The argument of free will and suffering

[Vonsalza]

Those are just 2 reasons given amongst many more and fail to provide any reason why they happen to some good people and not others.

I don’t see the failure. If it’s a devil, then he loves to promote suffering, especially among the “good”. If it’s fallen creation, then we’re simply suffering the side-effects of our own decisions as a species.

Saying that humans can’t understand and only God can seems to be a cop out answer and only works for people on the good side of things.

No no no, you missed my point. What I’m saying is that the very idea of “unnecessary suffering” is absolutely fraught with subjectivist peril.

I’m not saying “the question is valid and we just can’t know the answer”. I’m saying “how do we even know the question is valid and sound in the first place?”.

The only sensible answer is that the injustice will be made up for in the coming world. So the “haves” will now have to suffer hunger, poverty, pain, unlovingness, depression, etc to even the score.

I find this perspective to be genuinely evil.

Rather than degrade the conditions of the fortunate, wouldn’t it be better to improve the conditions of the unfortunate so that everyone enjoys paradise?

Moreover, you seem to employ a hidden premise of “everyone with wealth and power has it as a result of evil on their part”. If so, I would like to respectfully and aggressively challenge the soundness of this premise. I know a lot of well-off folks who absolutely qualify as generically “good” by most standards.

“Gods” idea of fairness should scare the many people.

Well, your idea of “God’s fairness” certainly should. But I think there is a disparity between the reality and your perception of it.

If he allows what he allows to happen on earth, there is no reason not to allow it in an “afterlife.” If “innocent” people can suffer now, why can’t they allow suffer later?

1. Your conclusion doesn’t flow from the premises here, and
2. As a challenge to soundness, there are no perfectly innocent people relative to God’s goodness.
   Well, I suppose babies might be given as an exception. In answer to it, you’ll find very, very, very few living Catholics that think God would damn an infant; even one not baptized.

 

[o_mlly]

Thou shalt not kill, but I can. Sure seems that you would want to follow the rules that you create, hard to have credibility if that’s the case.

I don’t see how any of this mumbo jumbo answers any of my questions. Either the Bible has many issues, or God is a major murderer.

Fair enough; my post was fairly long. Here’s the pithy commentary on God’s answer to Job: “I’m God; you’re not.”

We don’t have the wheelbase to understand Justice itself.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Fair enough; my post was fairly long. Here’s the pithy commentary on God’s answer to Job: “I’m God; you’re not.”

Simple translation: “Might makes right!”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No no no, you missed my point. What I’m saying is that the very idea of “unnecessary suffering” is absolutely fraught with subjectivist peril.

I’m not saying “the question is valid and we just can’t know the answer”. I’m saying “how do we even know the question is valid and sound in the first place?”.

Use your common sense and apply the duck principle. The default position is that suffering is unnecessary. It is your job to show that a “seemingly” unnecessary suffering is a “measurement error”, and that particular suffering is actually the best, optimal solution.

 

[laylow]

Fair enough; my post was fairly long. Here’s the pithy commentary on God’s answer to Job: “I’m God; you’re not.”

We don’t have the wheelbase to understand Justice itself.

Ah yes, God squashes down Job to the peon that he is and expresses his almightyness. Instead of being the good leader and leading by example. That works about as well as the parent that tells the kids not to smoke while sucking down 12 cancer sticks a day.

 

[Vonsalza]

Use your common sense and apply the duck principle.

An excellent tool for generating rough guesses an intuiting estimates…

For crafting posits on which you frame arguments? Total junk.

When your argument is premised on “it seems to me that…” the only thing your opposition has to state is “I doesn’t seem that way to me”. Thus the weak and fundamental axiom on which your argument sits is rejected - and so goes the whole argument with it.

You’re not giving an argument based on fact. Just feelings. Sorry, that just doesn’t cut it.

The default position is that suffering is unnecessary.

You could not be more wrong. The default position is always “undefined” unless there is another proven position that can be substituted in.

Moreover, what is suffering in the existential context? Physical pain? Mere unhappiness? Once you get that utter relativist train-wreck sorted out, now you must determine how “necessary” and “unnecessary” are objectively defined and tested.

It is your job to show that a “seemingly” unnecessary suffering is a “measurement error”,

As I don’t posit that it can be can be meaningfully measured, if even objectively defined, no. No it is not my job to assume your mock-sophistries as somehow inanely true and then reply in that same biased, axiomatic (at very best) paradigm.

 

[laylow]

I don’t see the failure. If it’s a devil, then he loves to promote suffering, especially among the “good”. If it’s fallen creation, then we’re simply suffering the side-effects of our own decisions as a species.

