Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

since the goal is to have people be able to freely choose to love Him. it seems to be working out. G-d set a goal, and acheived that goal. intrinsic to the fulfillment of said goal is a will free to choose any path it wishes. the existence of people who do evil, and the suffering that may be incurred from their actions, are not flaws, but must necessarily be possible in order for the existence of free will, and then the existence of men. men who can freel y choose to love as well as do evil. its a neat package.

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

true. we arent literalists, in general. but there was a place between the rivers. called Paradise. where G-d dwelt with us. the important par tis that

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?

because your making judgement calls like, “G-d should have done this or that.” since you are not an omniscient being, you have no idea what G-d should or should not have done. you can only have an opinion based on what you know. thats not a solid foundation.

i am not, however, making judgment calls, when i say that G-d is Good. i am repeating what i know from the written and oral records of 3 faiths and thousands of witnesses over millenia. considering the adventures ive had though, He is doing pretty good by me.

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.

ok then. let me answer the question in post #86 again. in 2 parts.

“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.”

1. simulated love is insincere because it is not the product of a free will. when one has no choice but to ‘love’ then it isnt really love its simply an automatic response.
2. “real” love can be distinguished from “simulated” by a being who is omniscient. obviously that is information that wold be included by definition. that is how one can tell the difference between the two. it does not matter, that i personally cannot, as we are talking about G-d.

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

um…im arguing from popularity, that would be to claim that something is true because so many people believe it to be so. i am pointing out the existence of thousands of eyewitnesses to what you are calling “superstitions”.

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

ive never taken a course in the sciences that showed we are less responsible for our actions because there is someone more intelligent around. ive never seen science to that effect at all. nor do i think most people would claim they werent responsiblefor their actions because they werent smart enough. we are not children. imagine a supersmart alien lives in your house, are you somehow less responsible for your actions because there is a supersmart alien there?, of course not.

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.

youre mistaking **freedom of action **for freedom of will. a physical constraint doesnt change the ontological status of free will. you can always make a decision to accomplish a goal. thats your free will. you do not always have the freedom of action to actually accomplish that goal.

so you can decide to flap your arms (freedom of will), but you probably wont accomplish flight.(freedom of action).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

im not sure it matters, in that free will is intregal to all forms of love. they must be entirely voluntary.

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.

people might do that, if they can get past the essential have-a-blow-up-doll-cause-i-cant-get-a-real-girl-because-ima-dork zeitgeist of the times. but i think people will still want children and a simulated lovebot, would still just be a blow up doll. there is more to the human condition than just a simulation of emotion.

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

when you say programming i get the impression that you do not mean literal option limiting programming. but rather simple education, that doesnt restrict free will.

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.

when i say sacrifice i mean to do so for love, not simply to give something away. we are using the word “sacrifice” in 2 different ways. G-d isnt demanding your love, He is asking for your love. He went so far as to die, beaten, spit on, jeered, tortured, and finally hung from a Tree, humiliated, as His Mother wept. all the while, it was the person who we sinned against, the person we offended. that was the Person who Suffered in our place.

its like you murdered some guys family in the most monstrous of ways. but when they strapped you to a gurney, the guy stepped in to the room, rolled up his shirt sleeves and said, i love you no matter what., i got this one. that is as real as love gets.

so G-d did reveal Himself to us in an unambigiuous manner, and did so until the Messianic Prophecies were fulfilled. but we rejected Him in the beginning, we cannot live with Him again until each of us makes that decision for ourselves. to serve, or not.

so not only did G-d completely, totally, and irrevocably earn our undying and infinite love and gratitude.

if you are concerned about the existence of G-d, if the testimony of hundreds and thousands of unconnected eyewitnesses throughout the Scripture is insufficient, thats fine. one may know G-ds existence through reason. free will, the 5 ways. Thomistic metaphysics, etc.

 

[antunesaa]

God easily could have created a world without suffering, with free will and without sin at all. Or he could have created everyone into heaven - directly. Catholics believe that Mary was fully human, she was created without sin, and she chose not to sin. Therefore, God could have created everyone just like her.

He he he… come on, your reasoning is reminiscent of the “grandpa syndrome”. Writer C.S. Lewis once wrote that we humans rebel against our Father because we really would like to have a Grandfather in Heaven: someone who would protect us, gently correct us when we did something wrong, and keep us out of trouble. Those people really would prefer being spoon fed instead of taking life as it comes, in its entirety, beauty, and drama.

God proposes us a very different thing. By immersing us in this awesome reality, He tells us to negotiate our path through the tight curves and short lanes of life. When we really fail, things like the Holocaust happen. When reality is too harsh, things like the earthquake in Indonesia happen. But in the end we, sinners, have an exciting opportunity of redemption and salvation.

