SPLIT: on suffering

[Sarpedon]

So? There are zillions of other kinds. Jesus said that whoever has faith as small as a mustard seed he can tell to the mountain to move and it will move. No specific “advantage” could come out of it, except the demonstration of God’s power.

God looks at the big picture, while we do not. There are trillions of different ways everything can interact, and God tweaks things to react to meet His goal. This interaction is constantly “changing” as God reacts to our free decisions.

It is ludicrus to say that we can judge how things ought to turn out when we can’t view the big picture. There is just not enough data, something you surely understand in terms of science.

This is being repeated over and over again. Just another meaningless assumption and obviously incorrect. If God wanted us to be in heaven, he could have done it, without asking for our consent, just like he supposedly created us without our consent. What is the difference?

The difference is that heaven is not pleasure. God could have created free beings and forced them to enjoy a place of pleasure. That isn’t heaven. Heaven is primarily the relationship between God and man, started on earth but consumated in eternity. God can force us to experience pleasure, but He can’t force us to choose love. Love has to be free, and if God forced us to choose it, the love would not be real. Machines can’t love.

People don’t really want pleasure. A lot of people think they do, but what they really want is intimacy. They want to know that they are valued and loved for who they are. This kind of relationship cannot be forced. You can put a gun to someone’s head and force that person to marry you, but you can’t force that person to love you.

Heard this also too many times. God has the big stick, he can do whatever he wants.

God cannot do that which is against His nature. This is Catholic doctrine. You are creating a straw-man God.

And sometimes it is, just like any random victim who perished in and earthquake and tsunami would attest, if only they could speak…

You do not know the whole effect of such events. You do not know how such events fully influence the course of humanity. Out of great suffering comes great good. The possible effects are too numerous to name. Perhaps the tsunami worked as a wake-up call for the people in those regions, leading to the salvation of souls. Maybe the universal outpouring of support for the injured and broken served as inspiration for dangerously cynical individuals. There is simply no way to guage the possible effect, so we cannot judge what ought to have happened.

This does not mean that God is using evil means for a good end, because such natural disasters are not necessarily evil.

 

[Sarpedon]

The following quote is from C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters. The book is written in the form of an older demon giving advice to a younger apprentice, so the “enemy” is God.

In peace we can make many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them. There is here a cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and charity among men, we should be playing directly into the Enemy’s hands; but if we guide them to the opposite behaviour, this sooner or later produces (for He permits it to produce) a war or a revolution, and the undisguisable issue of cowardice or courage awakes thousands of men from moral stupor. This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy’s motives for creating a dangerous world-a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky.

 

[ateista]

God looks at the big picture, while we do not. There are trillions of different ways everything can interact, and God tweaks things to react to meet His goal. This interaction is constantly “changing” as God reacts to our free decisions.

That is strange. You advocate a “changing” God, who “reacts” to our actions. And of course you would also advocate an “unchanging” and “immutable” God. Don’t you see that you are in contradiction? You also say that God “tweaks” things, but you also say that God does not interfere. Contradiction again.

It is ludicrus to say that we can judge how things ought to turn out when we can’t view the big picture. There is just not enough data, something you surely understand in terms of science.

Yes, but that does not prevent us (nor should it) from making value judgments based upon the available data. We are confronted with our less than perfect knowledge all the time. And yet, we do make valye judgments. We declare a mass murderer to be evil, without having full information about his frame of mind. Why should we not use the same limited knowledge and apply the same process when it comes to God?

We should, and we do. You say that all of our “measurements” are in error, God is good, even if we see evidence to the contrary. I say that the duck principle holds.

The difference is that heaven is not pleasure. God could have created free beings and forced them to enjoy a place of pleasure. That isn’t heaven. Heaven is primarily the relationship between God and man, started on earth but consumated in eternity. God can force us to experience pleasure, but He can’t force us to choose love. Love has to be free, and if God forced us to choose it, the love would not be real. Machines can’t love.

People don’t really want pleasure. A lot of people think they do, but what they really want is intimacy. They want to know that they are valued and loved for who they are. This kind of relationship cannot be forced. You can put a gun to someone’s head and force that person to marry you, but you can’t force that person to love you.

Totally irrelevant. You say that God acts in our best interest. You also say that God “wants” us to be in heaven. Then he could have just bypassed this existence and get us directly there.

God cannot do that which is against His nature. This is Catholic doctrine. You are creating a straw-man God.

Cannot? Well that pretty much rules out God’s free will. I can act against my “nature” but I decide not to. God is unable to act against his nature (whatever that is!). You see, it is just getting worse and worse.

You do not know the whole effect of such events. You do not know how such events fully influence the course of humanity. Out of great suffering comes great good. The possible effects are too numerous to name. Perhaps the tsunami worked as a wake-up call for the people in those regions, leading to the salvation of souls. Maybe the universal outpouring of support for the injured and broken served as inspiration for dangerously cynical individuals. There is simply no way to guage the possible effect, so we cannot judge what ought to have happened.

Ugh, not that again. You say that God is “using” the misery of all those victims as a “teaching” tool. Yet at other times it is asserted that humans have innate dignity and it is evil to them as “tools”. And of course, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is very probably a duck and not a pig with wings.

This does not mean that God is using evil means for a good end, because such natural disasters are not necessarily evil.

Necessarily or ever??? Even if one death happened which was not logically necessary then it was gratuitous suffering. And the only “defense” of the believers against the problem of evil is that each and every piece of suffering is logically necessary to achieve some “greater” good, and no amount of pain, misery and suffering is ever excessive.

Sorry, my friend, but it just does not wash…

 

[Dameedna]

God looks at the big picture, while we do not.
It is ludicrus to say that we can judge how things ought to turn out when we can’t view the big picture. There is just not enough data, something you surely understand in terms of science.

This MAY be true, if there is in fact a God. (ateista answered most of this as I would).

I would like to add one more item however, and that is the acceptance of a particular occurance, or doctrine with the “excuse” that we can’t know God, so we need to just accept it.

I do not agree with Jihad. According to one doctrine, this is actually love and according to you, since I cannot know all that God wants of us or why God does what he does, it isn’t up to me to try and figure it out, or question it. I cannot put my “human” feelings onto Jihad.

