Recurring, but incorrect arguments (part 2): Attempt to turn the tables

[Ruqx]

Many apologists try to whitewash God’s lack of interference when it comes to help the sick, the needy, the sufferers, etc. Instead of offering an argument, they try to put the blame on the one who asks the question. They ask back: “what did YOU do to prevent the suffering?”. As if our lack of help would make God’s non-interference policy somehow acceptable.

The answer is simple: “We do whatever we can.” Most people help as long as it does not put undue burden on them. And we do NOT ask anything more from God. He is not supposed to assume undue burden to help the sufferers, only whatever he can do without inconveniencing himself; without putting himself into “trouble”.

Of course, God is supposed to be able to solve all the problems of the world just by willing them away. He does not need to move his virtual fingers, just “will” something. So, I suggest you drop this kind of “defense”.

There is a saying about “whoever is given much, much is expected”. And there is no one who has power comparable to God. Therefore we justly expect much more from God. As soon as we shall have the power to “will away” the problems, you will have a solid ground to blame us. But NOT UNTIL THEN.

 

[Hatikvah]

It is unwise for a Christian to even question God’s presence when God Himself advises against that:

Jesus said to him (that is, Satan) in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’” (Luke 4:12, NAB)

The argument of evil, whatever it may be called, is the most overused argument against an active God, going back to 300 BC with certain Greeks; so overused, I’m sure you can find materials online against it.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Many apologists try to whitewash God’s lack of interference when it comes to help the sick, the needy, the sufferers, etc. Instead of offering an argument, they try to put the blame on the one who asks the question. They ask back: “what did YOU do to prevent the suffering?”. As if our lack of help would make God’s non-interference policy somehow acceptable.

**2. **The answer is simple: “We do whatever we can.” Most people help as long as it does not put undue burden on them. And we do NOT ask anything more from God. He is not supposed to assume undue burden to help the sufferers, only whatever he can do without inconveniencing himself; without putting himself into “trouble”.

**3. **Of course, God is supposed to be able to solve all the problems of the world just by willing them away. He does not need to move his virtual fingers, just “will” something. So, I suggest you drop this kind of “defense”.

**4. **There is a saying about “whoever is given much, much is expected”. And there is no one who has power comparable to God. Therefore we justly expect much more from God. As soon as we shall have the power to “will away” the problems, you will have a solid ground to blame us. But NOT UNTIL THEN.

1. Who are these apologists? Name them. Give examples of actual, real-life arguments that can be referred to on paper. Otherwise, this is unhelpful.
2. None of this is true, simply speaking. Plenty of people don’t do what they could do without “undue burden” (whatever that means), and plenty of people do in fact admit of considerable burdens to help others. Plenty of people ask more from God. God does not have any undue burdens, except for that one time He became a man… and that was only in His human nature.
3. He is, but the fact is that suffering is good for us in a myriad of ways, and it seems it is the only way to gain the goods of glory. And saying that people ought to help others is not at all generally used as an attempt to “apologize” for God’s “inaction.” So it’s not really a “defense.” But it certainly is a good image - we get to give God flesh on Earth once more, or we can give the Devil flesh for the first time. All those opportunities disappear, and then what is the point exactly? Perhaps we could go to Eden and see what the prelapsarian life was meant to be for, but the reality is that it is over and we are left with the consequences of sin. Ultimately, these things bring about a greater good, or they would not have been allowed to happen. “O happy fault!” Etc.
4. Okay, so all the problems in the world are gone. Now what? Explain that world, and why one would want to exist in it. Go “all the way” with it… Why would God create such a world, why would He put people into it, etc.? Why not just create people already in Heaven?

The larger point is this - God is not a moral agent. Maybe it is time I resurrect that thread, as I promised a while back. His actions are simply not able to be judged morally, since He is the measure for morals.

 

[e_c]

Hatikvah references a useful event in the life of Christ… The 3 temptations… They are the temptations that perpetually face the Church and that people continually complain Christ didn’t succumb to…

1. Solve world hunger, all the problems of the flesh! You can do it, you know…
2. Fly around, everyone will believe in you! It is in your power…
3. Make that deal with the Devil, he will give you back his freedom that you gave him in his nature, so that you can rule the world here and now, ushering in an age of peace and joy! It will be easy…

All of this would be a New Rome, not a New Jerusalem.

