Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[R_Daneel]

so… G-d really meant to make robots, but then didnt complete the programming, got lazy and just installed a free will module?

Actually, no. God **should have **created perfectly working robots. I will go into detail below.

this isnt reasoning, its guessing. you cannot know if it is correct. surely this is not what you have been taught about G-d.

Of course it is guessing, but it is an educated guess. I am (or was) a creator myself (retired computer programmer), who always intended to create perfect programs (of course I failed many times ). No “free will” (simulated) was given on purpose, the freedom to deviate from the design parameters was a “bug”, to be avoided if possible, and fixed later if not.

I assume that God is a smart creator, who had some goal in mind when he created the world. What that goal might have been, I don’t and cannot know - and it does not matter. What matters is, that there are two possibilities here: 1) either God created the world **exactly **as he envisioned (or wanted) it, or 2) this world is **not **what God wanted or intended.

My conclusion (your mile may vary) is that if 1) is true, then God planned and intended all the suffering and that is what the “problem of evil” is all about. If 2) is true, then God is an idiot, since he had the foreknowledge and the power to create whatever he wanted - yet he failed to do so. This is the dilemma you must face.

i explained in the previous post why programmed robots cannot really love or care, they can only simulate and why that is not a perfect copy of love or care because it lacks the sincerity we demand ourselves. you dont choose insincere friends or lovers, why should G-d choose that?

What is “insincere” about the simulated love? How can you tell “real” love apart from simulated love? This is still the question waiting to be answered.

except for the last 5000 years of the Judeo/Christian Tradition. the Ten Commandments. the few thousand pages of Scripture. a Church to teach the Faith. these things are all there for the exact purpose of helping one make proper decisions. what are you talking about here?

Come on. You should know better than quoting a bunch of ancient superstitions and the house of cards built upon them. I understand that for you that is evidence (or maybe proof), but you should never present it as evidence to anyone who is not a Christian. As a clarification of what you believe it works fine, but as evidence it is useless.

um…why do you think that we are small children? you have been left all the instructions and resources, i just mentioned. you are supposed to use those. i dont know about you but i am hardly a child unaware of the consequences of the misuse of my free will. unless you are typing this from a prison, you too, know how to avoid the misuse of your free will. it seems specious to conclude that because we are not G-d like ourselves, that we must then be toddlers. i surely am not.

Your sources are summarily rejected, because they are self-contradictory, nonsensical and therefore uselss. We are adults on the human scale, but less than toddlers compared to God.

a robot, no matter how well programmed is still a robot. even if it has a billion options to choose from when confronted by stimuli. it is not performing any of those billion options because it wants too do so, but rather because it has no choice in the matter. it must choose one of them.

We are the same: we may have billons of options, and we must choose from one of them. Among all those options there are some which are “good”, and the robot is free to use a selecting algorithm and select one. So are we. The difference is that a robot will never choose the wrong option, while we can. Clearly the robot is superior.

free will restricted from absolutly all options is not free will its still just programming. free will that cannot be carried out from physical factors doesnt seem to have anything to do with the ontological status of human free will.

And a smart creator only gives limitied freedom to make a selection from the “approved” subset of the possible selections.

 

[R_Daneel]

i could tell by being the androids creator, in the same way G-d is our Creator. i would know that none of the androids simulations was a sincere emotion. it would only seem identical to someone who did not know that it was an android. if you want the real thing, why shouldnt G-d?

Please don’t try to change the problem. You are not the creator of that android. That android is presented to you as a friend of a friend, and the only inferences you can make is based upon the observation of “its” behavior. The question is how do you tell the difference between the “real thing” and the “simulated one”. I submit that you cannot - but maybe I am mistaken. Surprise me. And if you cannot, what difference does it make if it is real or not? Just like you cannot tell the perfect copy of the Mona Lisa apart from the original one, and you agreed that it does not matter.

even that definition would fail for a robot, in that a robot has no “will” it is just programmed to respond to stimuli. no matter how sophisticated the programming. it is only doing what it is programmed to do. it has no choice but to pick an option or a certain set of options.

And that is what “will” is. Don’t forget, humans are all “programmed” since birth. It is called education. Our parents attempt to instill certain behavioral pattens in us, until they become (almost) instinctive. You don’t hesitate to pass your seat to a crippled person on the bus, you do not waste time on contemplating whether to stay seated or give up your seat. You just do it. Is that a “free” choice? Does it matter? If you were that crippled person, would you care why that seat was passed on to you? Was it from “genuine” (and conscious) wish to help? Or was it an instilled, automatic response? If you happen to be in need of help, and someone comes and offers that help, do you question him about the “reasons” he wishes to help? Would you reject an “insincere”, automatic offer of help? I doubt it.

you could read C.S.Lewis, someone qouted it earlier for you. why wasnt that a satisfying answer?