I do not agree with polygamy, nor the marriage of 12yr old girls to 50 yr old men with 8 wives. But, according to you I cannot know what God wants, nor can I understand him or put human characteristics to him, so this is another thing I must accept.

These are both religous doctrines. At what point, do you think a human has the freedom to question them?

The point being, it MAY BE TRUE that I will never understand or know God’s intentions however that can never be used as an excuse not to question something that may in fact be horrific.

This is one of the primary reasons so much evil is in fact done in the name of God. We can’t understand God, but that does not mean we cannot challenge a doctrine or a supposed truth that some-one gives us. We MUST do this if we are to be more than sheep following a human shepard.

The difference is that heaven is not pleasure. God could have created free beings and forced them to enjoy a place of pleasure. That isn’t heaven. Heaven is primarily the relationship between God and man, started on earth but consumated in eternity. God can force us to experience pleasure, but He can’t force us to choose love. Love has to be free, and if God forced us to choose it, the love would not be real. Machines can’t love.

People don’t really want pleasure. A lot of people think they do, but what they really want is intimacy. They want to know that they are valued and loved for who they are. This kind of relationship cannot be forced. You can put a gun to someone’s head and force that person to marry you, but you can’t force that person to love you.

The problem isn’t with the concept of Heaven, it is with the concept of Hell.

You can say that God WANTSs us to love him freely but…if God knew that humans would not choose him, and end up eternally suffering, then you have to admit that God “chose to create us” regardless of what he Knew we would do.

We never chose to exist in the first place.

So anyway you look at it, if there is a Hell, it does not make God the loving creature he is claimed to be. The more loving thing, would be is to never create us at all…rather than knowing that just one human would suffer for eternity.

And don’t tell me I’m putting human qualities onto God again. As per my comments above, I can and will challenge a doctrine that I see as being inherantly wrong, just as you do when you question the so called prophet Warren Jeffries(FDLS) and his disgusting behaviour.

God cannot do that which is against His nature. This is Catholic doctrine. You are creating a straw-man God.

Of course God could. He chooses not to, otherwise he isn’t all powerful

This does not mean that God is using evil means for a good end, because such natural disasters are not necessarily evil.

They are, however extrodinarily destructive and cause a great deal of pain. Natural disasters are actually “god made”, so this does make it a little difficult to see the love.

Again, is this really love? Do you at least understand why people have doubts?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God looks at the big picture, while we do not.

convincing people to not lean on their own understanding is a futile effort. we cannot stop the protestants from doing so, we can hardly stop non-believers from doings so.

it is all they have, their own understanding.

it is as though they are trapped in a box, they only trust their own senses to provide them verifiable information

if you tell them anything that is not verifiable by their own senses or reason, than they think your some kind of nut.

though they conveniently see the box as always existing, or needing no box maker. thats acceptable to them, because the second they let this idea go, in comes a Creator and all the trimmings so to speak.

ultimately, why would someone hold such positions, argue to the utmost in the face of overwhelming reason, they know they are no more intelligent or capable than the tens of billions of theists that have lived over the centuries.

no, they wish no restraint on their desires, no ‘daddy’ to smack their hand and tell them ‘no’

ultimately they want the illusion of complete freedom from judgment.

the Good Lord Himself could sit down with each of them in their living room, completely explain His plans, and make them capable of understanding, and they would still arise in the morning, possessed of the idea that it all must have been a dream or some mass hysteria, as they claim billions of others must suffer from.

that freedom from judgment concerning their actions is the most important desire, it overwhelms reason, evidence, or even a spiritual revelation.

so what can we tell them?

 

[ateista]

so what can we tell them?

Just a short remark. You incorrectly generalize and attempt to psychoanalize “all” atheists. Neither one is a good idea. Also, your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[tee]

So anyway you look at it, if there is a Hell, it does not make God the loving creature he is claimed to be. The more loving thing, would be is to never create us at all…rather than knowing that just one human would suffer for eternity.

God doesn’t create Hell. Hell is not necessarily a concrete and physical place but rather a state of being. It’s a separation of from something that you know is good (God). For example, when a love one dies, the living will be heart broken, at that moment they probably feel like they’re in Hell because they’ve lost a good relationship. So too do we feel when we lost the relationship with God. It is us who separate ourselves from God who is good, and because we are not joined to Him we are in fact putting ourselves in Hell.

My take on your thought about why God would create us in the first place is this. With a lot of married couple, when they love each other and they consummate their marriage and from that love they want to bring forth new life that would resemble them so that they can teach to be like them and to give them a life of love. That action wouldn’t you call love that bring forth this life? So is God, when He first created man. Knowing that man will have free will to choose to do what ever he wants, God take that chance because of love. Just as parents took that chance when they decided to have kids.

Hope that makes more sense to you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Just a short remark. You incorrectly generalize and attempt to psychoanalize “all” atheists. Neither one is a good idea. Also, your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

i dont think of it as a psychoanalysis, though it is a generalizing observation on the nature of the relationship of information exchange between theists, and non-theists, specifically as to what may be accomplished in that information exchange from the view point of a theist.

i actually got started on the general idea when i first arrived here and you mentioned that only evidence and reason, or something to that effect, was acceptable as valid sources of information to athieists, in general

it occurs to me that this paradigm of communication limits meaning full conversation on theological concepts such as suffering, sin, prayer, etc.

in other words a theist will always be at a huge disadvantage in these conversations because ultimately the conditions under which communication can occur are restricted to non theological sources, though one may use them in the conversation, their veracity and validity will always be doubted

it becomes a no win situation

that said i dont mean that post uncharitably, only from this side of the fence the game is rigged

now you probably know me a little better than most here, you know that i really have no respect for reason apart from faith,
that is a function of my understanding of how best to please G-d.
to me, life has no other purpose than this.

so i dont mean it to come across as a psychoanalysis, after all i no more believe in the psychology, as a whole, than you believe in G-d

 

[Sarpedon]

That is strange. You advocate a “changing” God, who “reacts” to our actions. And of course you would also advocate an “unchanging” and “immutable” God. Don’t you see that you are in contradiction? You also say that God “tweaks” things, but you also say that God does not interfere. Contradiction again.

