Plump-DJ

I think trying to point out that bad stuff happens therefore God does not exist is actually quite hard logicaly. I mean what the heck is evil, and how does it's metaphysical construction relate to God's "Good" nature? I don't know if things are so simple. Surely you'd have to have a certain constuction of evil in order to claim a contradiction and the theist may ask why should they accept that particular construction?

And secondly is it possible that God has a moraly sufficent and justifable reason for the suffering that exists and could be labeled "His fault?" If it's *even* possible then logicaly there's no contradiction.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Infinity Lover

Preaching to the converted wouldn't be the right choice of words here, because I've never been a theist to begin with. Understandable misunderstanding. I added 'atheist' to my profile (damn; I HATE having to wear stinking labels. Aw well )

Keith Russell

Plump:

Even if there was a 'God', and even if 'He' did have a justification for human suffering--where it is written that human beings must (or should) accept 'His' word that suffering is justified?

If 'God' exists, and if he causes human suffering according to some 'Divine Plan' that we were made (by 'Him') unable to fathom, then I submit that such a 'God' would be an enemy of humanity, with 'His' own plans for us, that do not in any way benefit 'us'.

Those who worship such a being, are traitors to their own kind, willing to accept any contradiction on the blind trust that this 'non-human' being has our best interests in mind.

Rebellion!

Keith.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Alaytheia:
"I'm intrigued by this discussion and would like to offer a few thoughts (by no means comprehensive)."

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

"No, God cannot squirt slime out of his ears, because God does not have any ears. And that is the beginning of a better understanding of omnipotence--it doesn't mean that God is able to perform every possible or impossible act. Rather, it means that he has absolute power within the definition of his nature. God is not omnipotent in the strictest sense because he cannot sin; it would be against his nature. He also cannot create a being greater than himself. Etc."

Well, it sounds as if you're saying God is still omnipotent in some sense because He can perform any logically possible action that's consistent with His nature. Is that your definition of "omnipotent"?

"With that said, he does have absolute control over his creation. And it is that control over creation which is described in the Bible. Keep in mind that the Bible never uses the world 'omnipotent': that came in later theological discussion (and has since been frequently misunderstood"

This seems less like omnipotence and more like just authority over the physical universe. But it seems that even God does not have this; God cannot perform several things that His nature precludes Him from performing -- although this is under discussion above.

"Suffering is a symptom, not the actual problem. Pain is also a symptom, and serves a good and excellent purpose (ask anyone with leprosy, who is denied the benefits of physical pain). Both are (in)direct results of evil. So the real question is whether evil is necessary for the greater good. To that I would answer yes, for this reason: Redemption, grace, salvation, justification, and forgiveness are far more wonderful and powerful--even in our day-to-day lives--than perfection."

I agree that suffering often produces a greater good. But in all the cases you mention, I think I can imagine God as omnipotent bringing about the state of affairs you want without using instrumental suffering. I have a feeling that most suffering is indeed unnecessary. And if you say that no suffering is unnecessary for a greater good, that implies that I should cause other people to suffer, because that produces an equal or greater good if I do so successfully.

This thread was not originally intended to be about the argument from suffering; I mentioned it because it does disconfirm the existence of God if God is strongly omnipotent (can perform any action). But I am happy to continue the discussion of the problem of suffering, of course.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Plump-DJ:

"I think trying to point out that bad stuff happens therefore God does not exist is actually quite hard logicaly. I mean what the heck is evil, and how does it's metaphysical construction relate to God's 'Good' nature? I don't know if things are so simple. Surely you'd have to have a certain constuction of evil in order to claim a contradiction and the theist may ask why should they accept that particular construction?"

Well, if you'll recall, I never mentioned evil in my original post as a reason to disbelieve God. All that my position requires is that it's morally better to prevent intense useless suffering than to allow it. Do you agree with that?

"And secondly is it possible that God has a moraly sufficent and justifable reason for the suffering that exists and could be labeled 'His fault?' If it's *even* possible then logicaly there's no contradiction."

Yes, it's possible. This position entails considerable moral and epistemic skepticism, as well as proving to be highly dubious. But this reason is not a possibility if God is strongly omnipotent, i.e., can do anything. If this is the case, no justifying reason can exist, because God can always produce that reason without requiring suffering.

Primal

Plump: What justification could God have if he is omnipotent? Any one of the factors he wants to bring about to justify his *tolerance* of *evil* can be brought about without evil, truly God can do this if God is omnipotent.

Alaytheia: Your definition goes against the popular/standard defintion of omnipotent. Not only children adhere to the one utilized in the argument from evil but a vast many adults and even religious leaders do as well.

I understand though that certain people mean different things by omnipotent when speaking of God, and the argument from evil above does not address this directly as is. However your definition of omnipotent is still problematic, because if God is supposed to have absolute control over his creation then evil is still needless. As God can then bring about any state within His creation without utilizing evil. The argument from evil in this case is in need of only minor modification, but applies none the less.

Infinity Lover

Would it help if I showed some nonexistent droppings?

Plump-DJ

Keith:

Well you don't have to. The point at this time i think is saying that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of bad stuff and God. So those who do believe or have faith in the existence of God for other reasons do not have to relinquish that faith because there exists a contradiction between that belief and the existence of suffering.

Again, i don't know about that. If God did have you're best *ultimate* interests at heart then i see no reason to rebel. This life would be fleeting and not really the realy stuff of what life was about. On the other hand if God is not good and does not have our ultimate best interests at heart i submit that we are all in a lot of trouble.

I'd also say that alot of "bad stuff" is simply prolonged and exagerated by our own choices and our own indifference to the suffering of others. Most people seem caught up in their own, dare i say selfish lives and aren't using all their potential to help others in need. Imagine a world like that? I'd imagine it would be much much nicer then the current one.

Well, each to their own. Not everyone sees it like that. As i see it Humans have for the most part always worshiped something "greater" or some higher being beyond themselves. Wether someone thinks this God is worthy of honest respect is up to the individual i think.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Plump-DJ

TM wrote..

Well yes i would. But the problem as i see it is how much of the suffering that exists is caused by God and how much is caused by us? How much of the suffering in this world is prolonged and exagerated by our own choices, our own reactions to the things which happen in our lives and our own indifferences to others suffering? We seem oft caught up in our own lives.

I've got a couple of questions here.

1) Why does this entail considerable moral and epistemic skepticism? I don't see the link.

2) Why is this not a real honest (meaning intellectualy acceptable i suppose) possibly if God is strongly omnipotent? I've seen good answers to this qusetion. One example is that it's not possible for God to create a universe without the possiblity of suffering while at the same time creating persons who can choose him or choose Good in any meaningful sense. How can you know what good is without the bad, light without darkness?

3) The last part of this point you make i think is the real problem. It's like this scenario. Either you can jump off the cliff ("Weeeeeeeee") or you can have God push you? See the problem? Your choice is not much of a choice at all, and has lost any real meaning as a "choice".

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Primal

The argument from evil is one that establishes a contradiction between the existence of evil and the supposed existence of the Xian God as it is widely concieved.

To simply argue that the argument from evil is invalid just cause the existence of evil cannot entail contradiction is to merely question beg instead of refute. This hypothetical justification, again, is not possible even in theory as God is omniptent. God supposedly needs to make no sacrifices to achive His ends and hence the idea of there ever being some sort of justification for evil as a means made out of necessity is void.