I read many apologist books. The only thing I got out of them was extreme frustration, because I was unable to grab that book and beat the author on the head with it. Each and every book was a collection of dumb and hypocritical collection of “whitewashing”. Illogical, unreasonable collection of junk - and no ways and means to get to the author and tell him. I don’t really mind to read stupid arguments, though they are a waste of time. But I don’t care to read hypocrisy. If there really were deadly sins, hypocrisy should be on the list - leading it.

if i havent answered it already, just reqoute the specific part and i will address it.

You did above, thanks. And I answered above. We can continue from there.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is hardly a figure of speech when you don’t have enough time or money to give people the care and attention they need. You are forced to neglect some one whether you like it or not.

I don’t call the lack of resources “evil”. Maybe you can provide a better example. This one does not cut it.

Legal presumptions are evidence that responsibility is a universal concept.

And legal presumptions are not evidence of anything. And the question “do we have free will?” is not relevant. Most people assume that we do, but majority opinion is not an arbiter of truth.

 

[tonyrey]

It is hardly a figure of speech when you don’t have enough time or money to give people the care and attention they need. You are forced to neglect some one whether you like it or not.

It is not lack of resources that it is evil but our failure to help those in need, whether culpable or not… In an immensely complex world where there are millions of beings pursuing different ends it is inevitable that there is conflict, interference, neglect and suffering.

And legal presumptions are not evidence of anything.

If you ever happen to be a victim or wrongly accused of a crime you will change your mind…

And the question “do we have free will?” is not relevant.

Not relevant to the Problem of Evil?!

Most people assume that we do, but majority opinion is not an arbiter of truth.

The majority are not always right but majority opinion is our starting point. The majority are not solipsists, nihilists or determinists. The onus is the minority to prove their case. The determinist view of reality does not correspond to the way people think and live.

Free will applies to our thoughts as well as our actions

Nonsense. Will without ability to act on it is irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with actions. If you cannot choose what to think your thoughts are not yours. They just happen to occur to you…

Maybe you will argue that thought-crime is just as real as an actual crime - but I will reject that idea.

If you’re not responsible for your thoughts you cannot commit any crimes at all. Do you prefer not to be able to think for yourself?

‘Who the heck needs morality, when you can have a caring “robot”?’

I doubt whether your life partner would appreciate that sentiment! Perhaps that is your concept of your ideal life partner!Naturally.

Nor will that remark endear you to your fellow atheists but it does reveal the absurdity of your amorality - which most of them do not share…I’m quite sure you would not impressed if your life partner said that about you.
Do you really believe you are just a robot?

 

[R_Daneel]

It is not lack of resources that it is evil but our failure to help those in need, whether culpable or not… In an immensely complex world where there are millions of beings pursuing different ends it is inevitable that there is conflict, interference, neglect and suffering.

If I don’t know about someone who is need of help. how is that evil? If I happen to know about someone in need of help, but lack the wherewithal to assist, how is that evil? Only if I have knowledge and have the ways and means to help, then you can call the lack of help “evil”. And that is precisely what God does, or does not do. If you consider a “negligient” human evil, then why do you hesitate to call the negligient God evil? Why not use the same measuring stick? Special pleading?

If you ever happen to be a victim or wrongly accused of a crime you will change your mind…

Get real. The assumption of free will is not an evidence of free will - just like the presumption of innocence is not an evidence of innocence. We are talking about a philosophical concept and not a “crime”.

It has nothing to do with actions. If you cannot choose what to think your thoughts are not yours. They just happen to occur to you…

If you’re not responsible for your thoughts you cannot commit any crimes at all. Do you prefer not to be able to think for yourself?

Nonsense. Our thoughts are not actions. I cannot “choose” or select what I am thinking about. Now here is an experiment. When you read this paragraph, please close your eyes for 30 seconds, and try not to think of a zebra. … The thirty seconds elapsed, and I can tell you that you struggled not to think of a zebra, and utterly failed. You spent 30 seconds of attempting to avoid thinking of a zebra and failed. Our thoughts are not subject to volitional control. Our actions usually are, and one can only speak of evil in conjunction to an act. There are no “evil thoughts”, only evil actions.

Do you really believe you are just a robot?

If you know Isaac Asimov and if you happen to be familiar with his Foundation Saga and the Robot Saga, you will recognize the name of R. Daneel Oliwav - where R. stands for Robot. Of course it is just a playful name, but most of human actions are “preprogrammed”. They are not the result of conscious, volitional considerations. The programming is partly “self-programming”, and partly imposed on us by our upbringing and education. Most of the brain’s activity happens in the sub-conscious. We are not only powerless to control that part, we are also unaware of that process. By some estimates, at least 90-95% of all the brain activity falls outside the realm of the “little grey cells” (as M. Hercule Poirot says).