 

[StJoseph8]

Many apologists try to whitewash God’s lack of interference when it comes to help the sick, the needy, the sufferers, etc. Instead of offering an argument, they try to put the blame on the one who asks the question. They ask back: “what did YOU do to prevent the suffering?”. As if our lack of help would make God’s non-interference policy somehow acceptable.

Yeah, that is a really bad argument. I have yet to hear that out of Christian apologists. There are better.

There is a saying about “whoever is given much, much is expected”. And there is no one who has power comparable to God. Therefore we justly expect much more from God.

You (anybody) did not have to exist, nor did you ask to exist. According the Catholic POV, God creates and holds everything in existence. Everything in existence depends on God. All I hope from God is that He keeps His Word, which He certainly does.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

I think your argument is foundless in light of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that those that followed Him would suffer. He never promised the Apostles or any that believed in Him a Rose Garden. Are you expecting peaches and ice cream for one and all? What Jesus did promise was that those that believed in Him would join all the angels, saints and THE FATHER in heaven.

I am a rather simpleton: If Jesus taught us one way and some-possibly non Catholic Apologist is saying something else; guess who I will believe in.

Please cite the Apologist-information you refirre to. In order to make an accurate comparison between the gospels and what an apologist(s) has written you must first read the Bible-New Testament. Peace.

 

[Ruqx]

Who are these apologists? Name them. Give examples of actual, real-life arguments that can be referred to on paper. Otherwise, this is unhelpful.

Many of the posters on these forums. I will not name them, because it is against the rules to discuss members, rather than issues. Just read any thread about the problem of evil… they are there. The word “apologist” refers to anyone who attempts to explain the way God acts (or does not act) vis-à-vis the problem of evil - and “evil” is NOT the logical equivalent of suffering. (BTW, you can find examples in the thread about the “Atheist’s best argument”.)

And saying that people ought to help others is not at all generally used as an attempt to “apologize” for God’s “inaction.” So it’s not really a “defense.”

**Indeed, it is not a “defense”, it is an attempt to deflect the problem. ** And that is the question of this thread.

Okay, so all the problems in the world are gone. Now what? Explain that world, and why one would want to exist in it. Go “all the way” with it…

There are plenty of things to do even if there are no murderers and rapists. Discovering the beauties of nature, creating art, pondering the sequences of prime numbers… Use your imagination.

Why would God create such a world, why would He put people into it, etc.? Why not just create people already in Heaven?

That is the point. **Why not indeed? **

The larger point is this - God is not a moral agent. Maybe it is time I resurrect that thread, as I promised a while back. His actions are simply not able to be judged morally, since He is the measure for morals.

Not true. Every time someone says: “God is good, or loving, or benevolent” they pass a “moral” judgment. Correct them, when they do; not me when I expose them.

 

[e_c]

**1. **Many of the posters on these forums. I will not name them, because it is against the rules to discuss members, rather than issues. Just read any thread about the problem of evil… they are there. The word “apologist” refers to anyone who attempts to explain the way God acts (or does not act) vis-à-vis the problem of evil - and “evil” is NOT the logical equivalent of suffering.

**2. ****Indeed, it is not a “defense”, it is an attempt to deflect the problem. ** And that is the question of this thread.

**3. **There are plenty of things to do even if there are no murderers and rapists. Discovering the beauties of nature, creating art, pondering the sequences of prime numbers… Use your imagination.

**4. **That is the point. **Why not indeed? **

**5. **Not true. Every time someone says: “God is good, or loving, or benevolent” they pass a “moral” judgment. Correct them, when they do; not me when I expose them.

