If there is a god, why are some people born disabled?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AhmedMA99
Life would be too easy if we had everything preserved for us.
God wants us to feel thankful for what we have so he tests
us with disabilities, illness, poorness etc..
Some people have more than what we have, some have less.
That's just how life works. You have to work for your
success. Nothing is served on a golden plate.
Sometimes these disabilities are a punishment for
doing something bad or maybe just to remind us
of thanking God for what we have.
In conclusion, God wants us to work hard in our
lives and thank him for everything either it being waking up
in the morning or going to sleep in the night.
Maybe you can think about all the poor and homeless people
all over the world with no beds to sleep on.
If God gave everyone everything, no one would
thank God for what he have.
Sorry for the long post, but I had to type this.
God wants us to feel thankful for what we have so he tests
us with disabilities, illness, poorness etc..
Some people have more than what we have, some have less.
That's just how life works. You have to work for your
success. Nothing is served on a golden plate.
Sometimes these disabilities are a punishment for
doing something bad or maybe just to remind us
of thanking God for what we have.
In conclusion, God wants us to work hard in our
lives and thank him for everything either it being waking up
in the morning or going to sleep in the night.
Maybe you can think about all the poor and homeless people
all over the world with no beds to sleep on.
If God gave everyone everything, no one would
thank God for what he have.
Sorry for the long post, but I had to type this.
W#nker
Original post by charco
W#nker
'Cos I don't like posts being deleted, I quote this to preserve this.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by fastandfurious
In Hinduism, disabilities are believed to be linked to “karma”, sins that have been committed in past lives.
Original post by Drax101
I know a Hindu friend and I've just text him this which he finds this very insulting.
Do you believe the wealthy, capable, intelligent, people with good jobs, good partners and the beautiful committed good deeds/were saints in their previous lives?
It could be anything, maybe the disability is a test for them, maybe they wanted to experience this life, maybe they are seeking to progress spiritually.
Do you believe the wealthy, capable, intelligent, people with good jobs, good partners and the beautiful committed good deeds/were saints in their previous lives?
It could be anything, maybe the disability is a test for them, maybe they wanted to experience this life, maybe they are seeking to progress spiritually.
Original post by RobML
It seems like a horrid philosophy that suggests people always deserve their suffering
I always despair when I see that the vast majority of Hindus themselves have such an over-simplistic understanding of Karma (or completely misunderstand it) and justify suffering by saying that "he/she deserves it for doing xyz so there is no need to help out"
The Law of Karma understood in its full complexity is that a whole host of other things also gang up on a person which are beyond their control. The fact that someone has a disability could have nothing whatsoever to do with what they have/have not done in this/previous life and could be a product of circumstance, environmental factors, genetics, parents' actions or something else.
The mature understanding of the Law of Karma also says that YOUR Karma is to help someone out who is suffering, not to turn your back. It does not allow you to become indifferent to the suffering of others (or yourself).
Original post by banterboy
I'll try, i find some parts confusing myself. In the book i have by him (The Nature of necessity) it's like a 20 page argument.
Well, basically, there's an atheistic argument that goes roughly like this:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omni-benevolent
3. Evil exists in the possible world A.
4. 3 contradicts one or both of 1 or 2.
5. So God cannot exist in A.
6. A is the actual world.
7. God does not exist in the actual world.
(btw possible worlds are just complete sets of non contradictory propositions which account for each other, so there is a possible world which is exactly the same apart from I have blue not brown hair. There are no possible worlds where I dye my hair blue successfully but have entirely brown hair.).
When the theist points out that evil is required for free will, the atheist tends to say
"God could have made some possible world P where free will exists and no evil occurs, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent".
Plantinga therefore says that any morally relevant definition of free will has to include the ability to do evil on every possible world (Call this def.1). Plantinga calls this Transworld Depravity.
So suppose I can choose to kill someone or not to kill someone on world A at time t, and i can't kill someone and not kill someone at t. I will use this as an example, but the point extends to the moral decisions of everyone in a possible world.
Call the world in which i choose not to A1, the one where i do A2.
Suppose God could instantiate possible world A1.