No no no, you missed my point. What I’m saying is that the very idea of “unnecessary suffering” is absolutely fraught with subjectivist peril.

I’m not saying “the question is valid and we just can’t know the answer”. I’m saying “how do we even know the question is valid and sound in the first place?”.

I find this perspective to be genuinely evil.

Rather than degrade the conditions of the fortunate, wouldn’t it be better to improve the conditions of the unfortunate so that everyone enjoys paradise?

Moreover, you seem to employ a hidden premise of “everyone with wealth and power has it as a result of evil on their part”. If so, I would like to respectfully and aggressively challenge the soundness of this premise. I know a lot of well-off folks who absolutely qualify as generically “good” by most standards.

Wow, you find this “evil.” Well it’s a good thing that you actually see suffering to be evil, just as long as it’s not you that is doing the suffering. Of course the privileged would like for it to be that way. Go through life with minimal suffering, die peacefully in their sleep with their family gathered around. Then end up in the same paradise as the others who literally went through “hell” to get there. But then, that wouldn’t be perfect justice now would it? You call it evil that the suffering should even out. I would say, just be patient in your suffering, your reward will come soon, why would it matter if it is just a short period? That’s what earth suffers are told. Nah, because the privileged think life is good all the time but then claim to speak of justice.

I find it evil for God to cause famines and drought and kill the children of the people of Israel by the sword to punish them for their sins. Were their sins worthy of having their people wiped out? I find it evil that every 5 seconds a kid dies of hunger, suffering their whole life before that.

Many claim to think they know who the “bad” people in the world are. Reality is, the majority of the time their judgement of those people is wrong. I find evil in humans is usually caused by outside sources. It’s much easier not be “evil” when things are good.

Well, your idea of “God’s fairness” certainly should. But I think there is a disparity between the reality and your perception of it.

My perception of “reality” is no less superior than yours. Unknown cannot be called reality. And I’m sorry no one knows the answer, no matter what “book” told you so.

1. Your conclusion doesn’t flow from the premises here, and
2. As a challenge to soundness, there are no perfectly innocent people relative to God’s goodness.
   Well, I suppose babies might be given as an exception. In answer to it, you’ll find very, very, very few living Catholics that think God would damn an infant; even one not baptized.

Premises here?

Didn’t say perfectly innocent. The degree of innocence plays a part in perfect justice. For it to be perfect, it must be perfectly equal, or you can’t call it perfect.

 

[Vonsalza]

Go through life with minimal suffering, die peacefully in their sleep with their family gathered around.

How does one measure suffering? It seems to be a critical requirement for your hypothesis for justice.

Then end up in the same paradise as the others who literally went through “hell” to get there.

Here I think you betray the error of equating personal behavioral “good and evil” with personal “suffering and not suffering”.

The two are sets are related, but not analogues. We know this because both good and evil people suffer, both good and evil people can experience a lack of suffering.

You call it evil that the suffering should even out.

Yes - because suffering isn’t the cause of justice. Evil is.

Nah, because the privileged think life is good all the time but then claim to speak of justice.

Good grief. Everyone suffers, including those who make more money than you.

I find it evil for God to cause famines and drought and kill the children

While the theist would posit that all things ultimately serve The Will, what you state here isn’t an unqualified fact. The Devil and The Fall are both fitting explanations for the state of the world. If some evil produces even greater good, then the existence of evil is necessary for the “Good God”.

Many claim to think they know who the “bad” people in the world are. Reality is, the majority of the time their judgement of those people is wrong.

Right on. Internalize this statement when you speak about “the privileged” that you seem to blast.

My perception of “reality” is no less superior than yours. Unknown cannot be called reality. And I’m sorry no one knows the answer, no matter what “book” told you so.

The unknown is a necessary part of reality if knowledge is being discovered or created. If there is no real “unknown”, then there can never be discovery or innovation.

And my approach here isn’t particularly biblical. It comes from Dr. Haemich and Dr. Lemmale from my glory days in the university philo. dept… If you wanna make an argument, then your premises must be sound and your structure must be valid.

Didn’t say perfectly innocent.

Please see my first reply in this post. Same problem.

 

[laylow]

How does one measure suffering? It seems to be a critical requirement for your hypothesis for justice.

Suffering is the subject of the thread.

How to measure suffering? Something like the amount of negative forces and the lack of positive forces. For example when someone is in pain 24/7, feels sick and terrible and illness basically all of the time, while lacking basic necessities of water, food, etc and also does not have a loving family or virutally anyone loving around them, I would say that constitutes a fairly high level of suffering. It seems evil is critical to your argument, how do you measure that?