1. Meh.
2. It’s a bad argument. Nobody is denying it. But that you think it’s a critical one is a problem.
3. You didn’t take it “all the way.” Great, we’re all Da Vinci living in the Pleasure Dome, then we die. Ok, what was all that for?
4. Glory necessitates suffering and trial. To choose God for God alone requires an actual choice, in which the intellect is half-blinded to the Divine Essence and the will therefore has the capability of choosing something other than God. This is why sin could occur in Eden, even with the graces of Original Justice.
5. God’s love and benevolence do not need to match up with our opinions of what is good and loving… It is the other way around.

And I too, am suspicious, as another poster noted, that you are Solmyr on another IP address… Welcome back, I guess, if you are.

 

[Ruqx]

1. Meh.

Is this supposed to be an “argument”?

1. It’s a bad argument. Nobody is denying it. But that you think it’s a critical one is a problem.

No, it is not an argument. It is an attempt to avoid an argument. The problem is that “you” (in general) do not slap down the person who presents it. I would expect “you” to be intellectually honest to correct the poster. These kinds of posters shed a very dubious light on the “camp” they purportedly belong to. I would hate to see an atheist to present such nonsensical arguments, and if I saw one, I would publicly denounce him.

1. You didn’t take it “all the way.” Great, we’re all Da Vinci living in the Pleasure Dome, then we die. Ok, what was all that for?

The next generation would enjoy our efforts. The new discoveries in science and the new pieces of art would be available to the next generation, who could build on them. There is a sign presented in the National Parks: “Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints.” Your whole argument rests on the faulty premise that “good” presupposes something “evil”. It is not “good” to caress your loved one, if you are not “free” to torture her. What nonsense is this? Why is “love” contingent upon “hate” or the “possibility of hate”?

1. Glory necessitates suffering and trial. To choose God for God alone requires an actual choice, in which the intellect is half-blinded to the Divine Essence and the will therefore has the capability of choosing something other than God. This is why sin could occur in Eden, even with the graces of Original Justice.

That is unacceptable. WE need to suffer, so that God can enjoy the “glory”? Makes no sense at all. I cannot “choose” God, because he is hiding above the clouds.

1. God’s love and benevolence do not need to match up with our opinions of what is good and loving… It is the other way around.

If God is not “good and loving” according to OUR usage of “good and loving”, then he is not “good and loving”. These adjectives are not specific to the entity they are supposed to be assigned to.

And I too, am suspicious, as another poster noted, that you are Solmyr on another IP address… Welcome back, I guess, if you are.

What is this obsession? I have been around for many years. Mostly lurking, sometimes under an avatar. Sure, I have seen Solmyr and I liked the posts he/she presented. Just like I liked “Touchstone”, or “atheistgirl” and MANY other posters. I have even enjoyed the (name removed by moderator)ut of some religious posters who have presented arguments in a rational fashion.

 

[e_c]

Last post here. I do not care for this thread at all.

**1. **Is this supposed to be an “argument”?

**2. **No, it is not an argument. It is an attempt to avoid an argument. The problem is that “you” (in general) do not slap down the person who presents it. I would expect “you” to be intellectually honest to correct the poster. These kinds of posters shed a very dubious light on the “camp” they purportedly belong to. I would hate to see an atheist to present such nonsensical arguments, and if I saw one, I would publicly denounce him.

**3. **The next generation would enjoy our efforts. The new discoveries in science and the new pieces of art would be available to the next generation, who could build on them. There is a sign presented in the National Parks: “Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints.” Your whole argument rests on the faulty premise that “good” presupposes something “evil”. It is not “good” to caress your loved one, if you are not “free” to torture her. What nonsense is this? Why is “love” contingent upon “hate” or the “possibility of hate”?

**4. **That is unacceptable. WE need to suffer, so that God can enjoy the “glory”? Makes no sense at all. I cannot “choose” God, because he is hiding above the clouds.

**5. **If God is not “good and loving” according to OUR usage of “good and loving”, then he is not “good and loving”. These adjectives are not specific to the entity they are supposed to be assigned to.

**6. **What is this obsession? I have been around for many years. Mostly lurking, sometimes under an avatar. Sure, I have seen Solmyr and I liked the posts he/she presented. Just like I liked “Touchstone”, or “atheistgirl” and MANY other posters. I have even enjoyed the (name removed by moderator)ut of some religious posters who have presented arguments in a rational fashion.