Then by def.1 and def.2 "I do not have free will with respect to the fact I did not kill someone at t in world A1. As By def.1, free will requires my ability to make the morally relevant choices P and not P in the same possible world. So, if God creates a world in which not P must obtain, and therefore P is impossible, I have no free will to choose P or not P. So I am not free on world A1.
Therefore, if God creates a world A1, where it is impossible that i choose to kill, God has on that world removed evil by removing free will.
In A1, therefore, God has not "created a world in which myself and everyone else freely chooses not to do evil", he has simply attained the world in which moral evil does not occur.
Now imagine I am on A2, and that God's will does not enforce my murderous choice on A2. Also suppose that on A2, up until time t when i actually kill the bastard, the proposition I could choose not to kill him, is true. Universalise this to everyone on A2, and we have it that:
For all morally evil choices on world A2, it is possible that they could have been avoided.
As a crucial consequence of that, however unlikely; on a world like A2, it is possible that humans have free will and always choose the morally good option.
Now make one final assumption. God prefers his children to have free will than for them to lack free will but have no evil in their lives. Given an even elementary understanding of Christian theology, this assumption is surely desirable.
Now we have established the premises we need to make the following argument:
1.The best possible world for an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is one where free will exists and evil does not occur.
2. Morally significant free will requires that on every world one has free will, one can choose between a moral and immoral action.
3. It is impossible for him to actualise a world like A1 where "everyone freely chooses good all the time", because on that world no one can choose evil, and by 2. this world does not contain free will, making it an impossible world.
4. If God actualises a world like A2, then it is possible but not necessary that everyone freely chooses good.
5. Given 1, 2 and 3, this is best possible world even an omnipotent God could create.
6. Therefore, there is no contradiction between evil occurring on a world like A2 and God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence.
7. Our world is like that of A2 in the relevant respects.
8. Therefore, and omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can exist in the actual world.
I hope that explains the core of the argument somewhat.
Well, basically, there's an atheistic argument that goes roughly like this:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omni-benevolent
3. Evil exists in the possible world A.
4. 3 contradicts one or both of 1 or 2.
5. So God cannot exist in A.
6. A is the actual world.
7. God does not exist in the actual world.
(btw possible worlds are just complete sets of non contradictory propositions which account for each other, so there is a possible world which is exactly the same apart from I have blue not brown hair. There are no possible worlds where I dye my hair blue successfully but have entirely brown hair.).
When the theist points out that evil is required for free will, the atheist tends to say
"God could have made some possible world P where free will exists and no evil occurs, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent".
Plantinga therefore says that any morally relevant definition of free will has to include the ability to do evil on every possible world (Call this def.1). Plantinga calls this Transworld Depravity.
So suppose I can choose to kill someone or not to kill someone on world A at time t, and i can't kill someone and not kill someone at t. I will use this as an example, but the point extends to the moral decisions of everyone in a possible world.
Call the world in which i choose not to A1, the one where i do A2.
Suppose God could instantiate possible world A1.
Then by def.1 and def.2 "I do not have free will with respect to the fact I did not kill someone at t in world A1. As By def.1, free will requires my ability to make the morally relevant choices P and not P in the same possible world. So, if God creates a world in which not P must obtain, and therefore P is impossible, I have no free will to choose P or not P. So I am not free on world A1.
Therefore, if God creates a world A1, where it is impossible that i choose to kill, God has on that world removed evil by removing free will.
In A1, therefore, God has not "created a world in which myself and everyone else freely chooses not to do evil", he has simply attained the world in which moral evil does not occur.
Now imagine I am on A2, and that God's will does not enforce my murderous choice on A2. Also suppose that on A2, up until time t when i actually kill the bastard, the proposition I could choose not to kill him, is true. Universalise this to everyone on A2, and we have it that:
For all morally evil choices on world A2, it is possible that they could have been avoided.
As a crucial consequence of that, however unlikely; on a world like A2, it is possible that humans have free will and always choose the morally good option.
Now make one final assumption. God prefers his children to have free will than for them to lack free will but have no evil in their lives. Given an even elementary understanding of Christian theology, this assumption is surely desirable.
Now we have established the premises we need to make the following argument:
1.The best possible world for an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is one where free will exists and evil does not occur.
