If there was a god, do you think it would endorse the death of untold millions? How do you think it feels about people invoking it's name for death? Does it feel anything but a sick and vicious humor towards mankind, and earth itself? In the world we live in, it makes life much harder with the knowledge that if there is a god, than he might as well be a blubbering idiot. How could our "savior" allow such things to happen as they do in our mortal realm?
If such a god is to exist, where is his almighty peace, where is his unquestioning acceptance and virtue, where is his unending well of peace? Look around you at the wars, and the deaths, invoked in the name of god. What god could allow this? What evil is this in the world around us? If there is a god, there is no evil, and if god chooses to give us evil why should we worship such a sadist?
If, however, there is a good and loving god, is he stupid? Can he not communicate with the mortal world? Or is he like a small child with too much power and no mind for the consequences of his actions? He surely must be a fool.
Moved to the appropriate forum.
| Vofman wrote: |
If there was a god, do you think it would endorse the death of untold millions? How do you think it feels about people invoking it's name for death? Does it feel anything but a sick and vicious humor towards mankind, and earth itself? In the world we live in, it makes life much harder with the knowledge that if there is a god, than he might as well be a blubbering idiot. How could our "savior" allow such things to happen as they do in our mortal realm?
If such a god is to exist, where is his almighty peace, where is his unquestioning acceptance and virtue, where is his unending well of peace? Look around you at the wars, and the deaths, invoked in the name of god. What god could allow this? What evil is this in the world around us? If there is a god, there is no evil, and if god chooses to give us evil why should we worship such a sadist?
If, however, there is a good and loving god, is he stupid? Can he not communicate with the mortal world? Or is he like a small child with too much power and no mind for the consequences of his actions? He surely must be a fool. |
God is no fool, but man can be. I say that with no ill feelings or thoughts about anyone, so please don't take it personal.
God "allows" these things to happen because man has decided to do them. He gives us free will to make our own choices in life. If before we did anything we prayed to Him to ask for guidance things would be different. But that doesn't happen that often. Some people feel "This is what I think is right so it's what I'll do." God never enters the equation at all. Man has decided.
Should I blame God if someone decided to get drunk then get behind the wheel and drive then runs into my car? NO. It was that persons' choice to do that. God was never part of that decision. God was probably never even thought about at all.
Don't blame God because bad things happen. Relize that we make our own choices and we have to live with the consequences. | livilou wrote: |
God is no fool, but man can be. I say that with no ill feelings or thoughts about anyone, so please don't take it personal.
God "allows" these things to happen because man has decided to do them. He gives us free will to make our own choices in life. If before we did anything we prayed to Him to ask for guidance things would be different. But that doesn't happen that often. Some people feel "This is what I think is right so it's what I'll do." God never enters the equation at all. Man has decided.
Should I blame God if someone decided to get drunk then get behind the wheel and drive then runs into my car? NO. It was that persons' choice to do that. God was never part of that decision. God was probably never even thought about at all.
Don't blame God because bad things happen. Relize that we make our own choices and we have to live with the consequences. |
God is directly responsible for everything that happens. Take your example of the drunk driver. Assuming that the person is completely responsible for their decision to drink and drive, these are just some of the ways in which God was still at fault for what happened:
- Alcohol was available. The person could have decided to drink and drive only to find he or she was fresh out of booze. God let there be booze.
- Time within which to drink was available. The person could have started to drink, but then something came up, ruining their plans.
- Their car was available. It could have been in the shop.
- They were able to get to their car without being stopped by something - anything - be it person, animal or... act of god.
- They were able to find their keys.
- They were able to get the car started. It might have been unable to turn over.
- They were not blocked in their parking space by another car or something else.
- You were able to do much of the same... find your keys, start your car, get out of the driveway and so on. If any of that had not happened, he would not have hit you.
- Neither of you were delayed by anything that would have affected the timing of the incident - traffic lights, road construction, flat tires... even a damn branch falling across the road.
The list could go on and on for an infinite length.
God is not some innocent and helpless bystander.Indi, your argument is that God should destroy all evil by turning people that might make any kind of mistake into robots with no free will.
How is anyone suppose to learn anything if no one has any free will? Your notion of what would make God good is essentially the destruction of the universe, to be replaced with a universe of automated puppets. What would be the point of that? I think that if you were God your universe would be far worse than the screwed up one we already have!
This is called scapegoating. We blame our human shortcomings on God so as to not take the blame ourselves. God is not evil, sin is evil.
Don't even ask "But can God take away the sin?" because He already did -- that's where Jesus comes in.
| Soulfire wrote: |
This is called scapegoating. We blame our human shortcomings on God so as to not take the blame ourselves. God is not evil, sin is evil.
Don't even ask "But can God take away the sin?" because He already did -- that's where Jesus comes in. |
Nonsense. ^_^ This is called putting blame on the source of the problem.
Look at the points i made carefully. At no point did i allow god any control over the decisions of either the drunk driver or the victim. At no point did i imply that god was responsible for the choices made. All i did was give him control over the results. Why is it that the innocent driver should have to suffer for the sin of the drunk driver? (This is yet another instance of the problem of evil. Why should a baby be punished for sin when it could not possibly have sinned yet? Is it being punished for other people's sins? Does that sound fair or even rational?)
When judgement day comes and the drunk driver is before the jury, he might say: "But no one was hurt!" to which he would be told: "No one was hurt because i gave you a flat, you idiot. Had i not you would have hurt/mained/killed someone. You will be punished for your sin, not your luck."
Or, hell, why wait for judgement day? Why couldn't god have put a rock on the road that deflected the drunk driver's car at the last minute, just before he hit the innocent person... and instead the drunk driver wrapped his car around a pole? That way, the drunk driver is punished for the crime, not the innocent, and the drunk driver knows full well why because he saw how close he came to killing an innocent person.
i'm not "blaming human shortcomings" on god. i'm blaming the shortcomings of justice and fairness in the natural universe on god.Ever heard the phrase life isn't fair?