1. Nope, it’s just a dismissal. Of your dismissal… Of dismissals. “Some posters on CAF say…” So? Why not find a major figure in the tradition? Why not even just snag a Tim Staples article, or a talk from Dr. Kreeft? Sheesh!
2. Some people call out people on their side. I’ve done that here on CAF quite a few times. As for others? Meh. Ok. It’s the internet. Lower your expectations.
3. So? They’ll die too. Who cares? Why does it matter ultimately? And try to plug it back into the paradigm you are trying to disassemble… Why would God put people in such an environment? What is the purpose? You’ve not gone “all the way” - and I don’t think you are up to the task.

Such an existence is purposeless and ultimately tragic, as we would be practically without motivation to seek God for His own sake, would not ask Him for help, would wildly depart from the due order which culminates in Him leading to our own lack of even natural fulfillment, and would be deadened to the desire for other-worldly goods which are our true purpose in virtue of being rational. (The noblest and most characteristic part of our nature determines our highest purpose and therefore our highest good, just as it does with all creatures.) Not only this, but we simply don’t deserve much pleasure… We are all pretty much jerks. AND, even if we aren’t, when evils come our way it is the best kind of opportunity to reach our fullest potential as creatures destined for something greater than what this world has to offer… We can choose to remain pleased with what God has decided to send our way, which is really the highest form of love we can give, isn’t it… And don’t we all want to love and be loved? Isn’t that our greatest desire? And to have the greatest love with the greatest Lover is therefore the best - even if our flesh is stricken for it and our temporal goods are taken from us.

Think of the Cross. This is the answer to the riddle.

1. Nope, you completely misunderstood. We are the ones who obtain glory - though God too is glorified by our glorying in Him. Think of consolation trophies at pee-wee soccer versus winning gold at Rio… except with life. That will start you down the right road to understanding this.

And God is not hiding the way you think He is.

1. Then I would challenge you to present a coherent and universal system of those terms which does not make assumptions that demand a Creator that made men and the rest of the universe with in-built purposes. Go for it. It’s one of the most common thread themes on here, and it always goes wrong because the discussion begins the wrong way. It must start with a discussion of what human beings are, where they come from, what they are for, and then what fulfillment means for them based on those things - which is called happiness. Then we can go from there discussing what “love” and “good” are for humans.
2. Whatever I guess.

Peace…
-e_c

 

[Ruqx]

Last post here. I do not care for this thread at all.

Well, I hope that you, or anyone else will enlighten me where is the “glory” in the very bad and useless pain experienced by every toddler during the time of TEETHING. Because for the life of mine I am unable to see anything “glorifying” in the pain those poor little kids experience. There is no reason for the pain, an omnipotent deity could easily make the process painless. And to allow useless suffering is the penultimate sign of the lack of love.

Since you expressed the intent to stop the conversation, I will not reply to the rest of your post.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, I hope that you, or anyone else will enlighten me where is the “glory” in the very bad and useless pain experienced by every toddler during the time of TEETHING.

Must all of human life on this earth be ‘glory’?

Is all pain (including the pain of teething) ‘bad’?

Is it ‘useless’?

You make quite a set of claims with just that one simple sentence. Can you justify those claims? Otherwise, if your claims aren’t reasonable, then it doesn’t follow that a reasonable response must be provided…

an omnipotent deity could easily make the process painless.

An omnipotent deity can do all things; of course, that does not imply that he must or even should. More to the point at hand, however: your assertion seems to imply that the plans and designs of an omnipotent deity must be able to be gleaned (and then approved of!) by his creations, or else that deity is evil (or at least, unloving). Perhaps you might care to justify that claim?

And to allow useless suffering is the penultimate sign of the lack of love.

Then it’s your burden to demonstrate that it’s useless suffering, isn’t it? Go ahead… we’re all ears…

 

[Ruqx]

Let’s review the few sentences which led to my question.
"e_c:

Why would God create such a world, why would He put people into it, etc.? Why not just create people already in Heaven?

Me:

That is the point. Why not indeed?