Not at all. God does react to our actions, but in the totality of time every person will only have reacted in a specific way (i.e. like a movie). Therefore, God reacts to our specific summation of actions in a specific way timelessly. Since God reacts to our set of actions with a specific set of actions, there is no change.

Yes, but that does not prevent us (nor should it) from making value judgments based upon the available data. We are confronted with our less than perfect knowledge all the time. And yet, we do make valye judgments. We declare a mass murderer to be evil, without having full information about his frame of mind. Why should we not use the same limited knowledge and apply the same process when it comes to God?

On the contrary. If we lack sufficient data, we do not make judgements beyond the data. If have very little data, there is very little we can establish through science.

Suppose a new drug was developed. In the clinical trials of its safety, only two people were tested. Is this enough data to establish the safety or danger of this new drug?

Of course not. There just isn’t enough data to establish anything firm enough to act on. You are doing a similar thing with God. You are observing a tiny segment of data and deciding, based on this tiny bit of data, that God cannot be good. Thus, you reject Him and accept the consequences.

Of course, there is a lot more potential for effect in the God question than any human drug that only treats our earthly life.

Totally irrelevant. You say that God acts in our best interest. You also say that God “wants” us to be in heaven. Then he could have just bypassed this existence and get us directly there.

I don’t think you read anything I wrote, because you have not addressed any of my points. Catholics do not believe that God has unlimited omnipotence, for He cannot do that which is against His nature or is logically impossible. Explain logically how anyone can force someone to make a free decision.

Cannot? Well that pretty much rules out God’s free will. I can act against my “nature” but I decide not to. God is unable to act against his nature (whatever that is!). You see, it is just getting worse and worse.

If you could act against your nature, then you could bring things into existence out of nothing. That ability is not part of your nature, so you cannot do it. God cannot act against His nature just as you cannot, but of course God’s nature is a lot more inclusive than yours or mine.

Ugh, not that again. You say that God is “using” the misery of all those victims as a “teaching” tool. Yet at other times it is asserted that humans have innate dignity and it is evil to them as “tools”. And of course, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is very probably a duck and not a pig with wings.

Actually, I’m not sure whether God actually can cause suffering or just allow it. I am sure you will consider it the same thing.

Using people is only wrong if it violates their human diginity. We use people all the time. If you call a cab, you are using that person for an end but you are respecting his dignity by paying him. God may be able to use people as long as He does not violate their dignity, just as we can. Of course, it is difficult to determine what constitutes such using from our perspective, because we cannot read the hearts involved and we do not know the whole extent or reward of such actions.

Necessarily or ever??? Even if one death happened which was not logically necessary then it was gratuitous suffering. And the only “defense” of the believers against the problem of evil is that each and every piece of suffering is logically necessary to achieve some “greater” good, and no amount of pain, misery and suffering is ever excessive.

Sorry, my friend, but it just does not wash…

How do you know that there is logically unnecessary suffering in the world? Data please?

 

[Sarpedon]

This MAY be true, if there is in fact a God. (ateista answered most of this as I would).

I would like to add one more item however, and that is the acceptance of a particular occurance, or doctrine with the “excuse” that we can’t know God, so we need to just accept it.

I do not agree with Jihad. According to one doctrine, this is actually love and according to you, since I cannot know all that God wants of us or why God does what he does, it isn’t up to me to try and figure it out, or question it. I cannot put my “human” feelings onto Jihad.

I do not agree with polygamy, nor the marriage of 12yr old girls to 50 yr old men with 8 wives. But, according to you I cannot know what God wants, nor can I understand him or put human characteristics to him, so this is another thing I must accept.

These are both religous doctrines. At what point, do you think a human has the freedom to question them?

The point being, it MAY BE TRUE that I will never understand or know God’s intentions however that can never be used as an excuse not to question something that may in fact be horrific.

This is one of the primary reasons so much evil is in fact done in the name of God. We can’t understand God, but that does not mean we cannot challenge a doctrine or a supposed truth that some-one gives us. We MUST do this if we are to be more than sheep following a human shepard.

Of course, and we all have an intuitive sense that some things are wrong. Catholics refer to this as the “Natural Law”. In your above post, you are dealing with moral evil, while most of what I have said only applies to “natural” evil. God will not urge us to commit intrinisically evil acts to further his purpose somehow, but perhaps He tolerates the existence of natural evils for our own benefit.

Catholicism teaches that logic corresponds to God, and that man has been given the faculties of reason to apprehend God. Therefore, we can question as you mention above precisely because God has given us such ability. If not for this belief, God would be bound by nothing and we could not know Him.

When I speak of “lack of data” I am not saying that we cannot use reason to question God. Rather, I am saying that there is not enough evidence to determine either way whether God fits the criteria we determine that He must fit through logic. Using your example, we can know that polygamy is wrong through the Natural Law and logic. Even if we know this to be true, we may not be able to condemn individual people if we do not have enough evidence. We can examine what God ought to do, certainly, but that doesn’t mean we are actually capable, as finite beings, of finding the evidence we need to condemn Him.

The problem isn’t with the concept of Heaven, it is with the concept of Hell.

You can say that God WANTSs us to love him freely but…if God knew that humans would not choose him, and end up eternally suffering, then you have to admit that God “chose to create us” regardless of what he Knew we would do.

We never chose to exist in the first place.

So anyway you look at it, if there is a Hell, it does not make God the loving creature he is claimed to be. The more loving thing, would be is to never create us at all…rather than knowing that just one human would suffer for eternity.

Free will is a package deal. God creates people who have a choice, and many will undoubtly choose the worst option. There are different ways of explaining why God doesn’t just create those who choose the right option. If you maintain that God cannot know the nonexistent (as Ateista maintains), then you could argue that God can’t know what people will do until He creates them. Another argument is that even if God can know non-existent entities, He cannot know non-existent events. Thus, He could not know what people would choose.

And don’t tell me I’m putting human qualities onto God again. As per my comments above, I can and will challenge a doctrine that I see as being inherantly wrong, just as you do when you question the so called prophet Warren Jeffries(FDLS) and his disgusting behaviour.