Here I think you betray the error of equating personal behavioral “good and evil” with personal “suffering and not suffering”.

You said the idea of someone having to suffer in the afterlife because they lucked out in this life was “evil” so I think you somewhat equated it. I believe any action that causes some other to suffer is evil.

The two are sets are related, but not analogues. We know this because both good and evil people suffer, both good and evil people can experience a lack of suffering.

I don’t know how much I believe in “good” and “evil” people. I think the actions they do may be good or evil, but I do not know what ultimately declares them to be one or the other. There are very other forces and situations to consider before that judgement can be made, if it can indeed be made.

Yes - because suffering isn’t the cause of justice. Evil is.

Evil is the cause of justice? I don’t follow that.

Good grief. Everyone suffers, including those who make more money than you.

I never mentioned money. The degree of suffering is my concern.

While the theist would posit that all things ultimately serve The Will, what you state here isn’t an unqualified fact. The Devil and The Fall are both fitting explanations for the state of the world. If some evil produces even greater good, then the existence of evil is necessary for the “Good God”.

I’m not arguing the existence of God, I’m arguing the existence of a God who intervenes in this world and am arguing why we don’t have an answer for suffering in this world. There are parts of the NT that say the “Devil” and evil forces are the cause, but most of the OT mentions that God is punishing the people for their sins. in the book of Job was suffering was handed to Job as a test. If God is testing people with suffering, why not test everyone? If God punishes for sin, how come many that sin are not suffering? Moreover, how about just not have suffering and the problem is solved? The reasons and the messages the Bible provides are not consistent, nor applicable for every instance they claim.

Right on. Internalize this statement when you speak about “the privileged” that you seem to blast.

By privileged I refer to as good health, good family, good country, good schools, etc, I think money is a small part of being "privileged. People living in the good ole USA immediately think about rich people, when the vast majority of the world is dirt poor.

The unknown is a necessary part of reality if knowledge is being discovered or created. If there is no real “unknown”, then there can never be discovery or innovation.

And my approach here isn’t particularly biblical. It comes from Dr. Haemich and Dr. Lemmale from my glory days in the university philo. dept… If you wanna make an argument, then your premises must be sound and your structure must be valid.

The vast majority of mine is based on historical study of Early Christianity and religions. I feel Dr. Bart Ehrman is a fairly unbiased very knowledgeable scholar in this area. I believe in God. I question very much the God that is taught in the Bible and the church. History alone provides many, many questions to the validity of the teachings.

Please see my first reply in this post. Same problem.

Dont’ remember what this was about.

 

[laylow]

Simple translation: “Might makes right!”.

Yeah, I don’t believe God would act that way.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

For crafting posits on which you frame arguments? Total junk.

We ALL start with the “duck principle”. If it looks like “unnecessary suffering”, then it is “unnecessary suffering” UNTIL proven otherwise. No sane person looks at a rabid dog and mistakes it for a tame bunny rabbit. No sane person looks at a cancerous growth and considers it a beneficial clump of cells. Not even YOU.

You could not be more wrong. The default position is always “undefined” unless there is another proven position that can be substituted in.

Not if one believes in an omnipotent and benevolent God. In that case all the sufferings are unnecessary. Why do you sell your God so short? No one could ever present a scenario, where God’s alleged omnipotence is unable to cope with some suffering. There is no logically necessary suffering.

Moreover, what is suffering in the existential context? Physical pain? Mere unhappiness? Once you get that utter relativist train-wreck sorted out, now you must determine how “necessary” and “unnecessary” are objectively defined and tested.

Easy as a breeze. Even you could do it.

As I don’t posit that it can be can be meaningfully measured, if even objectively defined, no. No it is not my job to assume your mock-sophistries as somehow inanely true and then reply in that same biased, axiomatic (at very best) paradigm.

If you assert that God is “good”, then it is your job to do it. You assume the role of being an advocate for God, since he is notoriously silent.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yeah, I don’t believe God would act that way.

In the whole Bible the most abhorrent part is the book of Job. People are supposed to have some dignity, and to USE them as part of a bet is the quintessential dehumanization. The “solution” that “I am God, and you are not” is simply nauseatingly evil.

 

[laylow]

In the whole Bible the most abhorrent part is the book of Job. People are supposed to have some dignity, and to USE them as part of a bet is the quintessential dehumanization. The “solution” that “I am God, and you are not” is simply nauseatingly evil.

The writers were having a problem with the issue of suffering. They had to try to find a way to explain it!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The writers were having a problem with the issue of suffering. They had to try to find a way to explain it!

Hehe… let me add an extra word: “They had to try to find a way to explain it AWAY!”