 

[JRKH]

Please do not blame those who suffer by making them feel that their sinning has caused their suffering. Maybe the sinning is on the part of others inflicting the suffering. Or, maybe this is one of the times when we don’t know and won’t know why some suffer so greatly and others little or not at all. God does not cause suffering. We do not always create our own. It is our role as Catholics to comfort, not condemn.

You may be right. Suffering may be brought to us by others. In such case the suffering is allowed by God in order that we might grow to Love Him more, rely on Him more, and grow closer to Him in our Lives.
Thus it is that Christ told us to pray for those who spitefully use us.

Peace
James

 

[tonyrey]

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

The earthquake in Haiti demonstrates to what extent human beings are responsible for so much unnecessary suffering and death in the world. Seismologists have warned us that a single earthquake could claim the lives not of thousands but of three million **people **in areas of high seismic riskmega-cities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Tehran. It is human folly, indifference and greed that puts so many lives at risk.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

We have both the power and the knowledge to prevent many disasters. We know where most earthquakes occur. The earthquake in Haiti demonstrates to what extent human beings are responsible for so much unnecessary suffering and death in the world. Seismologists have warned us that a single earthquake could claim the lives not of thousands but of three million **people **in areas of high seismic riskmega-cities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Tehran. It is human folly, indifference and greed that is at the root of the problem…

 

[tonyrey]

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.

We have both the power and the knowledge to prevent many disasters. We know where most earthquakes occur. The earthquake in Haiti demonstrates to what extent human beings are responsible for so much unnecessary suffering and death in the world. Seismologists have warned us that a single earthquake could claim the lives not of thousands but of three million **people **in areas of high seismic riskmega-cities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Tehran. It is human folly, indifference and greed that are at the root of the problem…

 

[R_Daneel]

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

Well, after a nice long vacation I was hoping to return and see someone on your side properly chastize you for demanding evidence for the lack of an event happening… of course this hope was in vain. So, here is your evidence: if I remember correctly, in the Cathecism it is declared that salvation can only be reached via the Catholic Church. Yes, I know, you are not allowed to hypothesize about an individual’s salvation, but that does not invalidate the Church doctrine - no Catholic, no salvation. So all those non-Catholics perishing in natural disasters are out of luck. Yes, the poor people in Haiti come to mind, who were crushed in those mudslides. God could have prevented the Earthquake, but he did not. Is that the kind of “love” to hold up as being worthy to follow?

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

Right. But my word is insufficient for you - and with good reason. Why should you accept my word only, without corroborating evidence? Now, if only you would grant me the same good reason when I reject your word for something, we actually might get some good conversation going.

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?

Something like actual evidence for you claim. It is simply the re-hashing of an on mythology. And, please, do not waste your time of claiming that millions of people believe what you believe. Argument from numbers is still a fallacy, no matter how many times it is being “used”. Mythology is not proof, it is not even evidence. But, even if you could substantiate your claim, it would be insufficient. Where is the sign of love and caring, here and now?

 

[R_Daneel]

youre mistaking **freedom of action **for freedom of will. a physical constraint doesnt change the ontological status of free will. you can always make a decision to accomplish a goal. thats your free will. you do not always have the freedom of action to actually accomplish that goal.

so you can decide to flap your arms (freedom of will), but you probably wont accomplish flight.(freedom of action).

No, I am not mistaking anything. Freedom of action is the only freedom that matters.

 

[R_Daneel]

He he he… come on, your reasoning is reminiscent of the “grandpa syndrome”. Writer C.S. Lewis once wrote that we humans rebel against our Father because we really would like to have a Grandfather in Heaven: someone who would protect us, gently correct us when we did something wrong, and keep us out of trouble. Those people really would prefer being spoon fed instead of taking life as it comes, in its entirety, beauty, and drama.

Correct. That is what true, real love is: gently correcting the mistakes, not allowing any irreversible action to be taken. Freedom to do something “stupid” is only allowed for teaching purposes, when the result of that “stupid” mistake is not fatal.

God proposes us a very different thing. By immersing us in this awesome reality, He tells us to negotiate our path through the tight curves and short lanes of life. When we really fail, things like the Holocaust happen. When reality is too harsh, things like the earthquake in Indonesia happen. But in the end we, sinners, have an exciting opportunity of redemption and salvation.

And even is this path were preferable (and it is not!) the price to pay in collateral damage is appalingly high. Narrow is the way to heaven (so the doctrine says) and few are the ones who negotiate it. To allow the rest fall “wayside” is definitely not “love”.