I absolutely agree with you. I believe that God has given me the faculty of the intellect to evaluate such behaviors, and thus He has given me the ability to oppose them.

Of course God could. He chooses not to, otherwise he isn’t all powerful

Catholic theology does not posit a God that has unlimited power. God cannot do that which is against His own nature, and logic corresponds to Him.

They are, however extrodinarily destructive and cause a great deal of pain. Natural disasters are actually “god made”, so this does make it a little difficult to see the love.

Again, is this really love? Do you at least understand why people have doubts?

Again, I’m not sure whether God directly causes them or just allows them to exist.

They are painful, yes, but is pain always bad? Athletes intentionally cause themselves pain to grow stronger. Overweight people cause their own suffering in an attempt to lose weight. People with injuries allow pain to heal. People who deny themselves as dicipline grow stronger as a result. Is all of this bad?

Also, keep in mind the C.S. Lewis quote. Lewis clearly thought that God allowed a dangerous world in order that morally asleep individuals might more readily awaken, which is by far one the greatest aims possible. The elder demon Screwtape tells Wormtongue that they have a terrible dilemma: if they encourage good acts, they are helping the Enemy, but if they encourage bad acts, they run the risk of starting a war. If they start a war, “thousands of men will awaken from moral stupor.” This is quite counter-productive for a demon.

 

[ateista]

Therefore, God reacts to our specific summation of actions in a specific way timelessly.

That makes no sense. Any action has a “before” and an “after”. “Timeless” action is like movement without getting somewhere else. It is not movement.

You are doing a similar thing with God. You are observing a tiny segment of data and deciding, based on this tiny bit of data, that God cannot be good.

Millions and billions of data are available. How many more senseless murders and rapes do you want to happen, before you think: “this is enough!” - and pass judgment? They are more than enough to pass a judgment.

I don’t think you read anything I wrote, because you have not addressed any of my points. Catholics do not believe that God has unlimited omnipotence, for He cannot do that which is against His nature or is logically impossible. Explain logically how anyone can force someone to make a free decision.

Who cares about “free decisions”? We always override other people’s free decisions. Do you allow your child to experiment “freely” with electricity, and potentially electrocute himself? If you would see someone who is about commit a rape and a murder, and you have the ability to prevent it, do you just stand aside, and allow it to happen?

If you could act against your nature, then you could bring things into existence out of nothing. That ability is not part of your nature, so you cannot do it. God cannot act against His nature just as you cannot, but of course God’s nature is a lot more inclusive than yours or mine.

This is not what I was talking about. I was not speaking about physical impossibilities, rather psychological difficulties. It is my nature (through my upbringing) not to cheat or steal. I could override the urge to lead an honest life, but I choose not to.

Actually, I’m not sure whether God actually can cause suffering or just allow it. I am sure you will consider it the same thing.

At that level there is no difference. Whether to push a child into a crevasse, or merely stand by and do not prevent him from falling, the result is the same. If you have the knowledge of what will happen, and have the wherewithal to prevent it - yet you don’t act, you are exactly as guilty as you would be if you personally committed the act.

Using people is only wrong if it violates their human diginity. We use people all the time. If you call a cab, you are using that person for an end but you are respecting his dignity by paying him.

Bad example! The cabby and I engage in a mutually volitional contract (unwritten one), where either one of us could refuse to accept it.

To “use” someone presupposes an unwilling participant. Those victims of natural disasters are not given the option not to participate. That is called “using” someone, and it definitely deprives them of their human dignity.

God may be able to use people as long as He does not violate their dignity, just as we can. Of course, it is difficult to determine what constitutes such using from our perspective, because we cannot read the hearts involved and we do not know the whole extent or reward of such actions.

The reward is irrelevant, unless the suffering was the logical prerequisite of the reward. An unconnected “reward” cannot be used to justify a prior suffering.

How do you know that there is logically unnecessary suffering in the world? Data please?

Any and all suffering of animals which does not benefit them. It is not moral to cause pain to someone, who cannot refuse to participate and who does not gain benefit from it. Even though I am not a Vegan, but I accept that using animals for food cannot be justified on moral grounds, since there are alternative methods available for obtaining proper nutrition. It is not moral to use animals for testing pharmaceutical or beauty products. We do it, of course, but we have no moral ground to stand on - except that we have the power to do so, and might makes right. Of course you know what the result of that “morality” leads to.

Now some people may equivocate and say that the Bible put us in charge of the animals, but that is just a cop-out. With that “justification” one could engage in torturing animals - and keep the moral high-ground. And there are instances when people and children engage in torturing animals, I am sure you are aware of that.

I am also sure that you are aware that millions of animals perish in forest fires, of which no one even knows about. All of these are logically unnecessary sufferings.

And the list is endless. As technology advances, pain and suffering which was not possible to alleviate yesterday we can prevent today. Do you really think that the necessity of some suffering is dependent upon the current level of technology?

Do you really think that a beating meted out by a drunken father to his toddler (it does happen) is logically necessary to achieve some greater good? And that the beating will stop precisely at the correct instance, when the pain given to the toddler was “necessary”, but one just more kick or punch would be excessive?

 

[Sarpedon]

That makes no sense. Any action has a “before” and an “after”. “Timeless” action is like movement without getting somewhere else. It is not movement.

God’s actions procede directly out of His will. All God has to do is will it and it happens. There is no “action” except the will. God can will things in eternity, which then effects a material, observable change in reality. God Himself does not directly “move” anything, He just wills it timelessly which then translates into actions within time.

Millions and billions of data are available. How many more senseless murders and rapes do you want to happen, before you think: “this is enough!” - and pass judgment? They are more than enough to pass a judgment.

The big picture transcends this world. You do not know how everything interacts. It would be better for someone to suffer a rape than to have that person, or any person end up in hell. Since God is working with free beings that can frustrate His best plans, He has to “improvise” in His attempt to get everyone He can to heaven. Since He is working with free beings, He is limited in what He can do. You do not know how all of this works out in the long run, so you cannot pass judgement.

Who cares about “free decisions”? We always override other people’s free decisions. Do you allow your child to experiment “freely” with electricity, and potentially electrocute himself? If you would see someone who is about commit a rape and a murder, and you have the ability to prevent it, do you just stand aside, and allow it to happen?

