Why does God allow so much suffering?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Kadak
Do you just make threads like these to get the answers you want ?Curious.
Leave our David alone
Original post by RobML
Both of you seem to be forgetting the omnipotence of God- you're still implying the existence of evil and suffering as if it's necessary for greater good, but it is only necessary if God does not have the ability to make things otherwise. In which case God is not omnipotent.
Both of you seem to be forgetting the omnipotence of God- you're still implying the existence of evil and suffering as if it's necessary for greater good, but it is only necessary if God does not have the ability to make things otherwise. In which case God is not omnipotent.
You're making the assumption that any action which involves suffering is "bad" by definition. Suffering which provides a greater good might be "more good" than greater good on its own without suffering.
Jesus either dies to show his love or he just says he loves you.
While the former scenario contains suffering you can't objectively determine which one is the more good action.
Also, God creates a world where evil can exist or God creates a world where evil does not exist. What's stopping me from saying God creating the world without evil is the more cruel action?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RobML
The problem still remains. God allows their absence when they has the ability to never allow their absence, and since absence = evil, then we're back to square one with "God allows evil when they have the ability to never allow evil"
What if, then, there's a limit to God and his/her abilities? A universe with God everywhere would be, simply, God - one and the same. Assuming it isn't (simply because it's easier for the line of argument), then because evil exists, surely it must be that God is absent in some places.
Original post by champ_mc99
You're making the assumption that any action which involves suffering is "bad" by definition. Suffering which provides a greater good might be "more good" than greater good on its own without suffering.
Jesus either dies to show his love or he just says he loves you.
While the former scenario contains suffering you can't objectively determine which one is the more good action.
Also, God creates a world where evil can exist or God creates a world where evil does not exist. What's stopping me from saying God creating the world without evil is the more cruel action?
Jesus either dies to show his love or he just says he loves you.
While the former scenario contains suffering you can't objectively determine which one is the more good action.
Also, God creates a world where evil can exist or God creates a world where evil does not exist. What's stopping me from saying God creating the world without evil is the more cruel action?
If God is the creator of everything, they are also the creator of morality. By definition, evil is that aspect of morality God does not accept. An omnibenevolent God does not allow evil to exist, yet according to all sources that assume such a God, evil does exist. So again we're back at square one.
"Jesus either dies to show his love or he just says he loves you"
Death is an evil according to the religious traditions in which Jesus plays a part.
Original post by SummerStrawberry
What if, then, there's a limit to God and his/her abilities? A universe with God everywhere would be, simply, God - one and the same. Assuming it isn't (simply because it's easier for the line of argument), then because evil exists, surely it must be that God is absent in some places.
Then God isn't omnipotent, and also did not create everything.
Original post by RobML
Then God isn't omnipotent, and also did not create everything.
The definition of omnipotent is to have unlimited power, so by definition of having a limit to his/her power, God is not omnipotent.
When I first saw this thread, I instantly thought of the Simulation Argument, but elected not to use it; I've been working quite extensively with it recently, so it would seem likely that my frame of reference for reading this has been consequently affected. Proverbs 4:23 is an excellent passage to show this - "Be careful what you think, because your thoughts run your life." - NCV. "Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it." - NIV. Different cultures would see the different versions, and interpret them differently. You could interpret the NIV version as referring to the metaphorical heart, and thoughts, as the author of the NCV version has done, or you could interpret it as referring to the actual heart. It tells you to look after your heart, because it pumps blood around your body, the contents of which let you do what you do - by extension, "everything you do flows from [the heart]". A psychologist would read this differently to a cardiologist by virtue of the things about which they think (the irony is that this is the point that one interpretation makes). The Bible is not infallible because it relies on humans.
I believe that God has given us two very important gifts to understand our place in the world:
The first is the Bible. It gives us a rough idea of what's going on - who's who and what's what. It's there to try to stop us from making a few silly mistakes; basic guidance in the form of an 'instruction manual for life', if you will.
The second, and most powerful, is our conscience. Our 'gut instinct' of what's right. We can reason and logically work out things, but conscience is often the final arbitrator in decisions of right and wrong, and each one of us is pretty similar in how our conscience works. We can all agree that murder is wrong, for example.
I think that we often place too much emphasis on the former rather than the latter, and that we should pay attention to what 'feels right' to our conscience. The Bible is excellent for reference - it's the word of God, after all - but it is, as we have just proven, not infallible because we aren't.
In answer to the question of suffering, the old adage comes to mind: "that which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger". And for that which does kill you, there's always the prospect of heaven.
The "god" you speak of, which we will assume does exist for the context of this question, doesn't care. That 'free will' crap just makes him an apathetic scumbag who still demands our love and affection even though he doesn't care about us. An apathetic scumbag who is not worthy of our praise and worship.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by RobML
If God is the creator of everything, they are also the creator of morality. By definition, evil is that aspect of morality God does not accept. An omnibenevolent God does not allow evil to exist, yet according to all sources that assume such a God, evil does exist. So again we're back at square one.
