i reject the existence of a loving God.

I don’t think free-will requires the ability to actualize moral evil or you would have to admit that the Virgin Mary and the blessed in heaven are at risk of falling into sin.

Again, natural evil is not necessary or if you think it is necessary you would have to run the risk of limiting God’s omnipotence. It would be like saying that for God to achieve some goal he must do x. I see no logical necessity in God allowing physical evil.

There might be some contingent and not necessary reasons for God to allow physical evil. Here’s a reason by Venerable Mary of Agreda, she said that God foresaw the fall of Adam and saw it fit to make humans vulnerable to suffering to help them rectify his behavior. Again, there might be other reasons as well.

But ultimately why God allows physical evil does not get to the crux of the problem. Why does God allow suffering when he can achieve his purposes in other ways? to put it bluntly, God does not have an obligation towards us since obligation presupposes, in this context, moral obligation. Why is he morally obligated to do x? I see no reason that would justify moral obligation in God except for things that he promises to do.

 

[tonyrey]

must

do x. I see no logical necessity in God allowing physical evil.There is empirical necessity in a physical universe. Omnipotence does not entail inconsistency. Even David Hume conceded that physical evil is inevitable where there are natural laws.

There might be some contingent and not necessary reasons for God to allow physical evil. Here’s a reason by Venerable Mary of Agreda, she said that God foresaw the fall of Adam and saw it fit to make humans vulnerable to suffering to help them rectify his behavior. Again, there might be other reasons as well.

Much suffering is useless, purposeless and meaningless because it is due to the element of chance in a physical universe. Misfortunes are bound to occur sooner or later in an immensely complex system.

But ultimately why God allows physical evil does not get to the crux of the problem. Why does God allow suffering when he can achieve his purposes in other ways?

You are assuming God could achieve his purposes in other ways. How could all dysteleological coincidences be prevented?

to put it bluntly, God does not have an obligation towards us since obligation presupposes, in this context, moral obligation. Why is he morally obligated to do x? I see no reason that would justify moral obligation in God except for things that he promises to do.

God has not promised us a life without suffering. On the contrary Jesus has told us to take up our cross and follow Him…