If I stop someone from electrocuting himself, then that person is not committing a free decision. I can physically stop him in “the name of power”, but I cannot change his internal disposition. Since the internal disposition determines whether an individual can love God and thus enter heaven, God cannot bring those who reject Him into the relationship.

Heaven is primarily the relationship between God and man. God cannot force this relationship. He could force us to worship Him, to bow down before Him in the name of power, but He cannot force us to freely choose Him. Since heaven is the result of that free choice, God cannot force people into heaven. To say otherwise would mean God could violate the laws of logic and force a free decision.

This is not what I was talking about. I was not speaking about physical impossibilities, rather psychological difficulties. It is my nature (through my upbringing) not to cheat or steal. I could override the urge to lead an honest life, but I choose not to.

Okay, but when I initially mentioned “God’s nature” I was not referring to His “psychological difficulties.”

At that level there is no difference. Whether to push a child into a crevasse, or merely stand by and do not prevent him from falling, the result is the same. If you have the knowledge of what will happen, and have the wherewithal to prevent it - yet you don’t act, you are exactly as guilty as you would be if you personally committed the act.

If you knew that falling is the only thing that would save that child’s life, you would not stop him from falling. Right? Please give a yes or no answer.

Bad example! The cabby and I engage in a mutually volitional contract (unwritten one), where either one of us could refuse to accept it.

To “use” someone presupposes an unwilling participant. Those victims of natural disasters are not given the option not to participate. That is called “using” someone, and it definitely deprives them of their human dignity.

If they don’t want to participate in the package deal called life, where we work together for the benefit of everyone, they can just commit suicide. That way they will no longer be faced with the requirments of membership in God’s human race. People can terminate the agreement at any time.

Of course, this may lead them to hell, but isn’t that what they wanted? If they don’t want to belong to God’s humanity, then they aren’t going to be part of it.

Of course, you are going to argue that they do not have the option of non-existence. This is a difficult question, but I would say that God created the human soul intrinsically immortal. For those who choose heaven, it is no problem. For those who choose hell, it is an unfortunate corollary of that fact that we all share human nature. God would not take our human nature away without our consent. If an individual choose to give up his human nature, he is exercising by virtue of his decision the fundamental quality of human nature. Since such a decision would ultimately be in timeless eternity, it may not be possible to choose to not be able to choose, since both states would have to exist simultaneously at the same instant.

The reward is irrelevant, unless the suffering was the logical prerequisite of the reward. An unconnected “reward” cannot be used to justify a prior suffering.

God is working with free creatures. The suffering may be the logical prerequisite to the reward, for God is limited in His ability to change us. He can coax, but He cannot force. Suffering may be the only effective way to coax, and thus God may resort to it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Any and all suffering of animals which does not benefit them. It is not moral to cause pain to someone, who cannot refuse to participate and who does not gain benefit from it. Even though I am not a Vegan, but I accept that using animals for food cannot be justified on moral grounds, since there are alternative methods available for obtaining proper nutrition. It is not moral to use animals for testing pharmaceutical or beauty products. We do it, of course, but we have no moral ground to stand on - except that we have the power to do so, and might makes right. Of course you know what the result of that “morality” leads to.

Now some people may equivocate and say that the Bible put us in charge of the animals, but that is just a cop-out. With that “justification” one could engage in torturing animals - and keep the moral high-ground. And there are instances when people and children engage in torturing animals, I am sure you are aware of that.

I am also sure that you are aware that millions of animals perish in forest fires, of which no one even knows about. All of these are logically unnecessary sufferings.

And the list is endless. As technology advances, pain and suffering which was not possible to alleviate yesterday we can prevent today. Do you really think that the necessity of some suffering is dependent upon the current level of technology?

Do you really think that a beating meted out by a drunken father to his toddler (it does happen) is logically necessary to achieve some greater good? And that the beating will stop precisely at the correct instance, when the pain given to the toddler was “necessary”, but one just more kick or punch would be excessive?

These are a lot of examples, but do you really know that they are unnecessary? Do you have any evidence other than the way they seem unnecessary from our finite human perspective? Since the question at hand concerns logically unneccessary suffering, can you deliver an argument from logic as to why they are precisely unnecessary?

 

[ateista]

God’s actions procede directly out of His will. All God has to do is will it and it happens. There is no “action” except the will. God can will things in eternity, which then effects a material, observable change in reality. God Himself does not directly “move” anything, He just wills it timelessly which then translates into actions within time.

It does not matter. Whether it is a physical action or just an act of “will”, it still has a “before” and and “after” to it. Mathematically speaking you cannot map a “point” (timeless existence) onto a “line” (temporal existence).

The big picture transcends this world. You do not know how everything interacts. It would be better for someone to suffer a rape than to have that person, or any person end up in hell.

Since “hell” is just a religious belief, and “rape” is an unquestionable actuality, I cannot share your opinion.

Since God is working with free beings that can frustrate His best plans, He has to “improvise” in His attempt to get everyone He can to heaven. Since He is working with free beings, He is limited in what He can do. You do not know how all of this works out in the long run, so you cannot pass judgement.

Sorry, but I don’t accept it. In my opinion it is neither “loving” nor “smart” to allow the unchecked “free will” go rampant. And of course there is no such thing as unbridled freedom of action. We are all constrained by the physical reality. And that is not considered a “significant” restriction on our freedom.

If I stop someone from electrocuting himself, then that person is not committing a free decision. I can physically stop him in “the name of power”, but I cannot change his internal disposition.

Sure, so what? We are all “free” to imagine anything and “want” anything we can imagine. We are unable to act out all of our “wishes”, but that is not an impediment to our internal freedom.

Since the internal disposition determines whether an individual can love God and thus enter heaven, God cannot bring those who reject Him into the relationship.

Again, so what? He still could prevent them from hurting others. I will return to this question in the answer of your next post.

Heaven is primarily the relationship between God and man. God cannot force this relationship. He could force us to worship Him, to bow down before Him in the name of power, but He cannot force us to freely choose Him. Since heaven is the result of that free choice, God cannot force people into heaven. To say otherwise would mean God could violate the laws of logic and force a free decision.