2. Morally significant free will requires that on every world one has free will, one can choose between a moral and immoral action.
3. It is impossible for him to actualise a world like A1 where "everyone freely chooses good all the time", because on that world no one can choose evil, and by 2. this world does not contain free will, making it an impossible world.
4. If God actualises a world like A2, then it is possible but not necessary that everyone freely chooses good.
5. Given 1, 2 and 3, this is best possible world even an omnipotent God could create.
6. Therefore, there is no contradiction between evil occurring on a world like A2 and God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence.
7. Our world is like that of A2 in the relevant respects.
8. Therefore, and omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can exist in the actual world.
I hope that explains the core of the argument somewhat.
I had to re-read to fully understand that but nicely reiterated.
Though I realized it didn't cover the other point Plantagenet Crown made on why a test is necessary if God is omniscient and how free will fits into the idea of God knowing (or even planning) the actions each individual before they are born.
I'm assuming you're religious?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by charco
W#nker
Try sticking to the chemistry, it does indeed suit you more appropriately.
Such puerile comments are truly embarrassing, not to mention full of drivel
God does not burden a person beyond what that person can bare.
Original post by TheRealLifeBane
God does not burden a person beyond what that person can bare.
what's the point of this absurd 'test' in the first place ?
Original post by mariachi
so, you mean that, therefore, no one is going to fail the test ?
what's the point of this absurd 'test' in the first place ?
what's the point of this absurd 'test' in the first place ?
I'm doing my a-levels right now so forgive me if this analogy is poor.
Anyone doing A-levels is doing so because they showed they can pass it with their GCSE grades or what not displaying they are academically capable.
However, does that mean no one should sit a 'test' or two as everyone is able to pass it everyone shall pass it? You tell me.
Therefore, how is it that you can say that the test is "absurd" and assume it is pointless?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by TheRealLifeBane
God does not burden a person beyond what that person can bare.
Many, many people would beg to differ, including those who have committed suicide.
If only someone convinced them sooner 
Original post by keturah
Yes, although didn't cause me many problems till I was older. Now I'm pretty much in constant pain 👎
For all arguments along the lines of 'If God exists, why does X bad thing happen. He cannot be both omnipotent and ominbenovelent'.
My answer to this sort of argument is that religious people believe in two things:
A) The afterlife
B) God said that he compensates people for the sufferings that they've endured in this world in the afterlife. Least he does in my religion.
So the people that suffer, suffer relatively little and for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange, they end up getting a reward that is relatively large and that lasts forever.
My answer to this sort of argument is that religious people believe in two things:
A) The afterlife
B) God said that he compensates people for the sufferings that they've endured in this world in the afterlife. Least he does in my religion.
So the people that suffer, suffer relatively little and for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange, they end up getting a reward that is relatively large and that lasts forever.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by banterboy
I'll try, i find some parts confusing myself. In the book i have by him (The Nature of necessity) it's like a 20 page argument.
Well, basically, there's an atheistic argument that goes roughly like this:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omni-benevolent
3. Evil exists in the possible world A.
4. 3 contradicts one or both of 1 or 2.
5. So God cannot exist in A.
6. A is the actual world.
7. God does not exist in the actual world.
(btw possible worlds are just complete sets of non contradictory propositions which account for each other, so there is a possible world which is exactly the same apart from I have blue not brown hair. There are no possible worlds where I dye my hair blue successfully but have entirely brown hair.).
When the theist points out that evil is required for free will, the atheist tends to say
"God could have made some possible world P where free will exists and no evil occurs, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent".
Plantinga therefore says that any morally relevant definition of free will has to include the ability to do evil on every possible world (Call this def.1). Plantinga calls this Transworld Depravity.
So suppose I can choose to kill someone or not to kill someone on world A at time t, and i can't kill someone and not kill someone at t. I will use this as an example, but the point extends to the moral decisions of everyone in a possible world.
Call the world in which i choose not to A1, the one where i do A2.
Suppose God could instantiate possible world A1.