Robot Daneel Oliwav

 

[tonyrey]

It is not lack of resources that it is evil but our failure to help those in need, whether culpable or not… In an immensely complex world where there are millions of beings pursuing different ends it is inevitable that there is conflict, interference, neglect and suffering.

Are you ignorant of all the needy people in the world? It is not necessary to know them personally…

If I happen to know about someone in need of help, but lack the wherewithal to assist, how is that evil? Only if I have knowledge and have the ways and means to help, then you can call the lack of help “evil”.

Indeed but the topic is why God allow suffering. There are millions of people who do not lack the wherewithal to assist others…

If you consider a “negligent” human evil, then why do you hesitate to call the negligent God evil?

God is not negligent for the simple reason that He created us with responsibility for what we do in this world. You don’t blame parents for what their children do when they grow up. They bring them into the world knowing full well that some of them will be guilty of negligence - and worse. Are they negligent?

If you ever happen to be a victim or wrongly accused of a crime you will change your mind…

Get real.

You will get real if you have to appear in court!

The assumption of free will is not an evidence of free will - just like the presumption of innocence is not an evidence of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is evidence of free will. You can’t have one without the other! Do you deny the presumption of innocence?

We are talking about a philosophical concept and not a “crime”.

We are talking about the reason why there are such things as crimes. Or do you reject the concept of “crime” and the entire legal system?!

It has nothing to do with actions. If you cannot choose what to think your thoughts are not yours. They just happen to occur to you… If you’re not responsible for your thoughts you cannot commit any crimes at all. Do you prefer not to be able to think for yourself?

Our thoughts are not subject to volitional control.

In that case you cannot choose the most reasonable explanations of anything! Your thoughts are dictated by neural impulses which lack insight… There is no guarantee that any particular thought corresponds to reality.

Our actions usually are, and one can only speak of evil in conjunction to an act. There are no “evil thoughts”, only evil actions.

Your hypothesis is at odds with the concept of premeditated crimes. Why do you think you have greater insight than the vast majority of civilised people?

Do you really believe you are just a robot?

If you know Isaac Asimov and if you happen to be familiar with his Foundation Saga and the Robot Saga, you will recognize the name of R. Daneel Oliwav - where R. stands for Robot. Of course it is just a playful name, but most of human actions are “preprogrammed”. They are not the result of conscious, volitional considerations. The programming is partly “self-programming”, and partly imposed on us by our upbringing and education. Most of the brain’s activity happens in the sub-conscious. We are not only powerless to control that part, we are also unaware of that process. By some estimates, at least **90-95% **of all the brain activity falls outside the realm of the “little grey cells” (as M. Hercule Poirot says).

I have highlighted the gaps in your argument. Do you still believe you are just a robot?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I assume that God is a smart creator, who had some goal in mind when he created the world. What that goal might have been, I don’t and cannot know - and it does not matter.

how can you say the goal of an action is unimportant to how it is carried out? surely you write programs with a goal in mind, and write the program in such a way as to achieve that goal, dont you?

What matters is, that there are two possibilities here: 1) either God created the world **exactly **as he envisioned (or wanted) it, or 2) this world is **not **what God wanted or intended. /

My conclusion (your mile may vary) is that if 1) is true, then God planned and intended all the suffering and that is what the “problem of evil” is all about. If 2) is true, then God is an idiot, since he had the foreknowledge and the power to create whatever he wanted - yet he failed to do so. This is the dilemma you must face.

G-d did create a perfect world, the Garden of Eden, He lived with us and we did not suffer or know evil. we rejected G-d. there is no great dilemma there.

as to the POE, i have shown that it is a problem that doesnt actually exist as a rational construct. it is another of those emotional issues for most people. treated purely rationally it disappears. you can find a technical demonstration on the OP of my thread titled, “the problem of evil does not exist.”

you are making judgement calls on insufficient information. you dont know what G-d does. this is a fatal flaw to the POE for everyone.

What is “insincere” about the simulated love? How can you tell “real” love apart from simulated love? This is still the question waiting to be answered.

ive answered this question several times now. simulated love is not actually love. you dont hire a prostitute to simulate love, you find a girl you actually love and marry her. you obviously know the difference, how is that you expect G-d does not? the creator of the being knows whether or not that being is simulating love or freely choosing to love. does this not answer the question posed?

Come on. You should know better than quoting a bunch of ancient superstitions and the house of cards built upon them. I understand that for you that is evidence (or maybe proof), but you should never present it as evidence to anyone who is not a Christian. As a clarification of what you believe it works fine, but as evidence it is useless.

im pointing out that instructions and help were left for us. yet i am interested to understand how you know these are superstitions? and what house of cards? if you do not have evidence that our thousands of witnesses over the millenia were all mistaken, then i dont think you can rightly call anything related to our Faith, a superstition.