No “force” is necessary. God could simply decide not to create those people who would freely reject him. No contradiction and no force happened.

If you knew that falling is the only thing that would save that child’s life, you would not stop him from falling. Right? Please give a yes or no answer.

Of course I would. I would act in the child’s best interest - and override his freedom to act. Now what would you do?

If they don’t want to participate in the package deal called life, where we work together for the benefit of everyone, they can just commit suicide. That way they will no longer be faced with the requirments of membership in God’s human race. People can terminate the agreement at any time.

Of course, this may lead them to hell, but isn’t that what they wanted?

No, that is not what they want. No one wants to be tortured for all eternity. As a matter of fact the concept of hell is the most reprehensible idea of Christianity.

 

[ateista]

These are a lot of examples, but do you really know that they are unnecessary? Do you have any evidence other than the way they seem unnecessary from our finite human perspective? Since the question at hand concerns logically unneccessary suffering, can you deliver an argument from logic as to why they are precisely unnecessary?

A logical deduction must have a starting point, otherwise it just hangs in the air. So let’s try to agree and find a mutually acceptable starting point.

I propose this one: “it is unacceptable to torture another human being for pleasure”. Can you agree to this?

If you do, then you must consider that there are psychopaths, who do exactly that. Therefore the pain they cause serves no other visible purpose than their own sick gratification. They use unwilling participants to gain some pleasure from their suffering. In the process they degrade the human dignity of their victims. I hope we can agree so far. Please let me know if you have a different opinion.

Now, maybe you wish to argue that there “might” be some other beneficial result that will outweigh this apperent outcome. Obviously neither you nor I can come up with a plausible explanation. But “maybe” God can, and in your eyes that would justify to allow such things to happen. Of course God could give us his reasons, but he chooses not to.

Now, the analysis does not stop here. First this argument is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam” - argument from ignorance, and it is a fallacious argument.

But it gets worse. Even if we accept that the suffering caused by the psychpaths “may” be logically necessary for achieving a greater good, which outweighs the amount of suffering inflicted, it cannot be denied that the victim is an unwilling “participant”, and thus her dignity is sacrificed by being used as a “tool”. And that is the absolute no-no. Even God cannot use a human being as a tool and violating her inner human dignity.

There are some other, lesser arguments. Even if we presume that the torture would achieve some greater good, it is also necessary that the pain inflicted cannot be “excessive”. That is the torture must stop at the precise moment when the “appropriate” amount of suffering was inflicted.

Now that can be done in two different ways: either God interferes and stops the torturer, or the torturer will stop at the precise point on his own volition. Since God chose not to interfere and prevent the whole process, and since it is assumed that God never interferes with our free will, we can rule out God’s interference. The other possibility is even less likely, that the torturer will stop (at his own volition) when the proper amount of pain was inflicted. After all such psychopaths want to inflict as much pain as possible.

Therefore we can conclude that even if the suffering of the victims is “necessary” for some greater good, it is impossible that the suffering will never be excessive. And of course there is no way to get around the fact that the victims’ human dignity is violated by using her as an unwilling “tool”.

So the final analysis: “the torture of unwilling participants by some psychopaths for their own sick gratification cannot be justified, because it robs the victims of their human dignity”. Since God allows that to happen, we can conclude that God is not “good”. Q.E.D.

 

[ateista]

These are a lot of examples, but do you really know that they are unnecessary? Do you have any evidence other than the way they seem unnecessary from our finite human perspective? Since the question at hand concerns logically unneccessary suffering, can you deliver an argument from logic as to why they are precisely unnecessary?

A logical deduction must have a starting point, otherwise it just hangs in the air. So let’s try to agree and find a mutually acceptable starting point.

I propose this one: “it is unacceptable to torture another human being for pleasure”. Can you agree to this?

If you do, then you must consider that there are psychopaths, who do exactly that. Therefore the pain they cause serves no other visible purpose than their own sick gratification. They use unwilling participants to gain some pleasure from their suffering. In the process they degrade the human dignity of their victims. I hope we can agree so far. Please let me know if you have a different opinion.

Now, maybe you wish to argue that there “might” be some other beneficial result that will outweigh this apperent outcome. Obviously neither you nor I can come up with a plausible explanation. But “maybe” God can, and in your eyes that would justify to allow such things to happen. Of course God could give us his reasons, but he chooses not to.

Now, the analysis does not stop here. First this argument is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam” - argument from ignorance, and it is a fallacious argument.

But it gets worse. Even if we accept that the suffering caused by the psychpaths “may” be logically necessary for achieving a greater good, which outweighs the amount of suffering inflicted, it cannot be denied that the victim is an unwilling “participant”, and thus her dignity is sacrificed by being used as a “tool”. And that is the absolute no-no. Even God cannot use a human being as a tool and violating her inner human dignity.

There are some other, lesser arguments. Even if we presume that the torture would achieve some greater good, it is also necessary that the pain inflicted cannot be “excessive”. That is the torture must stop at the precise moment when the “appropriate” amount of suffering was inflicted.

Now that can be done in two different ways: either God interferes and stops the torturer, or the torturer will stop at the precise point on his own volition. Since God chose not to interfere and prevent the whole process, and since it is assumed that God never interferes with our free will, we can rule out God’s interference. The other possibility is even less likely, that the torturer will stop (at his own volition) when the proper amount of pain was inflicted. After all such psychopaths want to inflict as much pain as possible.

Therefore we can conclude that even if the suffering of the victims is “necessary” for some greater good, it is impossible that the suffering will never be excessive. And of course there is no way to get around the fact that the victims’ human dignity is violated by using her as an unwilling “tool”.

Now, there is one more “defense” I have seen before: “that God will ‘reimburse’ the victims for their suffering”. That is an erroneous argument, too. It says that the victim will get to heaven due to their suffering. And that means that the suffering is a logical prerequisite to be allowed into heaven. And that is negated by the Christian (and Catholic) teaching, that to be allowed into heaven cannot be “earned”, by good deeds or otherwise. And, of course, an unrelated “reward” cannot retroactively justify a prior, unrelated suffering.