The thing of it is is we are all being punished. It's because humans demonstrated a sinful level of pride. We thought we could disobey God. And, clearly, God has showed us that we can't.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Ever heard the phrase life isn't fair? |
i am going to go out on a limb here and assume you think that there is some kind of coherent point encoded in that response. i don't see one, but i'll try to guess what you mean.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| The thing of it is is we are all being punished. It's because humans demonstrated a sinful level of pride. We thought we could disobey God. |
It would seem you've given up on insisting that God can't prevent suffering. Now you have moved on to claiming that he does not want to prevent suffering. The reason being that we're all guilty of demonstrating a "sinful level of pride", and of thinking we could disobey God, and thus all the suffering that we're getting is simply our just deserts.
i see a few problems with this.
First: what about the truly innocent - little babies that haven't even had the chance to demonstrate a "sinful level of pride", let alone actually disobeying. Why do they have to suffer? If your answer is that they are somehow guilty by virtue of just being human... i would have to question these much vaunted Christian ethics you claim. Is there any rational person among us who thinks it's right to punish someone for something they are not responsible for? For something completely beyond their control? Consider also this: the baby did not choose to be born human, or to be born at all. The one responsible for the baby's birth is... God. He's the one that ultimately gives life to us all, is he not? So... in essence... God made the baby human... and then punishes the baby for being human.
Second: apparently all of the punishment we are enduring is retribution for the sin of... being proud. I'm sure the millions who have endured horrible, painful, extended suffering - from sickess to accidents to torture - really deserved all of that excruciating, long-term horror... because they were proud. i mean that just seems fair, right? No, not really.
Third: all of these alleged crimes against God that we are all being punished for are not really crimes, now are they. i mean... we didn't punch God. We didn't steal anything from him. Our crimes are apparently bruising his ego.
Aaaaand... one more for now:
| Soulfire wrote: |
| And, clearly, God has showed us that we can't. |
Actually... that's not true. ^_^ We did disobey God, now didn't we? So if God is attempting to show us that we can't... he's shutting the barn door after the horse has run. In point of fact, it's very easy to disobey God. It's just that he gets really snitty when you do, and dishes out some nasty punishment.
Of course... he's not particularly bright. Because it turns out that according to his alleged logic, i and many others are already damned to an infinite amount of suffering for our "crimes" already. Any additional punishment added... really doesn't change anything, now does it? So therefore there is absolutely nothing stopping me from disobeying God anytime i want, anyhow i want. He can't hurt me any more than infinity. So... no. ^_^; He really hasn't shown me that i can't disobey.
Furthermore, according to a lot of the logic i've seen argued here so far... he can't even stop me. ^_^ Because a couple people have suggested that God can't/won't interfere with free will - for example he wouldn't stop the drunk driver from deciding to drink. Therefore, by extension, he wouldn't stop me from deciding to disobey him... unless he's taking away my free will.
So... no, i'm sorry. ^_^; If God's intention was to show us that we can't disobey him, he failed. Miserably.
(And now, i suppose, begins the chorus of damnation, where everyone lines up to tell me: "You're really disrespectful to God. When judgement day comes, boy are you gonna get it bad.". Either that, or the false pity: "i feel so sorry that you're so prideful. i don't want you to suffer in hell... but boy are you gonna get it bad." -_-)god is no idiot (and the understatement of the year award goes to...) if the whole world were perfect, nothing ever went wrong, it would be boring and not make sense. there is good and evil, we choose to follow one of those paths and that determines where we go once we die
| Quote: |
God is directly responsible for everything that happens. Take your example of the drunk driver. Assuming that the person is completely responsible for their decision to drink and drive, these are just some of the ways in which God was still at fault for what happened:
Alcohol was available. The person could have decided to drink and drive only to find he or she was fresh out of booze. God let there be booze.
Time within which to drink was available. The person could have started to drink, but then something came up, ruining their plans.
Their car was available. It could have been in the shop.
They were able to get to their car without being stopped by something - anything - be it person, animal or... act of god.
They were able to find their keys.
They were able to get the car started. It might have been unable to turn over.
They were not blocked in their parking space by another car or something else.
You were able to do much of the same... find your keys, start your car, get out of the driveway and so on. If any of that had not happened, he would not have hit you.
Neither of you were delayed by anything that would have affected the timing of the incident - traffic lights, road construction, flat tires... even a damn branch falling across the road.
The list could go on and on for an infinite length.
God is not some innocent and helpless bystander. |
That is the biggest piece of drabble I've ever heard. You're reasons for why God was reasponsible for a drive was a load of BS.
Alcohol was available because MAN created it, not God.
Time to get drunk and drive was available because a) he did not have a job because he was he didn't want to get one or the employeer did not want to give him one, b) he had finished anything else he could possibly do, and c) HE chose what to do with his time, not God.
God has nothing to do with a car being in a shop. Unkept roads and other drivers decisions do.
Animals and people have free will, and everything has a "domino effect" to it. If someone stopped to mug him, the mugger would have chosen to mug him, or if an animal bit his head off, that took would have been the animals choice if by some reason the animal felt threatened.
They were able to find their keys because of the choice the driver had of where to put them so he could find them.
Once again, the car worked because the driver chose to maintain it.
They were not blocked by another car because someone else never decided to park there.
They were able to do the same because of the same choices above.
Neither of them were delayed because a) traffic lights are timed and that has to do with the way people program the lights, b)road construction is due to people driving chosing to drive over the roads, someone deciding to fix the road at a particular time, or car wrecks (which stem from the drivers choices on when to turn, how fast to go, etc), c) flat tires because again, maintaining a vechile has nothing to do with God, and neither does a nail in the road, and d) a branch falling is the result of weakened limbs because the owner of the tree does not take care of it, there are enough nutrients in the soil, etc
All the reasons you just explained as being "a work of God" had to do with circumstances and choices. Death happens because of accidents, murders, diseases, and natural causes. People have free will, so God cannot always interfer with death. If he DID, then it is because life needs death. If all the people that were ever made never died, we would have no resources and not enough room on this planet. Living conditions would be horrible. The world needs death. What if Hitler were still alive? Life would just plain suck.
| Quote: |
| So... no, i'm sorry. ^_^; If God's intention was to show us that we can't disobey him, he failed. Miserably. |
I agree with this, enough said.