 

[laylow]

Hehe… let me add an extra word: “They had to try to find a way to explain it AWAY!”

And they really liked story-telling and poetry!

 

[Vonsalza]

Suffering is the subject of the thread.

It is, but the question of measurement was posed as a follow-up to your desire to see those that haven’t experienced much suffering (be they good or bad, apparently) have their fortunes reversed. How would you know when they’ve suffered enough?

How to measure suffering? Something like the amount of negative forces and the lack of positive forces.

So then something that can’t actually be measured, right?

I don’t know how much I believe in “good” and “evil” people.

Then you think that everyone should ultimately experience the same level of suffering in this life or the next regardless of their deeds?

Horrifying, in my view. Schadenfreude is evil.

I’m arguing the existence of a God who intervenes in this world and am arguing why we don’t have an answer for suffering in this world.

Well, what do you mean by “answer for suffering”?
If you mean “reason it exists”, then sin via free will.
If you mean “restoration for the good who have suffered”, then heaven via God’s judgement.
If you mean “continuance for the evil”, then hell via God’s judgement.

If God is testing people with suffering, why not test everyone?

Literally everyone suffers. You’ve never met another human being that hasn’t, perhaps excluding infants (but perhaps not, depending on how you define the thus-far-undefined term).
Now, you may not be privy to how they do so in any particular example.

The reasons and the messages the Bible provides are not consistent, nor applicable for every instance they claim.

Care to provide specific passages? Like, in book-chapter-verse format?

By privileged I refer to as good health, good family, good country, good schools, etc, I think money is a small part of being "privileged. People living in the good ole USA immediately think about rich people, when the vast majority of the world is dirt poor.

My objection remains intact.

History alone provides many, many questions to the validity of the teachings.

History provides people exercising their free moral agency - the mechanism that gave rise to suffering.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah yes, God squashes down Job to the peon that he is and expresses his almightyness. Instead of being the good leader and leading by example. That works about as well as the parent that tells the kids not to smoke while sucking down 12 cancer sticks a day.

There are at least two kinds of sufferers. The wailing whiner and the serenely silent. The former because he has no faith, the latter only because of his faith.

Suffering and serenity, never exclusive one to the other, coexist peaceably as dispositions of body and soul only when when the cross is accepted.

I cannot rationalize a loving God who permits suffering. But faith, the shape of things I hope for, allows me to accept today’s suffering as part of God’s plan without understanding. My desolation ends when I see my suffering as God’s blessing, as an event that brings me closer to Him. Desolation ends but the suffering continues. Those who serenely suffer are at peace because they are with God on His terms.

 

[Vonsalza]

We ALL start with the “duck principle”. If it looks like “unnecessary suffering”, then it is “unnecessary suffering” UNTIL proven otherwise.

TO YOU.

As I don’t hold that any particular thing looks like “unnecessary suffering”, then your argument falls flat.

Please stop trying to skirt the obvious challenges of defining the terms. What is “suffering” and how do you know it’s necessary or not?

No absurd and inane for-instances, I’m requesting objective definitions (so I can shred them with counterfactuals so as to show they’re not objective).

Not if one believes in an omnipotent and benevolent God. In that case all the sufferings are unnecessary.

How so? A theist would assert that all suffering is necessary if that suffering generates a greater good as perceived by that God (an not necessarily anyone else).

Of course, you’ve been told this 1000 times…

No one could ever present a scenario, where God’s alleged omnipotence is unable to cope with some suffering. There is no logically necessary suffering.

Again, you’re assuming that the suffering exists because God can’t stop it. This assumes that God must stop it when it arises.
If suffering concludes with a greater good than would have otherwise occurred as an end or if stopping it would prevent a greater good as a means (like free will), then why would He? The omnibenevolent God would be reducing their goodness, which is nonsensical.

Easy as a breeze. Even you could do it.

Then why haven’t you or those that share your credo across the last few centuries?

If you assert that God is “good”, then it is your job to do it.

No sir. I’m not the one posing “suffering” as proof that God isn’t good.

The only thing it proves is that God is permissive of it.

 

[Vonsalza]

I cannot rationalize a loving God who permits suffering.

I can.

If a greater good comes as an ultimate end to the suffering than what good would have otherwise existed, then it would be permissible.

If the suffering results by the means of “free moral agency” being a good of higher magnitude than that of the resultant suffering, then it would be permissible.

 

[o_mlly]

I can.

If a greater good comes as an ultimate end to the suffering than what good would have otherwise existed, then it would be permissible.

If the suffering results by the means of “free moral agency” being a good of higher magnitude than that of the resultant suffering, then it would be permissible.

Isn’t that (God will bring good out of evil) an act of faith not reason?