So the final analysis: “the torture of unwilling participants by some psychopaths for their own sick gratification cannot be justified, because it robs the victims of their human dignity”. Since God allows that to happen, we can conclude that God is not “good”. Q.E.D.

 

[Sarpedon]

I propose this one: “it is unacceptable to torture another human being for pleasure”. Can you agree to this?

If you do, then you must consider that there are psychopaths, who do exactly that. Therefore the pain they cause serves no other visible purpose than their own sick gratification. They use unwilling participants to gain some pleasure from their suffering. In the process they degrade the human dignity of their victims. I hope we can agree so far. Please let me know if you have a different opinion.

Of course.

Now, maybe you wish to argue that there “might” be some other beneficial result that will outweigh this apperent outcome. Obviously neither you nor I can come up with a plausible explanation. But “maybe” God can, and in your eyes that would justify to allow such things to happen. Of course God could give us his reasons, but he chooses not to.

Of course we can come up with probable explanations. We observe all the time that great things are born out of suffering (born in fire, so to speak). The good personality traits and habits that allow one to live a good life are often the result of struggling against and overcoming pain.

Now, the analysis does not stop here. First this argument is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam” - argument from ignorance, and it is a fallacious argument.

Sometimes we reach the limit of our comprehension. Are you seriously going to argue that the human mind is powerful enough to understand everything about reality? That is quite an achievement for a Sub-Saharan hominid.

But it gets worse. Even if we accept that the suffering caused by the psychpaths “may” be logically necessary for achieving a greater good, which outweighs the amount of suffering inflicted, it cannot be denied that the victim is an unwilling “participant”, and thus her dignity is sacrificed by being used as a “tool”. And that is the absolute no-no. Even God cannot use a human being as a tool and violating her inner human dignity.

Life is a free gift that is not merited. Life is a privilege, not a right. One of the requirements for accepting the privilege is the willingness to let God use you and work through you for salvation. If you do not agree to these terms, then you can reject the free gift of life and commit suicide. It is as simple as that.

I explained above how it may be logically impossible for God to uncreate those who reject Him. Thus, He may be willing to accept the existence of the damned so that all have the possibility of heaven. Remember that God “grieves” in a sense over the damned more than you or I do. God may be willing to accept the existence of the damned for the greater good even though it “hurts” Him, in a sense.

Since you maintain that God cannot know the nonexistent, you cannot charge that God ought to have never created individual beings based on His knowledge of their actions, since such knowledge would be of the non-existent.

There are some other, lesser arguments. Even if we presume that the torture would achieve some greater good, it is also necessary that the pain inflicted cannot be “excessive”. That is the torture must stop at the precise moment when the “appropriate” amount of suffering was inflicted.

Yes, but in our limited perspective we cannot always examine all the evidence to make a verdict. Thus, no conclusions can be drawn .

Now that can be done in two different ways: either God interferes and stops the torturer, or the torturer will stop at the precise point on his own volition. Since God chose not to interfere and prevent the whole process, and since it is assumed that God never interferes with our free will, we can rule out God’s interference. The other possibility is even less likely, that the torturer will stop (at his own volition) when the proper amount of pain was inflicted. After all such psychopaths want to inflict as much pain as possible.

God does stop such evil on occasion. There have been numerous miraculous events stopping evil, such as bullets being stopped by a Miraculous Medal. Of course, you will not accept any of this based on other things, but you can’t discount Catholicism itself based on your belief that such events are impossible. That would be somewhat circular.

Of course, it is up to God to decide when and where to interfere in the world, in accordance with His wisdom.

Now, there is one more “defense” I have seen before: “that God will ‘reimburse’ the victims for their suffering”. That is an erroneous argument, too. It says that the victim will get to heaven due to their suffering. And that means that the suffering is a logical prerequisite to be allowed into heaven. And that is negated by the Christian (and Catholic) teaching, that to be allowed into heaven cannot be “earned”, by good deeds or otherwise. And, of course, an unrelated “reward” cannot retroactively justify a prior, unrelated suffering.

No, not at all. Heaven is not merited by works, and is a free gift. Even though it is free (in the sense of merit, since we do not deserve it as a right), there are certain conditions attached to its acceptance. One of these requirements is the willingness to let God use you and work through you. If this means suffering, so be it.

So the final analysis: “the torture of unwilling participants by some psychopaths for their own sick gratification cannot be justified, because it robs the victims of their human dignity”. Since God allows that to happen, we can conclude that God is not “good”. Q.E.D.

No, because anyone who chooses to live is accepting God’s gift and its terms. If those terms include suffering for the greater good, take it our leave it.

I will respond to the rest later.

 

[Fran65]

One definition of torture is to inflict extreme distress or anguish upon a person.

I have moments of extreme distress (for a number of reasons). However, they are not inflicted upon me by God. Some are the result of living in a physical world, some are the results of other people’s behaviour and some are a result of my own behaviour and thoughts.

As I have said on another thread, despite periods of real anguish I am glad to be alive and to have the opportunity of experiencing this world (and hopefully the next). I trust that the good will (and does) outweigh the bad and that all is for the good.

Logically, if you believe that suffering is inevitable and outweighs the good, and that there is no God, then why would you continue to live? If this world is so terrible then why have children?

Seriously, I’m not sure how anyone endures this world and its suffering with either a belief that God is ‘evil’ or that God does not exist. What good do you see if all is so terrible and/or we’re ruled by an unfeeling monster?

 

[Swan]

A logical deduction must have a starting point, otherwise it just hangs in the air. So let’s try to agree and find a mutually acceptable starting point.

I propose this one: “it is unacceptable to torture another human being for pleasure”. Can you agree to this?

If you do, then you must consider that there are psychopaths, who do exactly that. Therefore the pain they cause serves no other visible purpose than their own sick gratification. They use unwilling participants to gain some pleasure from their suffering. In the process they degrade the human dignity of their victims. I hope we can agree so far. Please let me know if you have a different opinion.

Now, maybe you wish to argue that there “might” be some other beneficial result that will outweigh this apperent outcome. Obviously neither you nor I can come up with a plausible explanation. But “maybe” God can, and in your eyes that would justify to allow such things to happen. Of course God could give us his reasons, but he chooses not to.