Then by def.1 and def.2 "I do not have free will with respect to the fact I did not kill someone at t in world A1. As By def.1, free will requires my ability to make the morally relevant choices P and not P in the same possible world. So, if God creates a world in which not P must obtain, and therefore P is impossible, I have no free will to choose P or not P. So I am not free on world A1.
Therefore, if God creates a world A1, where it is impossible that i choose to kill, God has on that world removed evil by removing free will.
In A1, therefore, God has not "created a world in which myself and everyone else freely chooses not to do evil", he has simply attained the world in which moral evil does not occur.
Now imagine I am on A2, and that God's will does not enforce my murderous choice on A2. Also suppose that on A2, up until time t when i actually kill the bastard, the proposition I could choose not to kill him, is true. Universalise this to everyone on A2, and we have it that:
For all morally evil choices on world A2, it is possible that they could have been avoided.
As a crucial consequence of that, however unlikely; on a world like A2, it is possible that humans have free will and always choose the morally good option.
Now make one final assumption. God prefers his children to have free will than for them to lack free will but have no evil in their lives. Given an even elementary understanding of Christian theology, this assumption is surely desirable.
Now we have established the premises we need to make the following argument:
1.The best possible world for an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is one where free will exists and evil does not occur.
2. Morally significant free will requires that on every world one has free will, one can choose between a moral and immoral action.
3. It is impossible for him to actualise a world like A1 where "everyone freely chooses good all the time", because on that world no one can choose evil, and by 2. this world does not contain free will, making it an impossible world.
4. If God actualises a world like A2, then it is possible but not necessary that everyone freely chooses good.
5. Given 1, 2 and 3, this is best possible world even an omnipotent God could create.
6. Therefore, there is no contradiction between evil occurring on a world like A2 and God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence.
7. Our world is like that of A2 in the relevant respects.
8. Therefore, and omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can exist in the actual world.
I hope that explains the core of the argument somewhat.
Well, basically, there's an atheistic argument that goes roughly like this:
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omni-benevolent
3. Evil exists in the possible world A.
4. 3 contradicts one or both of 1 or 2.
5. So God cannot exist in A.
6. A is the actual world.
7. God does not exist in the actual world.
(btw possible worlds are just complete sets of non contradictory propositions which account for each other, so there is a possible world which is exactly the same apart from I have blue not brown hair. There are no possible worlds where I dye my hair blue successfully but have entirely brown hair.).
When the theist points out that evil is required for free will, the atheist tends to say
"God could have made some possible world P where free will exists and no evil occurs, otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent".
Plantinga therefore says that any morally relevant definition of free will has to include the ability to do evil on every possible world (Call this def.1). Plantinga calls this Transworld Depravity.
So suppose I can choose to kill someone or not to kill someone on world A at time t, and i can't kill someone and not kill someone at t. I will use this as an example, but the point extends to the moral decisions of everyone in a possible world.
Call the world in which i choose not to A1, the one where i do A2.
Suppose God could instantiate possible world A1.
Then by def.1 and def.2 "I do not have free will with respect to the fact I did not kill someone at t in world A1. As By def.1, free will requires my ability to make the morally relevant choices P and not P in the same possible world. So, if God creates a world in which not P must obtain, and therefore P is impossible, I have no free will to choose P or not P. So I am not free on world A1.
Therefore, if God creates a world A1, where it is impossible that i choose to kill, God has on that world removed evil by removing free will.
In A1, therefore, God has not "created a world in which myself and everyone else freely chooses not to do evil", he has simply attained the world in which moral evil does not occur.
Now imagine I am on A2, and that God's will does not enforce my murderous choice on A2. Also suppose that on A2, up until time t when i actually kill the bastard, the proposition I could choose not to kill him, is true. Universalise this to everyone on A2, and we have it that:
For all morally evil choices on world A2, it is possible that they could have been avoided.
As a crucial consequence of that, however unlikely; on a world like A2, it is possible that humans have free will and always choose the morally good option.
Now make one final assumption. God prefers his children to have free will than for them to lack free will but have no evil in their lives. Given an even elementary understanding of Christian theology, this assumption is surely desirable.
Now we have established the premises we need to make the following argument:
1.The best possible world for an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is one where free will exists and evil does not occur.
