Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

love is an act of free will, but was does a doctors hippocratic oath have to do with it? he could choose to violate it if he wished.

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.

i agree the value of the service is the same, but what does that have to do with free will?

The soldiers disagree with you.

then surely you have a more rational refutation. what would that be?

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.

you say that because you keep conflating freedom of action and free will. like some kind of magic happens when a persons freedom of action is limited, causing their free will to dissappear. magic. i dont do magic. you need a better reason for your assertion than some unexplained magical process.

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”?

of course i stop them, but then freedom of action doesnt affect the ontological status of free will.

God demands and commands you to love him - while doing nothing to earn that love.

but He does not force you. you can refuse. thats your free will. and considering that he died so that you may be redeemed from your sins. i think thats earned your love. but its your choice.

Besides, I, personally, do not reject God. I reject the caricature you believers paint about God - a mean, vindictive and evil peeping Tom,

um, where do you get that idea? mean, evil, peeping tom? where does that come from?

whose primary concern is what two loving people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

what makes you think thats G-ds primary concern? as long as they are married, the act is lawful, and open to conception of life (no birth control), then i dont think He is concerned at all. why would he be?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

you could offer a rational argument to support your assertion. thats what your supposed to do here.

 

[tonyrey]

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.
A few! You underestimate the knowledge of scientists… I repeat:
**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.
** Who will be responsible when disaster strikes? (And it is only a question of time…)

There is no way to evacuate all the possible victims, there are simply too many.

You have a very crude, simplistic view of the universe. Have you ever designed one? What makes you think you are capable of doing better than God?

 

[tonyrey]

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.
A few! You underestimate the knowledge of scientists… I repeat:
**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.
** Who will be responsible when disaster strikes? (And it is only a question of time…)

There is no way to evacuate all the possible victims, there are simply too many.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

You grossly underestimate the knowledge of scientists… I repeat:
**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. ** Who will be responsible when disaster strikes?

There is no way to evacuate all the possible victims, there are simply too many.

No way! You mean most people in the world can’t be bothered to help unless they are affected themselves… or unless it is too late.
Why were skyscrapers built in an earthquake zone in the first place? There is no excuse for such insanity…

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.

Explain how disasters could be prevented.

The buck stops with the one who has the knowledge and the power - with God.

The buck stops with us because we have been given control. The very fact that you criticise God shows that you are your own boss. You can’t blame God for what you choose to do… or not do…

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!”.

Have you ever designed a universe? What are your qualifications?

 

[R_Daneel]

You grossly underestimate the knowledge of scientists… I repeat:
**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. ** Who will be responsible when disaster strikes?

The one who allows them - God.

Explain how disasters could be prevented.

Omnipotence. Natural phenomena are not logically contradictory events, so God’s omnipotence could deal with them.

The buck stops with us because we have been given control. The very fact that you criticise God shows that you are your own boss. You can’t blame God for what you choose to do… or not do…

I don’t cause nor I am able to prevent earthquakes (etc.). If I could prevent them, and would fail to do so, the blame would be with me.

 

[R_Daneel]

you could offer a rational argument to support your assertion. thats what your supposed to do here.

I already did, but maybe it went over your head. So, for one final time I will repeat the argument. If “free will” is simply the freely existing desire/wish/want/will to imagine something, and to be able to carry it out would not be a necessary requirement, then free will is an irrelevant category. Whether it exists or not is of no consequence.

Moreover, if that would be the case, then God could simply take away all of our physical abilities to cause/do/perform any harmful actions, and our free will would not be impaired - and all the human caused mayhems/murders/tortures/genocides would simply disappear - and we would still have “free will” to do any of these.

Of course, no one ever asserts such nonsense as you do, neither philosophers, nor theologians; or the everyday Joe Schmoe’s on the street. Everyone, with even half a brain understands that willing something without the ability to do it is an empty category. All you did (instead of arguing for your position) was mindlessly repeating that “free will” and “freedom of action” are two different categories. As I said, I am not interested in wasting my time to explain the obvious.

 

[tonyrey]

You grossly underestimate the knowledge of scientists… I repeat:
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. Who will be responsible when disaster strikes?

So you prefer to be a puppet…

Explain how disasters could be prevented.

Omnipotence. Natural phenomena are not logically contradictory events, so God’s omnipotence could deal with them.

Explain omnipotence. BTW You need to be omniscient to know what omnipoence entails…

The buck stops with us because we have been given control. The very fact that you criticise God shows that you are your own boss. You can’t blame God for what you choose to do… or not do…

I don’t cause nor I am able to prevent earthquakes (etc.).

