Why doesn't God just not create the bad people to keep them from going to hell

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;12281152:

He seems to believe God is indifferent or unaware because He permits suffering.

God permits His creation to carry on as it will. Creation is not an indifferent act and at least He doesn’t have a plan that includes suffering as a major aspect.
How do you assess whether suffering is a major aspect? The vast majority of living beings are not deformed, diseased or disabled. Leibniz observed that houses are far more numerous than hospitals…

 

[Tom_Baum]

oldcelt;12281174:

How do you assess whether suffering is a major aspect? The vast majority of living beings are not deformed, diseased or disabled. Leibniz observed that houses are far more numerous than hospitals…

Suffering seems quite universal, if one is honest at looking at reality.

There is more than just physical suffering.

Some of the worst suffering that some go thru would never show up on any kind of physical looking for it.

One need not go in a hospital to find suffering.

 

[oldcelt]

tonyrey;12288901:

Suffering seems quite universal, if one is honest at looking at reality.

There is more than just physical suffering.

Some of the worst suffering that some go thru would never show up on any kind of physical looking for it.

One need not go in a hospital to find suffering.

Tom, That quote wasn’t mine…quite a bit of that happening.

 

[MacQ]

How do you assess whether suffering is a major aspect? The vast majority of living beings are not deformed, diseased or disabled. Leibniz observed that houses are far more numerous than hospitals…

Are you honestly inferring that if you’re in a house and not a hospital, you’re not suffering?
You’re not suffering if you’re not deformed disabled or diseased?
REALLY? That’s the scope of human suffering?
I’m pretty sure “suffering” is an aspect of every life in some degree, at some stage, for some length of time.

That aside, I can’t tell what point you’re trying to make.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Tom Baum;12289090:

Tom, That quote wasn’t mine…quite a bit of that happening.

I see your point since what I wrote is attributed to tonyrey.

It seems that it was tonyrey who wrote what I responded to.

So tonyrey, you wrote, "How do you assess whether suffering is a major aspect? The vast majority of living beings are not deformed, diseased or disabled. Leibniz observed that houses are far more numerous than hospitals… "

My response was/is:

"Suffering seems quite universal, if one is honest at looking at reality.

There is more than just physical suffering.

Some of the worst suffering that some go thru would never show up on any kind of physical looking for it.

One need not go in a hospital to find suffering.

Except for death, suffering seems to be one of the most universal of human experiences despite what “Leibniz observed”.

Seems to be a pretty superficial observation anyway.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;12288901:

Suffering seems quite universal, if one is honest at looking at reality.

There is more than just physical suffering.

Some of the worst suffering that some go thru would never show up on any kind of physical looking for it.

One need not go in a hospital to find suffering.

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of living beings are suffering severely?

 

[Bradski]

Tom Baum;12289090:

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of living beings are suffering severely?

Would it matter? Isn’t it meant to be good for us?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;12295318:

Would it matter? Isn’t it meant to be good for us?

You need to be more discerning, Brad…

I could ask you “Isn’t severe suffering always bad for us?”

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question.” John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism

 

[tonyrey]

oldcelt;12289315:

I see your point since what I wrote is attributed to tonyrey.

It seems that it was tonyrey who wrote what I responded to.

So tonyrey, you wrote, "How do you assess whether suffering is a major aspect? The vast majority of living beings are not deformed, diseased or disabled. Leibniz observed that houses are far more numerous than hospitals… "

My response was/is:

"Suffering seems quite universal, if one is honest at looking at reality.

There is more than just physical suffering.

Some of the worst suffering that some go thru would never show up on any kind of physical looking for it.

One need not go in a hospital to find suffering.

Except for death, suffering seems to be one of the most universal of human experiences despite what “Leibniz observed”.

Seems to be a pretty superficial observation anyway.

It is not superficial unless you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet…

 

[tonyrey]

Are you honestly inferring that if you’re in a house and not a hospital, you’re not suffering?
You’re not suffering if you’re not deformed disabled or diseased?
REALLY? That’s the scope of human suffering?

Non sequitur.

I’m pretty sure “suffering” is an aspect of every life in some degree, at some stage, for some length of time.

Does that outweigh the value of life?

That aside, I can’t tell what point you’re trying to make.

The point that this is the best of all **feasible **worlds in which there is physical life and persons who are capable of love and self-determination. To believe otherwise is not Christian…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, here’s hoping it is pleasant…
I’d like to think that some re-uniting with lost loved ones is possible.
But it’ll be what it’ll be, I reckon.

According to Christian belief it is more than possible…

 

[tonyrey]

Natural laws first. I don’t think they existed beforehand but have developed as the universe did the same.

The definition of God: I am in the camp of Deists who think that it is possible that God is not aware of all He has created, because it is not necessary for such a powerful entity. You’ve hit it pretty dead on.

I asked once if God is conscious in the way we understand the term. It led to some interesting conversation, but no real conclusions. Since we have no dogma, that is quite common.

The greatest power is not based on ignorance but love…

 

[MacQ]

Non sequitur…

Not really…you asserted that the measure of mankind’s suffering is how many people are deformed or in hospitals. I and others pointed out that you don’t have to be either to be suffering.
“Non sequitur” seems to be your response to a lot of things. I consider it invalid unless it’s followed by “because”.
Otherwise I think you just use it when you can’t offer a cogent reply.

Does that outweigh the value of life?..

Non sequitur.
Because no one said anything about the value of life. Only that suffering in some degree is part of it.