Your sources are summarily rejected, because they are self-contradictory, nonsensical and therefore uselss. We are adults on the human scale, but less than toddlers compared to God.

tens of billions of theists in history have felt different, a summary rejection is meaningless, you better have some solid basis for rejection. not simply an opinion

the scale of difference between our intellects and G-ds doesnt mean that we are less responsible for our actions any more than a man with a 100 I.Q is less responsible for his than a man with a 200 I.Q.

We are the same: we may have billons of options, and we must choose from one of them. Among all those options there are some which are “good”, and the robot is free to use a selecting algorithm and select one. So are we. The difference is that a robot will never choose the wrong option, while we can. Clearly the robot is superior.

we are not the same, we have an unlimited number of ways to respond to stimuli, we are not restricted to any particular set of actions. the robot is never free to choose, because it is restricted to a certain set of options. it has no choice in the matter. you dont seem to understand that any restriction to any set of choices, not matter the category, produces a robot. not someone who can freely love.

And a smart creator only gives limitied freedom to make a selection from the “approved” subset of the possible selections.

1. limited freedom
2. military intelligence
3. honest car salesman.

all oxymorons. there is no such thing as an ontologically limited free will. A and not A doesnt work.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please don’t try to change the problem. You are not the creator of that android. That android is presented to you as a friend of a friend, and the only inferences you can make is based upon the observation of “its” behavior. The question is how do you tell the difference between the “real thing” and the “simulated one”. I submit that you cannot - but maybe I am mistaken. Surprise me. And if you cannot, what difference does it make if it is real or not? Just like you cannot tell the perfect copy of the Mona Lisa apart from the original one, and you agreed that it does not matter.

i understand, i am pointing out that it is not true for G-d. an omniscient being would know the difference between real, freely chosen love and love that was simulated. i cannot, but that is beside the point.

if you mean to say that G-d should choose the simulated love anyway, that it is as good as freely chosen love, then to most people that may seem hypocritical, because given the choice they too prefer true love over simulated love. what about your wife how she would feel if she knew all these years you had been simulating love? you woud be sleeping on the couch for a while, if she didnt just pack up and leave then.

And that is what “will” is. Don’t forget, humans are all “programmed” since birth. It is called education. Our parents attempt to instill certain behavioral pattens in us, until they become (almost) instinctive. You don’t hesitate to pass your seat to a crippled person on the bus, you do not waste time on contemplating whether to stay seated or give up your seat. You just do it. Is that a “free” choice? Does it matter? If you were that crippled person, would you care why that seat was passed on to you? Was it from “genuine” (and conscious) wish to help? Or was it an instilled, automatic response? If you happen to be in need of help, and someone comes and offers that help, do you question him about the “reasons” he wishes to help? Would you reject an “insincere”, automatic offer of help? I doubt it.

we arent programmed, we have unlimited choicees on how to react to stimuli. an education does not limit choices, it enlightens us as to the consequences of our choices. sincerity is important because it is the emotional difference between someone really loving you like a wife and simulated love like a prostitute. the sincerity of an automatic deal like opening a door or offering a seat is simply a social convenience. its sincerity doesnt matter.

I read many apologist books. The only thing I got out of them was extreme frustration, because I was unable to grab that book and beat the author on the head with it. Each and every book was a collection of dumb and hypocritical collection of “whitewashing”. Illogical, unreasonable collection of junk - and no ways and means to get to the author and tell him. I don’t really mind to read stupid arguments, though they are a waste of time. But I don’t care to read hypocrisy. If there really were deadly sins, hypocrisy should be on the list - leading it.

i dont know what you are considering an apologetical issue, but what we are discussing is general metaphysics.

 

[R_Daneel]

Are you ignorant of all the needy people in the world? It is not necessary to know them personally…
Indeed but the topic is why God allow suffering. There are millions of people who do not lack the wherewithal to assist others…
God is not negligent for the simple reason that He created us with responsibility for what we do in this world.

Outsourcing the responsibility? How conveeeeeeniiient! But of course, there are many instances when people attempt to help, use all the available resources to deliver that help, and still fail. Miners come to mind, who are unable to escape, and cannot be rescued, even though all the available resources are marshalled to help them. God just sits on his virtual behind, and does nothing to help them. Is that your idea of a loving God? If so, then you are hopelessly irrational.

You don’t blame parents for what their children do when they grow up. They bring them into the world knowing full well that some of them will be guilty of negligence - and worse. Are they negligent?