Glory necessitates suffering and trial. To choose God for God alone requires an actual choice, in which the intellect is half-blinded to the Divine Essence and the will therefore has the capability of choosing something other than God. This is why sin could occur in Eden, even with the graces of Original Justice.

Me:

That is unacceptable. WE need to suffer, so that God can enjoy the “glory”? Makes no sense at all. I cannot “choose” God, because he is hiding above the clouds.

Nope, you completely misunderstood. We are the ones who obtain glory - though God too is glorified by our glorying in Him.

Me:

Well, I hope that you, or anyone else will enlighten me where is the “glory” in the very bad and useless pain experienced by every toddler during the time of TEETHING.

And now you come and employ the “good, old” tactics of neglecting to answer, and instead ask some unrelated questions. For your reading pleasure here is an excerpt from forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2801887&postcount=3: "Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so. "

Must all of human life on this earth be ‘glory’?

Is all pain (including the pain of teething) ‘bad’?

Is it ‘useless’?

I did not assert any of that. It was a very specific question about a very specific problem: namely “what kind of glory comes from the pain that infants experience from teething”. The choice of this question was intentional. It involves a pain, which is universal. It has no “teaching” value. The child cannot “offer it up”. It could be avoided by an omnipotent deity. So it is a perfect example of a gratuitous suffering. But one of the usual defenses of God’s purported benevolence is that God only allows suffering, is some “greater” good will come out of it.

I cannot see such a greater good. So, I asked if anyone can answer. You did not even attempt to answer. Shame, shame. :tsktsk:

By the way, I did not make any assertions, which might need justification. I asked a question, in a polite manner. And questions do not need to be justified.

 

[fred_conty]

Originally Posted by Ruqx
It(pain) could be avoided by an omnipotent deity.

Yes, I agree, it could and was.

As a matter of fact it was avoided in the garden of Paradise.

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s review the few sentences which led to my question.

Yeah, I saw them the first time. You’ve been misconstruing (or misunderstanding) the point about ‘glory’ the whole time.

And now you come and employ the “good, old” tactics of neglecting to answer, and instead ask some unrelated questions.

Before you start wagging your finger at me, please ask whether fingers could be wagged at you.

Here’s the thing: the notion of “glory” is the notion of the goal we’re heading toward: beatitude in heaven. There’s not “glory” in the path – there’s glory in the goal.

Ask a soldier, or a medical student, or an NFL football player how much ‘glory’ there is in basic, rotations, or training camp. (None.) All of these, though, lead to the ‘glory’ in the result. Before you start telling us that we’re employing tactics that neglect answers, please recognize you’re seemingly employing similar tactics in refusing to recognize what is being said here.

I did not assert any of that.

Explicitly? No, you didn’t. Implicitly? Yes.

It was a very specific question about a very specific problem: namely “what kind of glory comes from the pain that infants experience from teething”. The choice of this question was intentional. It involves a pain, which is universal. It has no “teaching” value.

Says you. Pain teaches us that this earth isn’t paradise. It teaches us that we can overcome setbacks. It teaches us that good can come from “staying the course”. So no, I don’t agree that the way you’re framing this up is valid.

It could be avoided by an omnipotent deity. So it is a perfect example of a gratuitous suffering.

Your only argument, then, is that since it ostensibly ‘could be avoided’, therefore it is bad that it is not avoided. That line of reasoning just doesn’t hold up.

I cannot see such a greater good. So, I asked if anyone can answer. You did not even attempt to answer.

Sure I did. I was challenging you to see the obvious answer to your question. Since you could not (or choose not) to do so, I’ve made it explicit. Hope that helps.

By the way, I did not make any assertions, which might need justification. I asked a question, in a polite manner. And questions do not need to be justified.

Psst… your questions were based on assumptions, which you put out there without justification.

 

[Ruqx]

Ask a soldier, or a medical student, or an NFL football player how much ‘glory’ there is in basic, rotations, or training camp. (None.)

Ask the teething infant. Hint: there will be no answer, and not just because the infant is unable to answer, but because there in NO reason for the suffering of teething. Of course it is a natural consequence of the hard teeth forcing their way through the soft tissue of the gums, but “natural” ways can be overcome by God… if only he wanted to.