 

[R_Daneel]

im not sure it matters, in that free will is intregal to all forms of love. they must be entirely voluntary.

It does matter a lot. What would you care if a doctor treats you out of “emotional” attachment, or if he treats you because it is his job? A robot doctor (which would never tire) would be infinitely preferable. And let’s not forget about those semi-robotic mine-seekers. They have no choice but sacrifice themselves to protect the soldiers, and yet - the soldiers actually develop a strong, emotional bond to these machines. They give them names, and they get distressed when the “robot-dog” gets blown in its line of duty. Your view that love and free will must go hand-in-hand is quite simplistic and proven incorrect.

when you say programming i get the impression that you do not mean literal option limiting programming. but rather simple education, that doesnt restrict free will.

It certainly does limit people’s reactions. When someone is brought up consistently in an environment which teaches that lying or murdering is wrong, they will grow a mental “block”, which will prevent them from exercising their “free” option of engaging in these types of activities. And that is the aim of the game. To instill preferable methods of conducting your life - pretty much to make them instinctive. You don’t ponder if you should grab a child running into harm’s way, you just do it. (God, of course does not.)

G-d isnt demanding your love, He is asking for your love.

The first commandment contradicts you. It is not the “first suggestion” as you say, it is a commandment, which is underscored by the threat of eternal damnation if you fail to comply. Not much of a “freedom”, is there?

so G-d did reveal Himself to us in an unambigiuous manner, and did so until the Messianic Prophecies were fulfilled. but we rejected Him in the beginning, we cannot live with Him again until each of us makes that decision for ourselves. to serve, or not.

Mythology will not help you.

if you are concerned about the existence of G-d, if the testimony of hundreds and thousands of unconnected eyewitnesses throughout the Scripture is insufficient, thats fine. one may know G-ds existence through reason. free will, the 5 ways. Thomistic metaphysics, etc.

No one takes those “proofs” seriously outside the belivers, who don’t need them anyway. And the reason for that it that each and every one of theose “proofs” is based upon some logical fallacies. I really wish they would not be brought up over and over again. A serious waste of time and energy.

 

[former_Catholic]

God allows suffering on earth for one reason and one reason alone:
so that humanity may learn compassion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I am not mistaking anything.

they are two different concepts. its like you are conflating a pick up, and a bird. two entirely different things.

Freedom of action is the only freedom that matters.

maybe you mean that free will doesnt matter if ones free will choices cant be carried out physically? in that case i would point out again that the ontiological status of free will doesnt depend on the entirely different concept ‘freedom of action.’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It does matter a lot. What would you care if a doctor treats you out of “emotional” attachment, or if he treats you because it is his job? A robot doctor (which would never tire) would be infinitely preferable.

what does this have to do with love? i dont go to the doctor for love.

And let’s not forget about those semi-robotic mine-seekers. They have no choice but sacrifice themselves to protect the soldiers, and yet - the soldiers actually develop a strong, emotional bond to these machines. They give them names, and they get distressed when the “robot-dog” gets blown in its line of duty.

a machine cannot sacrifice itself, it has no free will.

Your view that love and free will must go hand-in-hand is quite simplistic and proven incorrect.

not from what you have been saying, your not even talking about situations where love is part of the equation.

It certainly does limit people’s reactions. When someone is brought up consistently in an environment which teaches that lying or murdering is wrong, they will grow a mental “block”, which will prevent them from exercising their “free” option of engaging in these types of activities.

funny then that the prisons are full. shouldnt their mental blocks have kept them from doing things?

And that is the aim of the game. To instill preferable methods of conducting your life - pretty much to make them instinctive. You don’t ponder if you should grab a child running into harm’s way, you just do it.

what game? even animals protect their young as instinct, that has nothing to do education.

(God, of course does not.)

yeah, that darn free will again.

The first commandment contradicts you. It is not the “first suggestion” as you say, it is a commandment, which is underscored by the threat of eternal damnation if you fail to comply. Not much of a “freedom”, is there?

G-d doesnt force you to love Him, and if you refuse to, you have chosen that separation from G-ds love, called hell.

its all about freedom. you will be allowed to exercise your choice, even if it there is a better way.

Mythology will not help you.

what mythology? im talking about mathematics and historical facts.

[No one takes those “proofs” seriously outside the belivers, who don’t need them anyway.

i can happily defend them against anyone. i do it all the time. how? because those proofs are a very big deal, taken seriously by everyone except those who hope there is no G-d.

And the reason for that it that each and every one of theose “proofs” is based upon some logical fallacies.

oh really?, please, enlighten me as to the particular logical fallacies you refer too.