| Quote: |
| i'm not "blaming human shortcomings" on god. i'm blaming the shortcomings of justice and fairness in the natural universe on god. |
See above what I said about free will and the choices that the driver and other people around him, and circumstances. God is not responsible for the drunk driver killing or almost killing someone innocent, but he invokes justice by punishing him and rewarding the innocent victum (considering that the victim was innocent). He's the "after the fact" guy. | djcaution wrote: |
| god is no idiot (and the understatement of the year award goes to...) if the whole world were perfect, nothing ever went wrong, it would be boring and not make sense. there is good and evil, we choose to follow one of those paths and that determines where we go once we die |
And yet the Christian notion of heaven is that it is perfect isn't it? Does that mean that heaven is boring and does not make sense?Perfect according to who? If everything was perfect according to each and every person, then you wouldn't be bored. Of course, if the EARTH were perfect for each person, then we'd all have to live in seperate realities, but SOMEHOW still be able to visit each other whenever we wanted (social relationships are something everyone wants at some point because it is required for mental stabilaty).
For example: One person's idea of a perfect world might be lots of chocolate ice-cream and someone else's perfect world might have all sorts of dogs...
Soooooooooo, perfect according to who?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| That is the biggest piece of drabble I've ever heard. You're reasons for why God was reasponsible for a drive was a load of BS. |
i see. -_- Excellent argument.
| laurenrox wrote: |
Alcohol was available because MAN created it, not God.
Time to get drunk and drive was available because a) he did not have a job because he was he didn't want to get one or the employeer did not want to give him one, b) he had finished anything else he could possibly do, and c) HE chose what to do with his time, not God.
[etc.] |
i could consider your points one by one but i don't feel particularly motivated after your introductory comments to take your arguments too seriously. So i'll just take them as a group to save myself effort.
All of your objections assume two things:
- When person decides to do something, it must happen. God cannot interfere. When the driver decides to drive drunk, there is absolutely nothing God can do to stop that.
- When a person decides to do something bad, evil must result, even if the person did not plan for it to. The driver drove drunk, so someone's gotta pay.
i should think that now that you have seen these two assumptions stated explicitly, you can see the problems with them. But, just for the hell of it, i'm going to assume both of your assumptions too, and see what i get.
Assumption number 1: When a person decides to do something, it must happen. This covers a number of your objections, including things like because the driver intended to be able to find his keys later he would be able to (haven't you ever put something somewhere because you intended to use it later then forgot about it?), and because he decided to get drunk he must be able to get access to alcohol (it's not possible that he planned to but forgot to get booze, and is unable to because the stores are closed?), and because he chose to maintain his car it must start etc.. However, if we accept this assumption is true, then:
- If i choose to take some crystal meth... i will. Mind you, i have no idea where to go about getting any. But i chose to do it, so obviously events must conspire to provide me with some somehow.
- If i choose to build an anti-gravity generator... i will.
i'll be sure to mention your name in my Nobel acceptance speech.
Assumption number 2: When a person decides to do something bad, evil must result. It's not enough that the driver decides to drink and drive, it must also come to pass that he hits the other driver. You gave all sorts of strange arguments relating the physical aspects that allowed the accident to happen to people's choices - such as arguing that the timing of the lights and the falling of the tree branch are ultimately due to someone's choice. Not the choice of the driver of either car, of course, just the choices of random other someones, including animals even. But that's obviously not enough. A pebble-sized meteor could streak through the atmosphere and puncture right through the engine of the drunk driver's car, stopping it dead. What, are you going to be blame that on the choices of aliens? Of course not. So clearly "nature" has to allow the bad thing to happen, irrespective of any choice, human or otherwise.
So basically, if i were to choose to rob and murder someone, and i was stalking them in the bushes, taking care to stay downwind, there is no way that God could manipulate a quick gust in the other direction to blow my scent to my prey to warn them? Or, even without a reverse gust, there is no way that a few grains of dust could be blown in the wind at the face of the potential victim, causing them to flinch and turn away, thus catching sight of me? There is absolutely no way God could use the natural, physical universe to prevent evil, because everything is controlled by "choice"?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | | i'm not "blaming human shortcomings" on god. i'm blaming the shortcomings of justice and fairness in the natural universe on god. |
See above what I said about free will and the choices that the driver and other people around him, and circumstances. God is not responsible for the drunk driver killing or almost killing someone innocent, but he invokes justice by punishing him and rewarding the innocent victum (considering that the victim was innocent). He's the "after the fact" guy. |
Er, if the innocent victim was just in a car wreck caused by the drunk driver, how are they rewarded?
Further, if God is an "after the fact" guy, does that mean that he can prevent suffering, but chooses not to - opting instead to let it happen then dish out judgement? Or are you maintaining that God cannot prevent suffering - there's absolutely no way at all?1. Apologies for the first comment. It was wrong and I was still peeved from before...
2. I see what you're saying now about manipulating NATURAL forces, but at the same time, you believe in science right? Well, wind currents are caused from reactions in the atmosphere or whatever, and the atmosphere is controlled by the earth's core. Meteors... weird word... but anyway, as for that, that's caused by stars expolding, destorying the planets around them, causing debri, and solar winds moving the meteor, etc. My point in all this is that, although you can claim that God can control natural forces, it's still cause and effect.
3. Every bad choice doesn't HAVE to result in evil, but it can. For instance, the driver could have decided to simply drive at a different time and the victim could have already past the point to where the two would have met by the time the drunk driver gets there.
4. SOME things may be interfered with by God, by, as you said, mainipulation of natural forces. And it may be that God picks and chooses who he wants to live, who he wants to die, because even the death or survival of one person may effect another. For example, God could make the wind blow, knock a tiny little rock onto a sidewalk, and a person could trip right before a beam fell from a construction site because of rusty bolts or whatnot. And the beam could've swung and hit the person behind the person that tripped. So, God saved the person's life and the person later writes an amazing novel that changes people's lives and saves them from drug abuse or whatever. As long and drawn out as it is, even death and life effect other people, and by not interfering with one person's death or interfering with another person's death, things change.