But none of this matters. The poster “e_c” asserted that suffering is necessary (logically necessary) for the “glory”. So I am asking the specific question, where is the existence of ** this particular suffering** necessary in the “final glory”? Is God unable to lift that infant into eternal “glory” without the suffering of teething? This is the pertinent question that needs an answer.

Says you. Pain teaches us that this earth isn’t paradise. It teaches us that we can overcome setbacks. It teaches us that good can come from “staying the course”. So no, I don’t agree that the way you’re framing this up is valid.

Again, ask the teething infant. Pain does not teach him (or her) anything. This is not a pain, which is similar to the one of touching a hot stove. There is no “learning” involved here. The little kid cannot offer up his suffering to Jesus. There is no logical necessity for this pain. (Of course God could create us directly into heaven, and none of this temporal pain would be necessary… why doesn’t he?)

Your only argument, then, is that since it ostensibly ‘could be avoided’, therefore it is bad that it is not avoided. That line of reasoning just doesn’t hold up.

No, that was NOT my argument. Since you missed it, I will repeat: “unnecessary, gratuitous suffering” cannot be reconciled with a loving deity. Now, if you can present an argument about the logical necessity of the suffering of teething, by all means, present it. But stick to the problem as presented. Leave the NFL players (or other allegories) out of it. Speak of the pain experienced by the toddlers.

I almost feel sorry for the apologists. For the skeptics it is sufficient to present ONE problem which will undermine God’s assumed “love and benevolence”. And the pain of teething toddlers fills up this necessity just perfectly. Even ONE instance of gratuitous pain and suffering (of a human or animal) will disqualify God from being “good” or “loving”.

 

[Gorgias]

Ask the teething infant. Hint: there will be no answer

That’s the point, Ruqx: the glory isn’t in the suffering itself, but in what is attained through the suffering.

because there in NO reason for the suffering of teething.

And so, who’s burying their head in the sand now? I gave a list of goods that come from suffering; you’ve ignored them wholecloth. :sad_yes:

Of course it is a natural consequence of the hard teeth forcing their way through the soft tissue of the gums, but “natural” ways can be overcome by God… if only he wanted to.

Agreed. Yet, then the good that comes from working through the suffering would be lost.

But none of this matters. The poster “e_c” asserted that suffering is necessary (logically necessary) for the “glory”. So I am asking the specific question, where is the existence of ** this particular suffering** necessary in the “final glory”? Is God unable to lift that infant into eternal “glory” without the suffering of teething? This is the pertinent question that needs an answer.

Asked and answered.

One learns that ‘glory’ isn’t found on earth. One learns that good can come as a result of working through the suffering. Don’t know how many more times I have to say it.

(Of course God could create us directly into heaven, and none of this temporal pain would be necessary… why doesn’t he?)

Because the point is to choose Him.

No, that was NOT my argument.

Inasmuch as I rejected your (unsubstantiated) claims of gratuity, your argument does, in fact, boil down to what I’ve asserted.

I almost feel sorry for the apologists. For the skeptics it is sufficient to present ONE problem which will undermine God’s assumed “love and benevolence”. And the pain of teething toddlers fills up this necessity just perfectly. Even ONE instance of gratuitous pain and suffering (of a human or animal) will disqualify God from being “good” or “loving”.

I almost feel sorry for the skeptics. For the apologists, it is sufficient to present ONE answer which will support God’s love and benevolence; but the skeptics (in the present audience) refuse to address the arguments presented. Oh well. :tsktsk:

 

[Ruqx]

That’s the point, Ruqx: the glory isn’t in the suffering itself, but in what is attained through the suffering.

You are still talking in generalities. Using your NFL example, the player chooses to undergo the hardship because he wants the “glory”. But that infant does not want that suffering. Where is the “glory” there? No more generalities, please. Get down to the specifics.

I gave a list of goods that come from suffering; you’ve ignored them wholecloth.