Now, the analysis does not stop here. First this argument is called “argumentum ad ignoratiam” - argument from ignorance, and it is a fallacious argument.

But it gets worse. Even if we accept that the suffering caused by the psychpaths “may” be logically necessary for achieving a greater good, which outweighs the amount of suffering inflicted, it cannot be denied that the victim is an unwilling “participant”, and thus her dignity is sacrificed by being used as a “tool”. And that is the absolute no-no. Even God cannot use a human being as a tool and violating her inner human dignity.

There are some other, lesser arguments. Even if we presume that the torture would achieve some greater good, it is also necessary that the pain inflicted cannot be “excessive”. That is the torture must stop at the precise moment when the “appropriate” amount of suffering was inflicted.

Now that can be done in two different ways: either God interferes and stops the torturer, or the torturer will stop at the precise point on his own volition. Since God chose not to interfere and prevent the whole process, and since it is assumed that God never interferes with our free will, we can rule out God’s interference. The other possibility is even less likely, that the torturer will stop (at his own volition) when the proper amount of pain was inflicted. After all such psychopaths want to inflict as much pain as possible.

Therefore we can conclude that even if the suffering of the victims is “necessary” for some greater good, it is impossible that the suffering will never be excessive. And of course there is no way to get around the fact that the victims’ human dignity is violated by using her as an unwilling “tool”.

Now, there is one more “defense” I have seen before: “that God will ‘reimburse’ the victims for their suffering”. That is an erroneous argument, too. It says that the victim will get to heaven due to their suffering. And that means that the suffering is a logical prerequisite to be allowed into heaven. And that is negated by the Christian (and Catholic) teaching, that to be allowed into heaven cannot be “earned”, by good deeds or otherwise. And, of course, an unrelated “reward” cannot retroactively justify a prior, unrelated suffering.

So the final analysis: “the torture of unwilling participants by some psychopaths for their own sick gratification cannot be justified, because it robs the victims of their human dignity”. Since God allows that to happen, we can conclude that God is not “good”. Q.E.D.

I’d just like to add a question to yours. Why doesn’t God prevent the victim from suffering during the experience? That wouldn’t interfere with the free will of the torturer, but would be a real blessing to the poor victim. Why doesn’t God do that, if he cares so much? Why not just take away the pain?

 

[ateista]

Of course.

My friend, the rest of your post completely contradicts this. With your “of course” you indicated agreement that it is never acceptable, or justifyable to torture a human being for the sole purpose of deriving gratification from this suffering. We all know that God allows such things to happen.

And then you come up with all sorts of “excuses” for God allowing it.

Of course we can come up with probable explanations. We observe all the time that great things are born out of suffering (born in fire, so to speak). The good personality traits and habits that allow one to live a good life are often the result of struggling against and overcoming pain.

This is a generic type of remark. I asked about the specific problem, namely if you can come up with anything that would justify to allow a psychopath to use another human being for the sole purpose of deriving pleasure from the pain, torture and degradation of another human being.

Life is a free gift that is not merited. Life is a privilege, not a right. One of the requirements for accepting the privilege is the willingness to let God use you and work through you for salvation. If you do not agree to these terms, then you can reject the free gift of life and commit suicide. It is as simple as that.

Except that there is no “opting out”. The “reward” for suicide is eternal torture. God does not give us an option whether one wishes to be created or not.

Since you maintain that God cannot know the nonexistent, you cannot charge that God ought to have never created individual beings based on His knowledge of their actions, since such knowledge would be of the non-existent.

Ah, but the question is: do you agree with it? indeed if one realizes that God cannot know the unknowable, then God is pretty much off the hook. But are you willing to “pay” this price?

God does stop such evil on occasion. There have been numerous miraculous events stopping evil, such as bullets being stopped by a Miraculous Medal. Of course, you will not accept any of this based on other things, but you can’t discount Catholicism itself based on your belief that such events are impossible. That would be somewhat circular.

Even if he does, it is few and far between. And there is not one documented case of God reaching down and rescuing a tortured victim.

No, not at all. Heaven is not merited by works, and is a free gift. Even though it is free (in the sense of merit, since we do not deserve it as a right), there are certain conditions attached to its acceptance. One of these requirements is the willingness to let God use you and work through you. If this means suffering, so be it.

So be it… “The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Right? Even if that comes at the expense of human dignity? I thought that not even God can use humans while violating their human dignity… and there not a whole lot more undignifying than being used by a sick psychopath.

No, because anyone who chooses to live is accepting God’s gift and its terms.

We don’t “choose” to live. There is no option not to be created.

If those terms include suffering for the greater good, take it our leave it.

Very well. I think a few remarks are in order, pertaining to the whole post and its implications.

First: obviously I accept that not all pain pain and suffering can be declared gratuitous, there are some that can be deemed beneficial. You, on the other hand deny that there is even one instance of “gratuitous” pain, you declare that all pain and suffering we experience is for some unspecified greater good, at the discretion of God, who knows best. (The word “you” is meant in general form, not you, specifically.)

Now, do you actually practice what you preach? I seriously doubt it. If you are in pain, do you run to the doctor, to alleviate that pain? Or do you stay at home, “cherishing” the thought that the Lord “mysteriously” works through your pain?

You said: “so be it”. But I would bet anything that you just say that, and do not follow it yourself. It is always the arrogance of the healthy people, who - oh so heroically - endure the pain and suffering of others.

And if you assert that there is no “unnecessary” or “gratuitous” pain out there, then you actually condone each and every piece of torture, rape, genocide, Holocaust (you name it) that happens in the world, after all none of them is “unnecessary”, all of them are just God’s tools to bring forth some greater good (which cannot be achieved by using other means).

If you really mean this, you should go and participate. If you do all good works, that is fine. However, if you do some horrific deeds, that is even better! After all you are only God’s tool, who “uses” you for fabricating some unspecified “greater” good.

Why punish those rapists and torturers? They are only tools in God’s hands, aren’t they? Whatever “bad” they intend to do is only God’s way to bring forth some “greater” good, that would be impossible to create without those horrible means.

That is the logical corollary of denying the existence of “unnecessary” pain. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church advocates: “the end does not justify the means”. Obviously you hold a different opinion.