If this is unclear, just say so and I'll do my best to rephrase it.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| 2. I see what you're saying now about manipulating NATURAL forces, but at the same time, you believe in science right? Well, wind currents are caused from reactions in the atmosphere or whatever, and the atmosphere is controlled by the earth's core. Meteors... weird word... but anyway, as for that, that's caused by stars expolding, destorying the planets around them, causing debri, and solar winds moving the meteor, etc. My point in all this is that, although you can claim that God can control natural forces, it's still cause and effect. |
Well, in a determinstic universe, that might be true. Every event must have a cause in a deterministic universe, so yes, the meteor would need to have been caused by a string of events - stars exploding, planets crashing, whatever.
But even then, if you grant God to be all-knowing, he could have set the universe up from the get-go so that at the appointed time, the meteor did fall. God would not have to be able to control our thoughts in order to know what they might be, so he could have contingency plans aeons in advance.
However, it turns out that the universe is not deterministic. So it is not true that for every effect there must be a cause. There is plenty of room for God to tweak quantum probabilities in order to make something happen a certain way.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| 4. SOME things may be interfered with by God, by, as you said, mainipulation of natural forces. And it may be that God picks and chooses who he wants to live, who he wants to die, because even the death or survival of one person may effect another. For example, God could make the wind blow, knock a tiny little rock onto a sidewalk, and a person could trip right before a beam fell from a construction site because of rusty bolts or whatnot. And the beam could've swung and hit the person behind the person that tripped. So, God saved the person's life and the person later writes an amazing novel that changes people's lives and saves them from drug abuse or whatever. As long and drawn out as it is, even death and life effect other people, and by not interfering with one person's death or interfering with another person's death, things change. |
Which means that God can prevent suffering... but for some reason unknown to us does not. He has some "plan" that requires for some suffering to happen. Correct? | Indi wrote: |
| laurenrox wrote: | | 2. I see what you're saying now about manipulating NATURAL forces, but at the same time, you believe in science right? Well, wind currents are caused from reactions in the atmosphere or whatever, and the atmosphere is controlled by the earth's core. Meteors... weird word... but anyway, as for that, that's caused by stars expolding, destorying the planets around them, causing debri, and solar winds moving the meteor, etc. My point in all this is that, although you can claim that God can control natural forces, it's still cause and effect. |
Well, in a determinstic universe, that might be true. Every event must have a cause in a deterministic universe, so yes, the meteor would need to have been caused by a string of events - stars exploding, planets crashing, whatever.
But even then, if you grant God to be all-knowing, he could have set the universe up from the get-go so that at the appointed time, the meteor did fall. God would not have to be able to control our thoughts in order to know what they might be, so he could have contingency plans aeons in advance.
However, it turns out that the universe is not deterministic. So it is not true that for every effect there must be a cause. There is plenty of room for God to tweak quantum probabilities in order to make something happen a certain way.
| laurenrox wrote: | | 4. SOME things may be interfered with by God, by, as you said, mainipulation of natural forces. And it may be that God picks and chooses who he wants to live, who he wants to die, because even the death or survival of one person may effect another. For example, God could make the wind blow, knock a tiny little rock onto a sidewalk, and a person could trip right before a beam fell from a construction site because of rusty bolts or whatnot. And the beam could've swung and hit the person behind the person that tripped. So, God saved the person's life and the person later writes an amazing novel that changes people's lives and saves them from drug abuse or whatever. As long and drawn out as it is, even death and life effect other people, and by not interfering with one person's death or interfering with another person's death, things change. |
Which means that God can prevent suffering... but for some reason unknown to us does not. He has some "plan" that requires for some suffering to happen. Correct? |
Okay, again with the "no suffering, no evolving" issue... perhaps some of us need to evolve more than others, which would explain the reason God would pick and choose who suffers. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Okay, again with the "no suffering, no evolving" issue... perhaps some of us need to evolve more than others, which would explain the reason God would pick and choose who suffers. |
Perhaps, but then it introduces yet another question. Why is it necessary to suffer to evolve? Why couldn't God just put whatever knowledge i'm supposed to gain by suffering directly into my mind? Is it so hard? i don't see how. In another 50 years, we may well have the technology to download such information into human minds ourselves.
Unfortunately, you've wandered into a little trap called the problem of evil (as a matter of fact, this whole thread really started with an example of the problem of evil). Honesty compels me to tell you now that there is no way out. We can go around in circles for years without ever finding a resolution (we have historical evidence showing that people have been struggling with this problem for literally 5000 years... at least). It always comes down to this: either God can't prevent suffering - in which case he's weak - or he won't prevent suffering - in which case he's cruel. i am not exaggerating when i say that there is no solution to this problem. You are probably tempted to try claiming that free will is the solution, but it's really not. This is not my opinion, it is what is held in the field of philosophy - just read the literature to see.
For the specific case of this debate, observe the pattern. First the problem of evil was introduced, then:
- livilou claimed that God could not prevent suffering (but that he wanted to).
- i claimed that God did not want to prevent suffering (but that he could).
(Then Soulfire apparently agreed, although he justified God making us suffer as punishment that we somehow deserve.)
- You claimed that God could not prevent suffering (but that he wanted to).
- i claimed that God did not want to prevent suffering (but that he could).
(Then you apparently changed your tune to say that God could prevent suffering, but that he "picks and chooses" who he wants to suffer.)
- And now again you claim that God is compelled to cause suffering because some people just need it.
- And again i say that if God is really all that powerful, then he doesn't need to cause suffering.
Round and round we go, and so we could go forever.
The crux of the problem is this. i honestly don't see how it would be so hard to eliminate suffering completely. Sufficiently advanced technology could eventually do the trick (obviously far more advanced than what we have now). But with the powers of a god??? It should be downright trivial.
So why does suffering exist if it clearly doesn't have to? All kinds of claims have been made, but it usually takes one of two forms: 1.) it has to because good without evil makes no sense, 2.) it has to because we have to learn a lesson that can only be taught by us suffering. Both arguments are really very weak.Seriously for such a "higher being" to let things happen then it's pretty much just as much His fault as it is the person who did the killings. It's like if you had a chance to stop someone from hurting another and you choose not to. Duh.
We chouse to be here....we were in heaven...happy...but we wanted knowledge...so God sent us to Earth....where we can start off like all beings...from nothing...no help...no guidance...so we can learn ourselves
But God's love was soo great he still sent his son Jesus to guide us.....