Explain how they can be prevented.

If I could prevent them, and would fail to do so, the blame would be with me.

Indeed. And the blame is partly with you! Why? Because you **know **the consequences of an earthquake in Tokyo and other cities and you have done nothing to help prevent them.
According to you God is to blame for everything and we are absolutely guiltless! What a pathetic argument. Try using it if you have to appear in court…

 

[R_Daneel]

So you prefer to be a puppet…

What is wrong with being God’s puppet?

Explain omnipotence. BTW You need to be omniscient to know what omnipoence entails…

Actually, no, I don’t need it. I did not come up with these nonsensical concepts, the Catholic Church did. So ask the representatives of the Church.

Explain how they can be prevented.

So simple. God wills it not to happen, and voila! it does not happen.

Indeed. And the blame is partly with you! Why? Because you **know **the consequences of an earthquake in Tokyo and other cities and you have done nothing to help prevent them.

I accept the blame to the extent to my ability to prevent them, which is exactly zero.

According to you God is to blame for everything and we are absolutely guiltless! What a pathetic argument. Try using it if you have to appear in court…

You try it. I said nothing of the kind. All I am saying is that the resposibility for something is directly proportional to the knowledge and the power of the individual in question - be it good or bad. If you wish to give credit to God for something you consider good and beneficial, then have the intellectual courage and assign the blame also to the one who has the power to prevent it, but does not do it. Not too complicated an idea - at least I don’t think so. Your milage may vary.

 

[tonyrey]

What is wrong with being God’s puppet?

When you ask a question like that it is obvious why so many people give up trying to have a rational discussion with you…

Explain omnipotence. BTW You need to be omniscient to know what omnipoence entails…

Actually, no, I don’t need it. I did not come up with these nonsensical concepts, the Catholic Church did. So ask the representatives of the Church.

Yet another evasion…

Explain how they can be prevented.

So simple. God wills it not to happen, and voila! it does not happen.

Simplistic is more appropriate…

Indeed. And the blame is partly with you! Why? Because you know the consequences of an earthquake in Tokyo and other cities and you have done nothing to help prevent them.

I accept the blame to the extent to my ability to prevent them, which is exactly zero.

An evasion of responsibility this time… I now understand why you pin all the blame on God. It makes you absolutely guiltless in every respect!

According to you God is to blame for everything and we are absolutely guiltless! What a pathetic argument. Try using it if you have to appear in court…

All I am saying is that the responsibility for something is directly proportional to the knowledge and the power of the individual in question - be it good or bad. If you wish to give credit to God for something you consider good and beneficial, then have the intellectual courage and assign the blame also to the one who has the power to prevent it, but does not do it. Not too complicated an idea - at least I don’t think so. Your mileage may vary.

You’ve already made it clear you believe God is to blame for everything so that lets everyone else off the hook completely. Your mileage doesn’t vary at all. You’re bound to win whatever happens! Farewell.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I already did, but maybe it went over your head. So, for one final time I will repeat the argument. If “free will” is simply the freely existing desire/wish/want/will to imagine something, and to be able to carry it out would not be a necessary requirement, then free will is an irrelevant category. Whether it exists or not is of no consequence.

did you finally look it up? now your changing up, you said we didnt have free will if we didnt have freedom of action, a change in ontological status, now youre saying that if we dont have freedom of action it doesnt matter. you changed your story.

Moreover, if that would be the case, then God could simply take away all of our physical abilities to cause/do/perform any harmful actions, and our free will would not be impaired - and all the human caused mayhems/murders/tortures/genocides would simply disappear - and we would still have “free will” to do any of these.

why would G-d do that? you just pointed it out that free will restrained makes free will ineffective.

Of course, no one ever asserts such nonsense as you do, neither philosophers, nor theologians; or the everyday Joe Schmoe’s on the street. Everyone, with even half a brain understands that willing something without the ability to do it is an empty category. All you did (instead of arguing for your position) was mindlessly repeating that “free will” and “freedom of action” are two different categories. As I said, I am not interested in wasting my time to explain the obvious.

now that you realize your mistake, you want to change the story huh? and youre calling me names?

 

[R_Daneel]

did you finally look it up? now your changing up, you said we didnt have free will if we didnt have freedom of action, a change in ontological status, now youre saying that if we dont have freedom of action it doesnt matter. you changed your story.

You are not the sharpest knife in the block. I simply pointed out that freedom to **act **on one’s will is an **integral part **of having a meaningful free will.

why would G-d do that? you just pointed it out that free will restrained makes free will ineffective.