I did not ask for a list, only ONE specific explanation. Of course I am aware that some good may come from some suffering. But that was not the question. It was a specific question about the teething infant, and there is no answer, no matter how strongly you assert otherwise. Using your logic, you could justify beating your child every day, and then proclaim: “Be grateful, because whatever does not kill you, makes you stronger”.

One learns that ‘glory’ isn’t found on earth. One learns that good can come as a result of working through the suffering. Don’t know how many more times I have to say it.

Even if someone does NOT want the glory? It is cruel to expose someone to unnecessary and unwanted suffering, especially if the person does NOT want the alleged result.

Because the point is to choose Him.

Not true. The baptized infant will go the heaven and there is no choice involved in it. God is not limited by your preconceptions. He can invite anyone into heaven, without suffering and without a “choice”.

I almost feel sorry for the skeptics. For the apologists, it is sufficient to present ONE answer which will support God’s love and benevolence; but the skeptics (in the present audience) refuse to address the arguments presented. Oh well. :tsktsk:

Good summary… unfortunately. For the one who is interested in truth, one counter example invalidates the hypothesis, while the one who only wishes to reinforce the hypothesis, only one supporting test will be sufficient, and never mind the plethora of tests which will prove the hypothesis incorrect. Oh, well, indeed.

 

[Gorgias]

You are still talking in generalities. Using your NFL example, the player chooses to undergo the hardship because he wants the “glory”. But that infant does not want that suffering. Where is the “glory” there?

Again, you’re misconstruing things. There is no ‘glory’ in the ‘suffering’. The suffering is part of the state of being human, and the end result (eventually) is ‘glory’. I’m not asserting strict causation, as if a particular quantum of ‘glory’ is caused by a particular quantum of ‘suffering’. (It would be silly to try to assert that of the NFL player, as well. Look at a particular session of weightlifting, or running, or practice. Would you insist we be able to point to a particular windsprint and identify it as the cause of a particular touchdown catch? Of course not. Same thing here. Asking for ‘specifics’, if I understand your request correctly, doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you?

I did not ask for a list, only ONE specific explanation. Of course I am aware that some good may come from some suffering.

Then where’s the insistence that we must ID particular specifics come from?

Using your logic, you could justify beating your child every day, and then proclaim: “Be grateful, because whatever does not kill you, makes you stronger”.

No; that’s a non sequitur. You’re asserting that the intentional infliction of particular suffering (you beating your children) is the same as allowing physical human nature to take its course. Now, if we asserted that God is pulling infants’ teeth, then that would be a different story. We’re not.

Even if someone does NOT want the glory? It is cruel to expose someone to unnecessary and unwanted suffering, especially if the person does NOT want the alleged result.

Again, you’re asserting ‘unnecessary’ without any demonstration that this is the case. ‘Unwanted’ is irrelevant, I think I’d claim. Parents subject their children to experiences that the children don’t want – all the time! – but which, in the parents’ view, is in their best interest. We don’t castigate a parent for teaching his child to swim (even though the experience might, at first, be scary).

Not true. The baptized infant will go the heaven and there is no choice involved in it.

You’re attempting to use a special case to disprove the general case. A child who hasn’t yet attained the use of reason is incapable of mortal sin and therefore, having been baptized, will attain to heaven. The ‘choice’, in this case, is the parent acting in proxy for the child, choosing for him to be baptized.

God is not limited by your preconceptions. He can invite anyone into heaven, without suffering and without a “choice”.

That He ‘can’ do what He wishes doesn’t imply that what He doesn’t do is evidence of lack of beatitude on His part.

 

[goout]

Many of the posters on these forums. I will not name them, because it is against the rules to discuss members, rather than issues. Just read any thread about the problem of evil… they are there. The word “apologist” refers to anyone who attempts to explain the way God acts (or does not act) vis-à-vis the problem of evil - and “evil” is NOT the logical equivalent of suffering. (BTW, you can find examples in the thread about the “Atheist’s best argument”.)

Why don’t you see a problem with “good” in relation to God’s action?

You are alive right, now I hope.
Then you are breathing and taking nourishment?
Drinking fluids?
Perhaps you have other comforts.

Why are those not a problem for you, in light of God’s action in the world?

Your position seems just a little bit inconsistent.