The point that this is the best of all **feasible **worlds in which there is physical life and persons who are capable of love and self-determination. To believe otherwise is not Christian…

Which has nothing to do with whether people are suffering or not.
If I didn’t want to give you some benefit of doubt, I’d say you’re blowing smoke or something…

The conversation so far:
Tony: Most people aren’t suffering because most people aren’t deformed or in hospitals

Mac: You think the only people suffering are deformed or in hospitals?

Tony: Non sequitur.
(Because I can’t figure out how to defend such a dumb statement, so instead of saying so or clarifying, I’ll just throw out my favorite dodge)

Mac: So what was your point then?

Tony: Um…Life is good.

Mac thinks the whole conversation is possibly a …non sequitur

 

[tonyrey]

Not really…you asserted that the measure of mankind’s suffering is how many people are deformed or in hospitals. I and others pointed out that you don’t have to be either to be suffering.

The issue is whether suffering is such a major aspect of life that it undermines belief in the Christian God. If you subscribe to that theory your faith is irrational.

“Non sequitur” seems to be your response to a lot of things.

Your allegation is an argumentum ad hominem unless it is substantiated by specific references to “a lot of things”.

I consider it invalid unless it’s followed by “because”.

An explanation of a non sequitur doesn’t make it cease to be a non sequitur.

Otherwise I think you just use it when you can’t offer a cogent reply.

Another argumentum ad hominem! Your opinion of why I dosomething is not a rational argument.

Because no one said anything about the value of life. Only that suffering in some degree is part of it.

The fact that no one has said anything about the value of life is irrelevant. It is not a coincidence that people say “life is not** worth** living” when they consider suffering to be excessive.

If I didn’t want to give you some benefit of doubt, I’d say you’re blowing smoke or something…

Yet another argumentum ad hominem!

The conversation so far:
Tony: Most people aren’t suffering because most people aren’t deformed or in hospitals

Mac: You think the only people suffering are deformed or in hospitals?

Tony: Non sequitur.

(Because I can’t figure out how to defend such a dumb statement, so instead of saying so or clarifying, I’ll just throw out my favorite dodge)

Yet another argumentum ad hominem!

Mac: So what was your point then?

Tony: Um…Life is good.

Mac thinks the whole conversation is possibly a …non sequitur

A complete distortion of the reasons I have given for rejecting oldcelt’s argument that God doesn’t have a plan that includes suffering as a major aspect - which implies that deism is more rational than Christianity…

 

[MacQ]

The issue is whether suffering is such a major aspect of life that it undermines belief in the Christian God. If you subscribe to that theory your faith is irrational.

Your allegation is an argumentum ad hominem unless it is substantiated by specific references to “a lot of things”.

An explanation of a non sequitur doesn’t make it cease to be a non sequitur.

Another argumentum ad hominem! Your opinion of why I dosomething is not a rational argument.
The fact that no one has said anything about the value of life is irrelevant. It is not a coincidence that people say “life is not** worth** living” when they consider suffering to be excessive.

Yet another argumentum ad hominem!
A complete distortion of the reasons I have given for rejecting oldcelt’s argument that God doesn’t have a plan that includes suffering as a major aspect - which implies that deism is more rational than Christianity…

Well Tone…I think all of your “non sequiturs” and “ad hominem argumentum” statements were…non sequiturs and ad hominem argumenta.
And that you poured in a lot of probabilistic and syllogistic fallacy in your arguments.
Not to mention red herrings and obfuscation.

 

[tonyrey]

Well Tone…I think all of your “non sequiturs” and “ad hominem argumentum” statements were…non sequiturs and ad hominem argumenta.
And that you poured in a lot of probabilistic and syllogistic fallacy in your arguments.
Not to mention red herrings and obfuscation.

You have ignored every one of my statements - and resorted to yet more unsubstantiated allegations instead of addressing the issue:

Is suffering such a major aspect of life that it undermines belief in the Christian God?

 

[oldcelt]

You have ignored every one of my statements - and resorted to yet more unsubstantiated allegations instead of addressing the issue:

Is suffering such a major aspect of life that it undermines belief in the Christian God?

I’ll answer. Yes…Christianity is too based on suffering, shame, sin and a host of other negatives that do not point to a loving god. There has to be another answer than the monster seen in the old testament where it all supposedly started for Christians.

That answer…suffering is an unfortunate consequence of life on this planet created by God, but a God without an agenda. Some we cause ourselves…some just happens naturally. If I wasn’t so curious I would have ended mine some time ago.

 

[davidv]

I’ll answer. Yes…Christianity is too based on suffering, shame, sin and a host of other negatives that do not point to a loving god. There has to be another answer than the monster seen in the old testament where it all supposedly started for Christians.

That answer…suffering is an unfortunate consequence of life on this planet created by God, but a God without an agenda. Some we cause ourselves…some just happens naturally. If I wasn’t so curious I would have ended mine some time ago.

Catholic Christianity is not based on any of those this. It is based on the person of Jesus and the Church He established.

 

[fred_conty]

originally posted by oldcelt

…Christianity is too based on suffering, shame, sin and a host of other negatives that do not point to a loving god.

Let’s rephrase, “…sin brought about suffering, shame and a host of other negatives and points to a loving God who died for us to correct this.”

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[oldcelt]

originally posted by oldcelt

Let’s rephrase, “…sin brought about suffering, shame and a host of other negatives and points to a loving God who died for us to correct this.”

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

You conveniently forget the creation performed by the Christian god. If he was directly involved, there should have been no need for redemption. Unless of course…