I really wish they would not be brought up over and over again. A serious waste of time and energy.

then you shouldnt have any problem backing that up, huh? im a metaphysician, and i would be quite happy to disabuse you of such notions.
[/quote]

 

[R_Daneel]

maybe you mean that free will doesnt matter if ones free will choices cant be carried out physically? in that case i would point out again that the ontiological status of free will doesnt depend on the entirely different concept ‘freedom of action.’

Well, here is a problem for you to analyze: a bunch of bad guys are about to gang-rape a woman. They have the “will” and the freedom to act it out. The woman - according to what you said - has her own “free will” unimpaired - she is simply unable to act out her “will” (to escape her predicament). This is what you say, in stark, simple terms. And I say that this is full of BS. “Will” (desire, intent) without the “ability” to carry it out is nonsense. You proud yourself to be a metaphisician, and you spout such nonsense. Shame, shame…

 

[R_Daneel]

what does this have to do with love? i dont go to the doctor for love.

Love is supposed to be an act of will. (Catholic definition, repeated over and over again.) The doctor sacrifices his time and energy to help others, even if he does not hope for a reimbursement - the Hyppocratic oath “demands” that. That is “love” according to the Catholic definition. You would not refuse the doctor’s treatment, even if the doctor would be a robot. The value of the help the doctor renders is not contingent upon the doctor’s mental disposition of “free will”. A forced treatment (of a robot) is just as valuable as the freely chosen treatment of human doctor. If you are unable to comprehend that, you are in even sorrier state than I suspect.

a machine cannot sacrifice itself, it has no free will.

The soldiers disagree with you.

funny then that the prisons are full. shouldnt their mental blocks have kept them from doing things?

Yes, it would be nice, and eventually it will happen, too. For the time being a lesser solution is implemented, the criminals are prevented from carrying out their desires by being kept behind bars. I am saying that those people are curtailed in exercising their free will (and rightfully so), while you assert that their free will is unimparied despite their freedom to act it out being taken away.

yeah, that darn free will again.

I wonder, if you see your child attempting to push two wires into a live socket, do you just stand to the side, and allow him to experiment, in the name of “free will”?

G-d doesnt force you to love Him, and if you refuse to, you have chosen that separation from G-ds love, called hell.

God demands and commands you to love him - while doing nothing to earn that love. Besides, I, personally, do not reject God. I reject the caricature you believers paint about God - a mean, vindictive and evil peeping Tom, whose primary concern is what two loving people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by R Daneel
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.

We have both the power and the knowledge to prevent many disasters. We know where most earthquakes occur. The earthquake in Haiti demonstrates to what extent human beings are responsible for so much unnecessary suffering and death in the world. Seismologists have warned us that a single earthquake could claim the lives not of thousands but of three million people in areas of high seismic riskmega-cities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Tehran. Has anyone taken any notice? It is human folly, indifference and greed that are at the root of the problem…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, here is a problem for you to analyze: a bunch of bad guys are about to gang-rape a woman. They have the “will” and the freedom to act it out. The woman - according to what you said - has her own “free will” unimpaired - she is simply unable to act out her “will” (to escape her predicament). This is what you say, in stark, simple terms. And I say that this is full of BS. “Will” (desire, intent) without the “ability” to carry it out is nonsense. You proud yourself to be a metaphisician, and you spout such nonsense. Shame, shame…

once again, freedom of action doesnt affect the ontological status of free will. they are two different concepts.

 

[R_Daneel]

We have both the **power **and the knowledge to prevent many disasters.

A very few, actually, and only in a very limited fashion. A prediction of an Earthquake, of a tornado, of a hurricane is sketchy at best. The place where a tornado will “touch down” is entirely unpredictable.

We know where most earthquakes occur. The earthquake in Haiti demonstrates to what extent human beings are responsible for so much unnecessary suffering and death in the world. Seismologists have warned us that a single earthquake could claim the lives not of thousands but of** three million** people in areas of high seismic riskmega-cities such as Mexico City, Tokyo and Tehran. Has anyone taken any notice? It is human folly, indifference and greed that are at the root of the problem…

There is no way to evacuate all the possible victims, there are simply too many. God could simply prevent these natural disasters from happening, and then there would be no need to help the victims - there would be no victims. Prevention is the key, as always. The buck stops with the one who has the knowledge and the power - with God. Haiti is merely the most current example of God’s indifference. I wonder, how many disasters should happen before the believers would open their eyes and see this simple fact: “God does not care what happens to us!”.

 

[R_Daneel]

once again, freedom of action doesnt affect the ontological status of free will. they are two different concepts.

What can I say? Goodbye. I am not going to waste more time on someone who is that unwilling or unable to contemplate reality.