2. Morally significant free will requires that on every world one has free will, one can choose between a moral and immoral action.
3. It is impossible for him to actualise a world like A1 where "everyone freely chooses good all the time", because on that world no one can choose evil, and by 2. this world does not contain free will, making it an impossible world.
4. If God actualises a world like A2, then it is possible but not necessary that everyone freely chooses good.
5. Given 1, 2 and 3, this is best possible world even an omnipotent God could create.
6. Therefore, there is no contradiction between evil occurring on a world like A2 and God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence.
7. Our world is like that of A2 in the relevant respects.
8. Therefore, and omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can exist in the actual world.
I hope that explains the core of the argument somewhat.
Maybe I'm not understanding this properly but I'm failing to be convinced.
1. Free will has no bearing on the validity of the argument from evil (if so explain), so how is it a refutation?
2. It's a baseless assumption that God prefers his children to have free will
3. Any non-superficial definition of free will seems to be incompatible with an omnipotent and omniscient God in the first place. Firstly, God is the source of everything. Secondly, God knows everything. God is the source of all our actions and God has eternally known what all our actions would be, i.e. all our actions are determined by God, whether they be good or evil.
Therefore there is no possible world where someone could have chosen to do either good or evil, and so Plantinga's entire argument seems to fall apart
Original post by toonervoustotalk
couldn't have said it any better 
omg this has made my day im profoundly deaf in both ears and i have an implant and tbh i love being deaf and im doing alevels going onto uni, i wouldnt want to be not deaf coz a it boring and b u have to hold ur ears if fire alarm went off where as being deaf i can just take me implant out hahhahah
Original post by hannah5176
omg this has made my day im profoundly deaf in both ears and i have an implant and tbh i love being deaf and im doing alevels going onto uni, i wouldnt want to be not deaf coz a it boring and b u have to hold ur ears if fire alarm went off where as being deaf i can just take me implant out hahhahah
Haha nice
I am also deaf. I have sensorineural/Severe to profound hearing loss.
It makes me unique but i find it hard hearing high pitch sounds
Fire alarms are the worst
but once the hearing aide are out it is so much better
Original post by cosmic angel
For all arguments along the lines of 'If God exists, why does X bad thing happen. He cannot be both omnipotent and ominbenovelent'.
My answer to this sort of argument is that religious people believe in two things:
A) The afterlife
B) God said that he compensates people for the sufferings that they've endured in this world in the afterlife. Least he does in my religion.
So the people that suffer, suffer relatively little and for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange, they end up getting a reward that is relatively large and that lasts forever.
My answer to this sort of argument is that religious people believe in two things:
A) The afterlife
B) God said that he compensates people for the sufferings that they've endured in this world in the afterlife. Least he does in my religion.
So the people that suffer, suffer relatively little and for a relatively short period of time, and in exchange, they end up getting a reward that is relatively large and that lasts forever.
In what way does he compensate
Original post by keturah
Yes, although didn't cause me many problems till I was older. Now I'm pretty much in constant pain 👎
What is it?
Original post by Popsiclez
Its through our suffering we become more greatful and strive for greatness and success. Its kinda like if you push someone far enough into a corner they will fight
.. and babies who are born with disease that causes them intense pain, suffering and eventual death?
for example Harlequin Ichthyosis
... how much fighting from their corner are they able to do?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Share thoughts that have inspired you personally
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Thoughts on support without diagnosis?
- If You Could Be Born In Any Decade, Which One?
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- Can I become a nurse if Im bad with listening to instructions?
- Why are we designed to suffer?
- Harley Quinn is NOT a trained psychiatrist.
- Equality Act 2010 does not protect disabled students enough
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- I think I'm (possibly) dead
- What 3 albums would you take if you were going to be stuck on a desert island?
- Is it Haram to do this?
- Spiritual truths to maybe iive by
- What religion was Mary Shelley author of Frankenstein?
- How to accept being alone?
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- What happens when a person with anorexia has a baby?
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 9 minutes ago
LSE politics and Economics 2023/2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Is it really such a bad thing to have an undefined relationshipLast reply 11 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 12 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 20 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 22 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2909
Trending
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 42 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 42 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