No, they do NOT know that. They all believe that their own children will turn out to be OK. And those, who have a very good reason to suspect (which is STILL not knowledge) that their children will most likely have some incurable disease and still procreate are definitely negligient and should be despised for their stupidity.

The presumption of innocence is evidence of free will.

This is getting pretty boring. The presumption of innocence is not the evidence of innocence. The presumption that free will exists is not evidence that free will actually exists. Just like the idea that the Earth is flat (which used to be the general assumption) is not an evidence that the Earth is flat. If you think that your arguments (which are all evasions), are rational, then I am not interested in them. Now, most people assume that free will exists, and all our legal system is based upon that assumption, but that is neither here nor there. It is not evidence.

 

[R_Daneel]

how can you say the goal of an action is unimportant to how it is carried out? surely you write programs with a goal in mind, and write the program in such a way as to achieve that goal, dont you?

Of course I do. But that is not what I said. No matter what the goal might have been, I can either achieve it, or I cannot. If I happen to know (really know, not just guess) that the goal is unattainable, then - being a rational person - I will not even attempt it. The trouble is that I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

If God had some goal in mind and this world is what he had in mind, then the problem of evil is alive and well. If God had some goal in mind and this world is not it, then there are two possibilities. One is that the goal could have been achieved. If God did not achieve it, then he is not omnipotent. If the goal was unattainable, then God is irrational to attempt it.

G-d did create a perfect world, the Garden of Eden, He lived with us and we did not suffer or know evil. we rejected G-d. there is no great dilemma there.

The Genesis is not taken in a literal fashion any more - to the best of my knowledge.

you are making judgement calls on insufficient information. you dont know what G-d does. this is a fatal flaw to the POE for everyone.

And do you have sufficient information? Every time you call God “good” or “loving”, you make a judgment call. How come that you think that you qualify to make judgment calls, and I cannot? Don’t you see the discrepancy?

ive answered this question several times now. simulated love is not actually love. you dont hire a prostitute to simulate love, you find a girl you actually love and marry her. you obviously know the difference, how is that you expect G-d does not? the creator of the being knows whether or not that being is simulating love or freely choosing to love. does this not answer the question posed?

No, you did not. Your answer is akin to the one a Supreme Court justice gave when he was asked to define pornography. He said: “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it”. Total nonsense.

im pointing out that instructions and help were left for us. yet i am interested to understand how you know these are superstitions? and what house of cards? if you do not have evidence that our thousands of witnesses over the millenia were all mistaken, then i dont think you can rightly call anything related to our Faith, a superstition.

Oh, not again. Argument from numbers? Is that the best you can do?

tens of billions of theists in history have felt different, a summary rejection is meaningless, you better have some solid basis for rejection. not simply an opinion

I have all the vast amount of science to support me. What do you have? Nothing.

we are not the same, we have an unlimited number of ways to respond to stimuli, we are not restricted to any particular set of actions. the robot is never free to choose, because it is restricted to a certain set of options. it has no choice in the matter. you dont seem to understand that any restriction to any set of choices, not matter the category, produces a robot. not someone who can freely love.

1. limited freedom
2. military intelligence
3. honest car salesman.

all oxymorons. there is no such thing as an ontologically limited free will. A and not A doesnt work.

Really? Can you “freely will” to fly as a bird, by flapping your arms? Try it, and see the result. Can you “freely will” to fix all the hunger in the world? Cure all the diseases by “willing” them away? A “will” without “action” is meaningless.

 

[tonyrey]

Outsourcing the responsibility?

Do you regard yourself as responsible for what your putative progeny do? You are (or would be) **ultimately **responsible and you have to decide whether to remain childless. The vast majority of people believe it is worth taking the risk. Do you - or don’t you?

But of course, there are many instances when people attempt to help, use all the available resources to deliver that help, and still fail. Miners come to mind, who are unable to escape, and cannot be rescued, even though all the available resources are marshalled to help them.

I am referring to the millions who do nothing? Who is to blame?

God just sits on his virtual behind, and does nothing to help them. Is that your idea of a loving God? If so, then you are hopelessly irrational.

You are hopelessly irrational to expect constant intervention when we have been given freedom and responsibility. But then if you have no freedom and responsibility you must be hopelessly irrational!

You don’t blame parents for what their children do when they grow up. They bring them into the world knowing full well that some of them will be guilty of negligence - and worse. Are they negligent?

No, they do NOT know that.

They **know perfectly well that their children will be free to choose **how to live…

They all believe that their own children will turn out to be OK.

They** believe and are prepared to take the risk that they may be mistaken…**

And those, who have a very good reason to suspect (which is STILL not knowledge) that their children will most likely have some incurable disease and still procreate are definitely negligent and should be despised for their stupidity.

They have direct control of the situation… The buck stops with them.