You know the story Im sure.
This is my version of it, like it or leave it.
(Funny thing, I'm not even a follower of any religion...)
| Indi wrote: |
| laurenrox wrote: | | Okay, again with the "no suffering, no evolving" issue... perhaps some of us need to evolve more than others, which would explain the reason God would pick and choose who suffers. |
Perhaps, but then it introduces yet another question. Why is it necessary to suffer to evolve? Why couldn't God just put whatever knowledge i'm supposed to gain by suffering directly into my mind? Is it so hard? i don't see how. In another 50 years, we may well have the technology to download such information into human minds ourselves.
Unfortunately, you've wandered into a little trap called the problem of evil (as a matter of fact, this whole thread really started with an example of the problem of evil). Honesty compels me to tell you now that there is no way out. We can go around in circles for years without ever finding a resolution (we have historical evidence showing that people have been struggling with this problem for literally 5000 years... at least). It always comes down to this: either God can't prevent suffering - in which case he's weak - or he won't prevent suffering - in which case he's cruel. i am not exaggerating when i say that there is no solution to this problem. You are probably tempted to try claiming that free will is the solution, but it's really not. This is not my opinion, it is what is held in the field of philosophy - just read the literature to see.
For the specific case of this debate, observe the pattern. First the problem of evil was introduced, then:
- livilou claimed that God could not prevent suffering (but that he wanted to).
- i claimed that God did not want to prevent suffering (but that he could).
(Then Soulfire apparently agreed, although he justified God making us suffer as punishment that we somehow deserve.)
- You claimed that God could not prevent suffering (but that he wanted to).
- i claimed that God did not want to prevent suffering (but that he could).
(Then you apparently changed your tune to say that God could prevent suffering, but that he "picks and chooses" who he wants to suffer.)
- And now again you claim that God is compelled to cause suffering because some people just need it.
- And again i say that if God is really all that powerful, then he doesn't need to cause suffering.
Round and round we go, and so we could go forever.
The crux of the problem is this. i honestly don't see how it would be so hard to eliminate suffering completely. Sufficiently advanced technology could eventually do the trick (obviously far more advanced than what we have now). But with the powers of a god??? It should be downright trivial.
So why does suffering exist if it clearly doesn't have to? All kinds of claims have been made, but it usually takes one of two forms: 1.) it has to because good without evil makes no sense, 2.) it has to because we have to learn a lesson that can only be taught by us suffering. Both arguments are really very weak. |
I never claimed that God couldn't prevent suffering as far as I recall. However, I think I understand what you're saying. "Why would God make us suffer when he could just make perfect beings that knew all and didn't have to suffer?" Well, look at it this way. As far as I know, there is no orgin to the Devil other than that he was an angel. Most think of an angel as a perfect being, no? So why did Lucifer go against God? Because he had free will.
There is no such thing as a perfect being with free will, including God. After the statement I just made, there is no way for God to be perfect (unless I had some way of excluding Him, which I don't). God has free will and is therefore imperfect himself. If He were perfect, then everything that He made would be perfect. Granted, I believe He is less fallable than humans. Given infinte time, wouldn't you be too?
Back to free will. Would you honestly want to live without your will? If you did not have the choices you do now, would you want to live? Would it be worth it? I think not. Having free will taken away leaves us with no motivation. Not having free will would take away our entire thinking process, and we would be blank. Nothing on the canvas. So free will would be one of the gifts that God chose to give us, but with it would come suffering because no one is capable of living a perfect life. There are also those who choose to do horrible things in this world. Some God prevents with his ability to control natural forces, and others he does not. If he chooses not to prevent a murderer from killing a couple, then it could be for a multitude of reasons. For example, the couple could later have a child that would become a dictator of some country and launch a war against another, killing millions. That is an extreme example, but a possibility none the less.
It could also be because God wants us to become somewhat self reliant while we live on Earth. He is teaching us to deal with things in our own way, even though they may be imperfect. He is a possibility that he wants us to gain knowledge on how to use our free will to the best of our ability.
I've given you a reason why God has given us free will (because life without free will is no life at all), and in turn have given why he cannot prevent suffering through controling us. I have said that God may prevent some suffering and not all with the conclusion that he wants us to learn, not only from our mistakes, but to better understand our free will. | laurenrox wrote: |
| I never claimed that God couldn't prevent suffering as far as I recall. |
No, not explicitly, but it is implicit in every one of your arguments, including the current one. The current argument is (very generally speaking): "God cannot prevent suffering... because it is a necessary byproduct of free will. God cannot take away suffering without taking away free will."
| laurenrox wrote: |
| However, I think I understand what you're saying. "Why would God make us suffer when he could just make perfect beings that knew all and didn't have to suffer?" Well, look at it this way. As far as I know, there is no orgin to the Devil other than that he was an angel. Most think of an angel as a perfect being, no? So why did Lucifer go against God? Because he had free will. |
You're not answering the question. i asked why it is that suffering must exist if free will exists. You keep answering that free will must exist. Alright, fine. But why must suffering exist if free will exists? i don't see why we can't be free to do whatever we want, and not suffer. Why must suffering follow from free will?
Look at it from a childish perspective if you want. Why can't every single whim and fancy i have be granted? Why can't i be allowed to do anything and everything i want to? Clearly i would have free will in such a world, right? And if i can have anything i wanted then i wouldn't have to suffer. So why can't that world exist... unless God wants me to suffer for some reason? There seems to be no rational reason.