You still don’t understand, but that is your problem, not mine. I already wasted too much time on your “arguments”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Simplistic is more appropriate…

Let there be light… and there was light.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are not the sharpest knife in the block.

and yet, i dont blurt out things like this.

I simply pointed out that freedom to **act **on one’s will is an **integral part **of having a meaningful free will.

now you are.

You still don’t understand, but that is your problem, not mine. I already wasted too much time on your “arguments”.

you were the one conflating freedom of action with freedom of will, as though free will disappears when freedom of action is restricted.

now, free will is still necessary for love. you havent moved the ball at all.

 

[R_Daneel]

you were the one conflating freedom of action with freedom of will, as though free will **disappears **when freedom of action is restricted.

You still don’t understand. Free will disappears if the freedom to act on it is removed. Free will is **restricted **if freedom to act is restricted. What is so complicated about the difference between “restricted” and “removed”?

now, free will is still necessary for love. you havent moved the ball at all.

Love is an undefined word here. Love is an emotion, not subject to volitional control. The **expression **of love is subject to volitional control. Love without expressing it in actions is not relevant. The actions which come from expressing the emotions are exactly as valuable as the same actions even if they are not connected to the emotions. Therefore love as the motivating factor behind the actions is just another meaningless category. Again, the actions are important, not the motivating reason for the actions.

As for God’s alleged “love”, there are no actions to substantiate this claim. God does not come to the rescue in need, God does not heal the sick, God does not do anything that could be interpreted as “love”. Even if there would be an emotion in God (which is a dubious claim), there are no volitional actions which would lend credence to this claim. The only possible substantiation would be John 3:16, which is just an empty promise in a book of mythology. There is no evidence for it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Love is an undefined word here. Love is an emotion,

Love is the effort toward devoted support. It is NOT “an emotion”, but **sensed **as an emotion only when the mind has any residual resistance to the urge. Without any resistence, the emotion is not felt because the act is immediately in progress without “urging”.

God supports Life and thus loves Life. But that necessitates allowing Life to get into dangerous waters and thus often SOME life has no choice but to be lost so that Life as a whole can grow.

 

[R_Daneel]

Love is the effort toward devoted support. It is NOT “an emotion”, but **sensed **as an emotion only when the mind has any residual resistance to the urge. Without any resistence, the emotion is not felt because the act is immediately in progress without “urging”.

Arbitrary “definition”.

God supports Life and thus loves Life.

Any evidence for that?

But that necessitates allowing Life to get into dangerous waters and thus often SOME life has no choice but to be lost so that Life as a whole can grow.

Which is full nonsense, though it sounds profound.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Any evidence for that?

You still exist.

 

[Sair]

Love is the effort toward devoted support. It is NOT “an emotion”, but **sensed **as an emotion only when the mind has any residual resistance to the urge. Without any resistence, the emotion is not felt because the act is immediately in progress without “urging”.

God supports Life and thus loves Life. But that necessitates allowing Life to get into dangerous waters and thus often SOME life has no choice but to be lost so that Life as a whole can grow.

There is no logic in supposing that suffering is necessitated by free will, even if such a phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist.

As was pointed out in the thread regarding the problem of evil, it is not beyond the abilities of an omnipotent god to create a race of beings who are exclusively inclined towards benignity - this still allows the option of active good or passive non-harm, which would still allow exercise of free will.

Love is the name that humans give - in English, at least - to a panoply of emotions. I can, with equal validity, claim that I love my husband and that I love cheese, but only a simpleton or a wilful ignoramus would claim that I mean the same feeling in each case.

Love, as I apply it to my feelings towards my fellow creatures, is a complete appreciation, but not a passive acceptance that allows destructive behaviour without at least an attempt at assistance or guidance. God, as conceived in the Judeo-Christian tradition, does not even live up to your standard of devoted support - rather, he stands passively by in the face of vast harm, or - if you believe certain Bible accounts - actively intervenes to increase harm. If that is what love really is, I want no part of it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is no logic in supposing that suffering is necessitated by free will, even if such a phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist.

As was pointed out in the thread regarding the problem of evil, it is not beyond the abilities of an omnipotent god to create a race of beings who are exclusively inclined towards benignity - this still allows the option of active good or passive non-harm, which would still allow exercise of free will.

To see the logic contradiction requires that you be of a logical mind.

In the proposed logical world wherein people are “free” to do as they please, they cannot be restricted to being only benign, else they are not free. Free MEANS “no restrictions”. This IS an issue of logic. What is free cannot also be what is restricted (not free).