The presumption that free will exists is not evidence that free will actually exists. Just like the idea that the Earth is flat (which used to be the general assumption) is not an evidence that the Earth is flat.

Try that argument in court!

If you think that your arguments (which are all evasions), are rational, then I am not interested in them.

I think exactly the same about yours… .I don’t regard a robot’s arguments as reliable…

Now, most people assume that free will exists, and all our legal system is based upon that assumption, but that is neither here nor there. It is not evidence.

Why don’t you justify your privileged insight into the human mind rather making gratuitous assertions? The onus is on you to prove you are not responsible for what you think and what you do… Perhaps you’re not but you’re not entitled to regard **everyone else **as robots without producing evidence…

 

[R_Daneel]

i understand, i am pointing out that it is not true for G-d. an omniscient being would know the difference between real, freely chosen love and love that was simulated. i cannot, but that is beside the point.

That is something. By the way, what kind of “love” are we talking about? Emotional love? Actions of help, or even possibly a sacrifice?

if you mean to say that G-d should choose the simulated love anyway, that it is as good as freely chosen love, then to most people that may seem hypocritical, because given the choice they too prefer true love over simulated love. what about your wife how she would feel if she knew all these years you had been simulating love? you woud be sleeping on the couch for a while, if she didnt just pack up and leave then.

I can guarantee that many people will choose simulated love, when it will be available. Just like many people choose artifical stimulants to get “high”. The usual aversion to “artifical means” stems from the fact that the “artificial” solution is inferior to the “natural” one. Once the artifical solution will be equal, or better than the natural one, people will choose them. I bet that you use a spade and a shovel (artificial extensions of your arm) to dig a hole, and not just your fingernails (the natural solution) to achieve the same result.

we arent programmed, we have unlimited choicees on how to react to stimuli. an education does not limit choices, it enlightens us as to the consequences of our choices. sincerity is important because it is the emotional difference between someone really loving you like a wife and simulated love like a prostitute.

Nonsense. We are being programmed all the time. We also perform self-programming.

the sincerity of an automatic deal like opening a door or offering a seat is simply a social convenience. its sincerity doesnt matter.

But that is also part of “love” - at least that is what theists say. And they also say that that is the “real” love, to make sacrifices for others. Giving up a seat might be a very small sacrifice, but it is a sacrifice nontheless.

Maybe you wish say that “sincerity” is only relevant when it comes to emotions. Maybe you wish to say that God wishes to be loved emotionally. Of course that brings up further problems. First, the very existence of God is unknown, it is merely a subject of faith. But to demand love, when the existence of the loved one is doubtful - is another nonsensical idea. The very minimum God should do in that case is to reveal his existence to us, in a completely unambigious manner. Then he should do “something” to earn that love. To demand “love” without earning it is the usual dream of tyrants, who do nothing to earn that love, yet wish to be loved. Not an endearing proposition for God.

 

[R_Daneel]

But of course, there are many instances when people attempt to help, use all the available resources to deliver that help, and still fail. Miners come to mind, who are unable to escape, and cannot be rescued, even though all the available resources are marshalled to help them. God just sits on his virtual behind, and does nothing to help them. Is that your idea of a loving God? If so, then you are hopelessly irrational.

Who said anything about “constant” intervention? But yes, an occasional intervention would be in order, because God never gave us the power and the knowledge to do what has to be done to alleviate the suffering. It is hypocritical to give the freedom to do something, and declare the responsibility to do it, but to withhold the necessary power to actually do something makes that freedom and responsibility a farce. Just like the federal government, when they declare that the states must deliver certain services, but does not allocate the funds to actually do it.

I give you one more and final chance to answer the question: “In those cases, when humans try to do their best to prevent or alleviate suffering, and fail - because they are unable to deliver (like in the case of miners trapped underground), how come that your ‘loving and caring’ God does not come to the rescue?” You have 3 weeks to think about an answer… I will be back in February. Take your time and think about it.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Who said anything about “constant” intervention? But yes, an occasional intervention would be in order, because God never gave us the power and the knowledge to do what has to be done to alleviate the suffering. It is hypocritical to give the freedom to do something, and declare the responsibility to do it, but to withhold the necessary power to actually do something makes that freedom and responsibility a farce. Just like the federal government, when they declare that the states must deliver certain services, but does not allocate the funds to actually do it.

I give you one more and final chance to answer the question: “In those cases, when humans try to do their best to prevent or alleviate suffering, and fail - because they are unable to deliver (like in the case of miners trapped underground), how come that your ‘loving and caring’ God does not come to the rescue?” You have 3 weeks to think about an answer… I will be back in February. Take your time and think about it.