Sure, if wanted to suffer, then by all means, let me suffer. But the problem with the world is that i am not (freely) choosing to suffer, yet i am being made to suffer. Why is that? Why is it that in this world i can freely choose to suffer easily - by setting myself on fire, for example - but i cannot freely choose not to suffer?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| There is no such thing as a perfect being with free will, including God. After the statement I just made, there is no way for God to be perfect (unless I had some way of excluding Him, which I don't). God has free will and is therefore imperfect himself. If He were perfect, then everything that He made would be perfect. Granted, I believe He is less fallable than humans. Given infinte time, wouldn't you be too? |
Incidently, i never once raised the idea that we would need to be "perfect" beings (or that God is perfect, for that matter). You have, in fact, created that straw man yourself.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Back to free will. Would you honestly want to live without your will? If you did not have the choices you do now, would you want to live? Would it be worth it? I think not. Having free will taken away leaves us with no motivation. Not having free will would take away our entire thinking process, and we would be blank. Nothing on the canvas. So free will would be one of the gifts that God chose to give us, but with it would come suffering because no one is capable of living a perfect life. There are also those who choose to do horrible things in this world. Some God prevents with his ability to control natural forces, and others he does not. If he chooses not to prevent a murderer from killing a couple, then it could be for a multitude of reasons. For example, the couple could later have a child that would become a dictator of some country and launch a war against another, killing millions. That is an extreme example, but a possibility none the less. |
Yes, it is a possibility. A particularly extreme one as you admit, but you know what? Let's work with it. Let's take a look at it and see where it takes us.
First, explain to me why it is necessary for the murderer to kill the innocent parents... and not the dictator-to-be-child? What rational justification is there for that?
Second, after insisting repeatedly how crucially important free will is, now you claim that God has no qualms about preventing us from making free choices? If the dictator-to-be freely chose to be a dictator, what right does God have to stop them (presuming that there is some reason that he cannot interfere in free choices without invalidating free will)? Not only that, the murdered parents surely had many free choices that they would have made had they not been murdered. For some reason that you have yet to explain, the murderer's free choice - the cruelest of the bunch - takes precedence over everyone else's in God's eyes. Why is that?
Third, if God can indeed intervene in some free choices to prevent suffering... why not all? Why not prevent any free choice that will cause others to suffer? Why not only leave free choices that are either harmless, that do good, or that only harm the person making the choice?
Fourth, the morality of condemning someone to non-existence for a crime they have not yet committed (and two other innocents to a grisly death when they weren't even involved) and in fact have not even thought about is questionable at best.
Fifth, this argument does not explain anything. Suppose that everything you claim about the dictator-to-be is true. Suppose also that for whatever reason, God has decided to condemn the parents rather than the dictator himself. So far it's a bit of a stretch already, but let's work with it. You still haven't explained why the suffering exists. Those people died painfully and probably in terror - and in many cases of murder there is also rape and/or torture to consider. If the goal was to simply prevent them from breeding, why not allow them to die peacefully in their sleep after eating an undercooked fish? Hell, why kill them at all? Why not simply prevent conception? There are a literally infinite number of ways God could have intervened without causing any suffering at all... and even more when you allow for only the barest minimum of suffering.
i could go on, but i think the point has been made. There is far too much suffering in this world to justify the belief that this is the absolute minimum possible - and so much of that suffering is so obviously unnecessarily extreme.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| It could also be because God wants us to become somewhat self reliant while we live on Earth. He is teaching us to deal with things in our own way, even though they may be imperfect. He is a possibility that he wants us to gain knowledge on how to use our free will to the best of our ability. |
Fair enough, but you cannot explain why God must "teach" us these things instead of simply allowing us to be born with the knowledge. We are literally born as dribbling idiots. Why? There's no real reason. We are already born with a limited form of genetic memory - instincts - so why not built-in knowledge of these alleged things we must know?
And the standard answer i get when i ask this question is that it's because the process of learning it is as important as the information learned. To which i invariably reply: so why not also encode the effects of the process? To date, no answer.
Another answer i get is that God does not know what we will learn from it, and thus cannot give us the training beforehand. Interesting, but evasive. If God does not know what we will learn, how does he know that us suffering is the best way to learn it?
Honestly, there really is no escape from the dilemma.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| I've given you a reason why God has given us free will (because life without free will is no life at all), and in turn have given why he cannot prevent suffering through controling us. I have said that God may prevent some suffering and not all with the conclusion that he wants us to learn, not only from our mistakes, but to better understand our free will. |
Yes, but i did not ask why we need free will. i asked why suffering is necessary, free will or no.
And no, contrary to what you claim you have not explained why he cannot prevent suffering through controlling us... quite the opposite in fact! You gave me an example of God controlling the lives of two innocent people, a murderer, and an unborn person in order to prevent suffering!!!
And you haven't given any explanation of why we need the suffering to learn something, and why we can't simply have been created with the knowledge.
And i still haven't shown you the really damning argument, the one that shows that the free will claim does not work as a solution to the problem of evil. ^_^; (The reason for that is because the argument is quite long and complex. Wikipedia's articles contain most of it, but not even all. Eventually i am going to be writing a full-length article on it for this thread.)
So the situation is far more grim than you seem to suspect.there is no god so why is it being discussed?
| Quote: |
| No, not explicitly, but it is implicit in every one of your arguments, including the current one. The current argument is (very generally speaking): "God cannot prevent suffering... because it is a necessary byproduct of free will. God cannot take away suffering without taking away free will." |
I clearly pointed out that God can prevent suffering through manipulation of natural forces at least twice.
| Quote: |
You're not answering the question. i asked why it is that suffering must exist if free will exists. You keep answering that free will must exist. Alright, fine. But why must suffering exist if free will exists? i don't see why we can't be free to do whatever we want, and not suffer. Why must suffering follow from free will?
Look at it from a childish perspective if you want. Why can't every single whim and fancy i have be granted? Why can't i be allowed to do anything and everything i want to? Clearly i would have free will in such a world, right? And if i can have anything i wanted then i wouldn't have to suffer. So why can't that world exist... unless God wants me to suffer for some reason? There seems to be no rational reason.
Sure, if wanted to suffer, then by all means, let me suffer. But the problem with the world is that i am not (freely) choosing to suffer, yet i am being made to suffer. Why is that? Why is it that in this world i can freely choose to suffer easily - by setting myself on fire, for example - but i cannot freely choose not to suffer? |
Suffering follows from free will because you're not the only person on this Earth. Suffering stems from a person's own misguided choices and the choices of others. There are going to be people who want to kill other people, and should they chose to do that, then there is going to be someone else that suffers. That answers the question of why suffering must come from free will.
| Quote: |
Third, if God can indeed intervene in some free choices to prevent suffering... why not all? Why not prevent any free choice that will cause others to suffer? Why not only leave free choices that are either harmless, that do good, or that only harm the person making the choice?
|
Again, I have answered that. God wants us to learn about our free will and the consequences that come with our choices. Can't really do that without suffering, now can we? The best way to get someone to learn is through experience. For example, I was always told that smoking was bad. When I was younger I vowed that I would never smoke, especially after seeing pictures of black lungs and lung cancer. When I was older, I became tempted and I gave in to curiousity. After nearly 9 years of smoking, I started to wake up every morning with a cough. Every time I inhaled, I choked and started to cough horribly, and I couldn't breathe. It felt like I was drowning. Only afterwards did I quit. I haven't touched a cigarette since.