How do you know He didn’t? How do you know that Jesus did not appear to those 3 miners, and say to them, “Have no fear my children, for today you will be with me in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

You want God to rescue their earthly life, but more important is their heavenly life. Maybe that event, although not created by God, led these 3 miners to a conversion of their hearts. We can observe the fact that these miners ultimately died in this world, but to assume that God does not love and care for them is presumptuous.

 

[tonyrey]

Who said anything about “constant” intervention? But yes, an occasional intervention would be in order, because God never gave us the power and the knowledge to do what has to be done to alleviate the suffering. It is hypocritical to give the freedom to do something, and declare the responsibility to do it, but to withhold the necessary power to actually do something makes that freedom and responsibility a farce. Just like the federal government, when they declare that the states must deliver certain services, but does not allocate the funds to actually do it.

Exactly how would we be given the power and knowledge to control earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, droughts, floods, landslides, blizzards, avalanches, etc…?

I give you one more and final chance to answer the question: “In those cases, when humans try to do their best to prevent or alleviate suffering, and fail - because they are unable to deliver (like in the case of miners trapped underground), how come that your ‘loving and caring’ God does not come to the rescue?” You have 3 weeks to think about an answer… I will be back in February. Take your time and think about it.
Why do you think I don’t need three weeks?!

1. There have been many cases of apparently miraculous escapes from death and disaster. It is impossible to know to what extent and how often God does intervene. Life could have become extinct on this planet several times but it has survived against all the odds…
2. There has to be a limit to the extent to which God intervenes; otherwise it would be obvious that a supernatural power is at work and we would no longer be free to choose what to believe. Not only that. Too many interventions would make it impossible to predict what is going to happen. It would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe.
3. You would soon complain if Big Brother prevented you from living as you choose even though you claim to be a robot… Why do you think so many people have died fighting for freedom? If we’re not free it is better to be dead!

It is significant that you have ignored the other points in my last post… Unanswerable!

 

[R_Daneel]

How do you know He didn’t? How do you know that Jesus did not appear to those 3 miners, and say to them, “Have no fear my children, for today you will be with me in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

You want God to rescue their earthly life, but more important is their heavenly life. Maybe that event, although not created by God, led these 3 miners to a conversion of their hearts. We can observe the fact that these miners ultimately died in this world, but to assume that God does not love and care for them is presumptuous.

Of course… how stupid of me… obviously that is what MUST have happened! And Jesus also MUST have appeared in front of the grieving wives and children to wipe their tears away… why didn’t I think of that?

And, naturally, the same thing happened to all of those hundreds of thousands who perished in Earthquakes, and avalanches, and wildfires… way before Jesus was born… (but then again Jesus could have manifested himself when he was not even born… what is such a minor inconvenience to omnipotence??) And let’s remember all those 6 millon Jews and gypsies and atheist communists who were gassed in the Nazi concetration camps… and those untold millions in Stalin’s gulags… obviously God has grabbed them and they are all in heaven, sinners and atheists and good people alike… why didn’t I think of such an obvious solution? And I am sure you have ample evidence that this is what actually happened. Maybe a videotape? Care to share it?

Or is your post just another feeble attempt to whitewash the obviously manifested lack of love and caring that God does not put on display…??? The lack of love is crying up to “heaven”, and you say “maybe…???” and “how do you know???”… Really, do you think I am as gullible as that? Oh, by the way… I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn, at a reasonable price… are you interested?

 

[tonyrey]

Who said anything about “constant” intervention? But yes, an occasional intervention would be in order, because God never gave us the power and the knowledge to do what has to be done to alleviate the suffering. It is hypocritical to give the freedom to do something, and declare the responsibility to do it, but to withhold the necessary power to actually do something makes that freedom and responsibility a farce. Just like the federal government, when they declare that the states must deliver certain services, but does not allocate the funds to actually do it.

Exactly how would we be given the power and knowledge to control earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, droughts, floods, landslides, blizzards, avalanches, etc…?

I give you one more and final chance to answer the question: “In those cases, when humans try to do their best to prevent or alleviate suffering, and fail - because they are unable to deliver (like in the case of miners trapped underground), how come that your ‘loving and caring’ God does not come to the rescue?” You have 3 weeks to think about an answer… I will be back in February. Take your time and think about it.

Why do you think I need three weeks?!

1. There have been many cases of apparently miraculous escapes from death and disaster. It is impossible to know to what extent and how often God does intervene. Life could have become extinct on this planet several times but it has survived against all the odds…
2. There has to be a limit to the extent to which God intervenes; otherwise it would be obvious that a supernatural power is at work and we would no longer be free to choose what to believe. Not only that. Too many interventions would make it impossible to predict what is going to happen. It would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe.
3. You would soon complain if Big Brother prevented you from living as you choose even though you claim to be a robot… Why do you think so many people have died fighting for freedom? If we’re not free it is better to be dead!