Do you honestly think that if you just pop all the information you have ever learned through your own expierences into your child's head, that they'll truely learn? They'll never have the expierence that you will, and will therefore have a disadvantage in dealing with similar situations. God is giving us choices (aka free will) that includes the dangers of hurting yourself and others because he wants us to learn just how powerful our own choices are.
I have answered all your questions several times, but you seem to be responding to each part as you read it, instead of taking my response as a whole. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, not explicitly, but it is implicit in every one of your arguments, including the current one. The current argument is (very generally speaking): "God cannot prevent suffering... because it is a necessary byproduct of free will. God cannot take away suffering without taking away free will." |
I clearly pointed out that God can prevent suffering through manipulation of natural forces at least twice. |
Yes, and then immediately afterwards added the caveat that he can only prevent some suffering - that he cannot prevent all of it. Observe: "I've given you a reason why God has given us free will (because life without free will is no life at all), and in turn have given why he cannot prevent suffering through controling us."
You are either claiming that God cannot prevent suffering (which is what i assumed by virtue of the wording of your arguments) - that it is beyond his power to prevent with suffering caused by free choice - or that he does not want to - that he is unwilling to prevent suffering caused by free choice. It will always keep coming back to that - he is either unable or unwilling.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Suffering follows from free will because you're not the only person on this Earth. Suffering stems from a person's own misguided choices and the choices of others. There are going to be people who want to kill other people, and should they chose to do that, then there is going to be someone else that suffers. That answers the question of why suffering must come from free will. |
No, that still doesn't answer the question. You are taking a very narrow (and conflicted, but we'll get to that in a minute) view of suffering caused by free choice.
There is no reason that suffering must follow from free will. In fact, that is entirely contradictory! i do not choose to suffer... in fact, i freely choose not to suffer. "You hear that, God? i don't want to suffer! Never again! i choose not to!" That's not going to work, now is it? No matter what choices i make in my life, i will suffer. That is an undeniable fact.
Further, not even the slightest portion of that suffering is due to the free choices of others. Aside from a few crackpots here on FriHost, i am not an unpopular person. i don't have a line of people hoping that i suffer. When i get sick, it probably won't be because someone wanted me to.
You are focussing on people who directly intend to cause suffering (freely). Alright, fine... but by the same token you say that God does prevent that from happening in some cases. So why not all?
i suffer because my physiology allows me to feel pain. Who chose that?
Most people suffer because of the limitations of the world - not enough food, space or poor weather. Who chose those?
None of these questions you have come anywhere even close to answering.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Again, I have answered that. God wants us to learn about our free will and the consequences that come with our choices. Can't really do that without suffering, now can we? The best way to get someone to learn is through experience. For example, I was always told that smoking was bad. When I was younger I vowed that I would never smoke, especially after seeing pictures of black lungs and lung cancer. When I was older, I became tempted and I gave in to curiousity. After nearly 9 years of smoking, I started to wake up every morning with a cough. Every time I inhaled, I choked and started to cough horribly, and I couldn't breathe. It felt like I was drowning. Only afterwards did I quit. I haven't touched a cigarette since. |
And... precisely... why did the cigarette affect you in that way? Who chose to make your physiology in such a way that you could get addicted to cigarettes, and that they would hurt you?
That is the question that you are avoiding. Ok. Free will good. i got it. You don't need to keep telling me. But suffering does not need to exist, even if free will does.
Your only counterargument to that is that people sometimes freely choose to cause harm. Alright, fine. But by the same token, it is true that not everything we freely choose to do we are able to do. If i were to freely choose to leap tall buildings in a single bound, or travel faster than light, would it come to pass? Of course not. So why are there mechanisms in place to prevent those free choices, but not to prevent someone who freely chooses to cause harm?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Do you honestly think that if you just pop all the information you have ever learned through your own expierences into your child's head, that they'll truely learn? They'll never have the expierence that you will, and will therefore have a disadvantage in dealing with similar situations. |
Yes, i do honestly think that. And i'll show you why.
Suppose you had a person who had to learn some lesson that required suffering. So they go out, they suffer, and they learn the lesson. All is good so far.
Now, suppose i am God, and suppose i want to create another person who had to learn the same lesson, but i was not a cruel god so i didn't want any unnecessary suffering. Why can i not simply look into the mind of the person that has already learned the lesson, select all of the knowledge they accumulated during the learning process, including both the lessons of experience and the final conclusion, copy that information, and put it in the mind of the other person? Why not?
The end result would be that the other person knows exactly what the first person knows... only they have never suffered! If the suffering is a means to an end - if it is simply a way to achieve some greater knowledge - then why can't God just skip it and put the knowledge in our heads? It would be exactly the same as if we had gone through the process - except without the suffering.
Explain to me why that's not possible.
| laurenrox wrote: |
| God is giving us choices (aka free will) that includes the dangers of hurting yourself and others because he wants us to learn just how powerful our own choices are. |
If that is the final lesson we are supposed to learn... why doesn't he just give us that knowledge? Why do we need to go through the process?
Human teachers are forced to make us learn the hard way - by practice, and trial and error - simply because human teachers do not have the power to create us fully formed with the knowledge. God has that power (unless you're claiming that he can't prevent suffering, which you seem to object to when i point out that that's what you seem to be claiming). So why doesn't he do it?
| laurenrox wrote: |
| I have answered all your questions several times, but you seem to be responding to each part as you read it, instead of taking my response as a whole. |
Because the whole is wrong. ^_^; And i'm showing you why by showing you how the individual parts of the whole are wrong. You're not suggesting that someone putting those flawed pieces together somehow creates a perfect whole, are you?