It is significant that you have ignored the other points in my last post… Obviously you cannot refute them!

 

[chessmane4e5]

Of course… how stupid of me… obviously that is what MUST have happened! And Jesus also MUST have appeared in front of the grieving wives and children to wipe their tears away… why didn’t I think of that?

Do not be so hard on yourself, it is an easy mistake to make

And, naturally, the same thing happened to all of those hundreds of thousands who perished in Earthquakes, and avalanches, and wildfires… way before Jesus was born… (but then again Jesus could have manifested himself when he was not even born… what is such a minor inconvenience to omnipotence??) And let’s remember all those 6 millon Jews and gypsies and atheist communists who were gassed in the Nazi concetration camps… and those untold millions in Stalin’s gulags… obviously God has grabbed them and they are all in heaven, sinners and atheists and good people alike… why didn’t I think of such an obvious solution? And I am sure you have ample evidence that this is what actually happened. Maybe a videotape? Care to share it?

Maybe, do you have proof that He didn’t.

Or is your post just another feeble attempt to whitewash the obviously manifested lack of love and caring that God does not put on display…??? The lack of love is crying up to “heaven”, and you say “maybe…???” and “how do you know???”… Really, do you think I am as gullible as that? Oh, by the way… I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn, at a reasonable price… are you interested?

If I had sufficient reason to trust you, then yes I would like to buy your bridge.

God took human form as Jesus, suffered for our sins, and died. He then resurrected and sent His disciples out into the world. What more could you possible want for evidence?

 

[cranster]

How do you know He didn’t? How do you know that Jesus did not appear to those 3 miners, and say to them, “Have no fear my children, for today you will be with me in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

You want God to rescue their earthly life, but more important is their heavenly life. Maybe that event, although not created by God, led these 3 miners to a conversion of their hearts. We can observe the fact that these miners ultimately died in this world, but to assume that God does not love and care for them is presumptuous.

That’s the fundamental difference in the world view of the atheist and the Christian. The atheist thinks this life is it and if there is a God he should remove all suffering in this life.

Suffering is the natural consequence of our disobedience to God, but a loving God does not abondon His children, and gave us a means of reconciliation to Him through the person of Jesus Christ, and gave us the hope of eternal life with Him. It is precisely this hope of spending eternity with God that gives suffering meaning. Suffering is the mechanism of purification that elevates us to the state of perfection required by God to be in His presence.

Suffering is not endless for the Christian, but a temporary condition of our fallen nature that God uses to elevate us to what He intended us to be in the first place. We chose to be less than what He intended for us. God took one of the consequence of sin… suffering, and turned it into something beneficial for the repentant sinner to help us escape the ultimate consequence of sin… eternal death. Suffering is the fire in which gold is purified. For the non believer it has no meaning, but sometimes it gets our attention and causes us to turn to God. If God’s goal for us is eternal life with Him in Heaven then He can hit us upside the head in this piddly 100 year existence as many times as He needs to, to get our attention and direct us to eternal life.

On another note. I find it interesting that atheists claim it’s all superstition and fairy tales with no evidence. There is plenty of evidence, i.e. fatima, the Eucharistic miracles, Juan Diego’s tilma, the in corrupt bodies of the saints plus many, many more. It’s not that there is no evidence, the evidence is there it has just been rejected. Let’s say that God did open the sky and says I’m here and we were any more capable of seeing Him than we are capable of seeing a parallel universe right on top of this one. God is Spirit and does not have a physical body, how can we see that? Besides, let’s for arguments sake say we could, the real question is would that cause the non believers to stop sinning and disobeying God, or would they be all the more angrier knowing for certain there is an eternal consequence for not giving up something they don’t want to give up… sin?

 

[chessmane4e5]

On another note. I find it interesting that atheists claim it’s all superstition and fairy tales with no evidence. There is plenty of evidence, i.e. fatima, the Eucharistic miracles, Juan Diego’s tilma, the in corrupt bodies of the saints plus many, many more. It’s not that there is no evidence, the evidence is there it has just been rejected. Let’s say that God did open the sky and says I’m here and we were any more capable of seeing Him than we are capable of seeing a parallel universe right on top of this one. God is Spirit and does not have a physical body, how can we see that? Besides, let’s for arguments sake say we could, the real question is would that cause the non believers to stop sinning and disobeying God, or would they be all the more angrier knowing for certain there is an eternal consequence for not giving up something they don’t want to give up… sin?

Right on

In fact, when the Atheist says, “If God exists, why does He not prove it?”

Answer, He did, it was Jesus Christ. But there were people back then who denied Him, and it would be no different today if God were to ascend from Heaven on a Cloud in all His glory. People would still look for an explanation. Such is the gift of Free Will.