If the subcomponents of the argument were all solid, then you might have a cohesive whole (although, not necessarily). But the subcomponents aren't solid. Rather, they are a series of assertions you have made without backing them up.
For example, you keep insisting that free will requires suffering. It really doesn't. For example, we could live in a universe where suffering did not exist except when someone deliberately chose to cause it - which is rare even in our universe. Instead, we live in a universe where suffering can happen even when we are freely choosing to do good (or do you claim that all good intentions lead to good results?). In fact, suffering happens randomly here! Who chose to give themselves (or someone else) multiple sclerosis? Despite your assertions, you have not come close to answering this.I'm just going to make my general points here. Hopefully, the point will come across as I want it to. Please try to take these in as a whole, because some points are explained by others.
1. We do not constantly suffer. Aside from some, most people have certain points in their lives where they are happy, even if it is for a small amount of time.
2. God can prevent suffering through natural causes, but he either chooses not to prevent it through manipulating free will, or he can't.
3. If God chooses not to intervent with suffering, it's for the sake of our own learning and occasionally the possibility of creating less casulities/suffering.
4. Suffering from lack of food, space, diseases, etc is due to the over poputlation of the planet. There are two options here. Either this is God's way of controlling our already oversized population (albeit cruel) or God can't/chose not to intervent with the rate of reproduction, it can be seen as a lesson of our choices.
5. You can take information from a person who has suffered, and give it to another person, but you can't give that person the same feeling of pain and loss. If you expierence the pain and loss first hand, you are less likely to repeat the incident for fear of the pain/loss.
If these points contridict, point it out, but do it in a simple manner. Sometimes you try to make you're point and you throw out so many ideas at once, I get confused. 
. | laurenrox wrote: |
4. Suffering from lack of food, space, diseases, etc is due to the over poputlation of the planet. There are two options here. Either this is God's way of controlling our already oversized population (albeit cruel) or God can't/chose not to intervent with the rate of reproduction, it can be seen as a lesson of our choices.
. |
what if god says 'I have given you plenty enough to all of you' - and - 'you will soon learn to defend diseases'... What are you left with then?
What actions needs to be taken? | cooney666 wrote: |
| there is no god so why is it being discussed? |
I really thought this post was so funny since the 666 number !!!!
This sentese is needed here, because if no 666-stuff exists that means no saint-stuff can be found here.
And we all do need some kind of saints I suppose...This is what happens when you take a beautiful myth and turn it into fact, my friends.
| Quote: |
| At no point did i imply that god was responsible for the choices made |
Yet you said God was responsible for everything? Hrm... | laurenrox wrote: |
I'm just going to make my general points here. Hopefully, the point will come across as I want it to. Please try to take these in as a whole, because some points are explained by others.
1. We do not constantly suffer. Aside from some, most people have certain points in their lives where they are happy, even if it is for a small amount of time.
2. God can prevent suffering through natural causes, but he either chooses not to prevent it through manipulating free will, or he can't.
3. If God chooses not to intervent with suffering, it's for the sake of our own learning and occasionally the possibility of creating less casulities/suffering.
4. Suffering from lack of food, space, diseases, etc is due to the over poputlation of the planet. There are two options here. Either this is God's way of controlling our already oversized population (albeit cruel) or God can't/chose not to intervent with the rate of reproduction, it can be seen as a lesson of our choices.
5. You can take information from a person who has suffered, and give it to another person, but you can't give that person the same feeling of pain and loss. If you expierence the pain and loss first hand, you are less likely to repeat the incident for fear of the pain/loss.
If these points contridict, point it out, but do it in a simple manner. Sometimes you try to make you're point and you throw out so many ideas at once, I get confused. . |
It's not so much a matter of the points contradicting each other as it is that most (if not all) of them are unjustified. Something is not true simply because you assert it to be so. If you want to claim - for example - that "(s)uffering from lack of food, space, diseases, etc is due to the over poputlation of the planet", you have to be able to back that up. In point of fact, that claim is simply wrong. There was far more suffering from lack of food and disease a thousand years ago, when the population was a fraction of what it is now. And, in fact, if we were to have a zillion times the surface area on Earth as we do now - all the room we could ever need - they would still exist. (Of course, there are tons of other objections, too - like that God created not just the so-called "solution" - starvation and disease - he created the problem, too, by creating the Earth so small. And many more.)
Because this topic has been debated by philosophers for literally thousands of years, there are dozens of objections to your points. i'll pick a couple to demonstrate, but before i do that, i want to clarify your argument. Of the five points you listed, two are repeated and one is irrelevant (for starters), so i want to shave it down to its essence.
So correct me if i'm wrong, but your position is basically this:
- God is capable of preventing most, if not all, suffering, but chooses not to.
- The reason God allows suffering to happen is because it is required in order for us to learn a lesson.
- The lesson that we are supposed to learn is that we should be responsible with our choices - that is, that we should make choices carefully so as not to cause harm.
Is that about right?
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | At no point did i imply that god was responsible for the choices made |
Yet you said God was responsible for everything? Hrm... |
No i did not. Read more carefully. (You missed a couple of words.)Yay! He gets it!
(Except the part about preventing suffering... I'm saying that it is very much a possibility that he prevents suffering in many occasions, just not all)...
I wish....but he's he's not dead yet...He missed...........grrrrrrrrr 
You can not question god. Simply if you don't believe in god, then don't bother think about if there is a god or not. Why would you ponder about god unless you doubt yourself in believing there is no god? You cannot find your answer about god reading this forum either, i ensure you that. You can only find god through the people around you. Your parents, your friends, etc. Are they good person? do they love you? do they appreciate you? all that is goodness about a person. If you want to know about god, just observes the people around you. I hope that help you find if there is a god or not and who's is responsible for what.
Respond:
If god made everything goes right in in world, no war, no hate, what's the fun in living? It'd just be heaven on earth. I'm not saying heaven is boring, but do you want to experience being a human first before you die? Do you want to experience the thrill in learning how to drive a car? Do you want to experience being love by your other half? do you want to swim on a hot day, etc. If god made everything goes right everyday, what's the point in living on earth? it's just be boring.