"Jesus either dies to show his love or he just says he loves you"
Death is an evil according to the religious traditions in which Jesus plays a part.
Then God isn't omnipotent, and also did not create everything.
"Jesus either dies to show his love or he just says he loves you"
Death is an evil according to the religious traditions in which Jesus plays a part.
Then God isn't omnipotent, and also did not create everything.
How do you prove that?
If God commits an action of evil, then He is not omnibenevelont. But how do you objectively prove creating evil is an action of committing evil in itself, specifically by God?
Original post by RobML
And you say this because....? I guarantee you don't even know much about the religion, you're just assuming the false things you hear about them!
To test us
It doesn't allow suffering because it isn't real.
Get over it.
Get over it.
Original post by PrincessZee
And you say this because....? I guarantee you don't even know much about the religion, you're just assuming the false things you hear about them!
They insist on knocking on peoples' doors, which is ridiculously annoying, especially when it happens week after week. This isn't some stereotype btw. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/door-to-door/ explains why JW's do this.
Also, I cannot accept the views on blood transfusions, in that they refuse transfusions in the face of certain death. Especially when they make that decision on behalf of a child. http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full
Original post by FightToWin
But that's not allowing something to happen. That's giving someone the choice of doing good or bad, and that someone messing up and doing the wrong thing.
Similar to what someone else rightly posted on here, whoever invented the knife did so knowing it could be used for good, but also that it could kill people, and that it WOULD be used for killing by some people. That person doesn't get the blame for every death involving a knife since. Because, as the post also rightly said, the knife isn't just going to disappear before it can hurt someone.
I genuinely believe that every single one of us is born with a path decided for us, which will lead to success and happiness, but it's so so easy to stray off that path with the free will that allows us to do anything good or bad. It's all about what path you decide to follow. The test is if you can stay on the right path avoiding any temptation using your own free will.
Similar to what someone else rightly posted on here, whoever invented the knife did so knowing it could be used for good, but also that it could kill people, and that it WOULD be used for killing by some people. That person doesn't get the blame for every death involving a knife since. Because, as the post also rightly said, the knife isn't just going to disappear before it can hurt someone.
I genuinely believe that every single one of us is born with a path decided for us, which will lead to success and happiness, but it's so so easy to stray off that path with the free will that allows us to do anything good or bad. It's all about what path you decide to follow. The test is if you can stay on the right path avoiding any temptation using your own free will.
By definition, free will is God allowing us to do whatever we want and thus by extension allowing suffering to exist.
The "life is a test" mantra is also incredibly flawed because a test is only applicable in the presence of doubt. You don't nor cannot test someone if you 100% know the outcome in advance.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by champ_mc99
How do you prove that?
If God commits an action of evil, then He is not omnibenevelont. But how do you objectively prove creating evil is an action of committing evil in itself, specifically by God?
If God commits an action of evil, then He is not omnibenevelont. But how do you objectively prove creating evil is an action of committing evil in itself, specifically by God?
Creating an action and commiting an action are one and the same.
Original post by SummerStrawberry
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"
A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"
"God created everything?", the professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."
The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that faith in God was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, Professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"
The other students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-273C) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. What we have created is a word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colours and study the various wavelengths of each colour. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when people do not have God's love present in their heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down. The young man's name -- Albert Einstein
Of course, Abraham Lincoln taught us that "the problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is very hard to verify their source", and many people have said that this story did not, in fact, involve Einstein, and more still that it never actually happened at all, but I have left it 'as-is', albeit with a few formatting changes to make it fit better on TSR.
A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"
"God created everything?", the professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."
The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that faith in God was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, Professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"
The other students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-273C) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. What we have created is a word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colours and study the various wavelengths of each colour. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when people do not have God's love present in their heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down. The young man's name -- Albert Einstein
Of course, Abraham Lincoln taught us that "the problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is very hard to verify their source", and many people have said that this story did not, in fact, involve Einstein, and more still that it never actually happened at all, but I have left it 'as-is', albeit with a few formatting changes to make it fit better on TSR.
That story is an obvious and well-known fabrication, Einstein said no such thing. In fact, we know that Einstein considered the concept of a personal god childish.
Second, my inner chemist kicks in with the excerpt about heat. First off, what we describe as cold isn't the absence of heat. Heat, which is just movement of atoms, disappears at 0 K, but this temperature is in fact theoretical. Due to the nature of reality this temperature can never be reached and thus atoms are always vibrating no matter what. Therefore by that absurd definition everything is always hot. The point is that cold is a relative term. No one can deny that it is cold in the Arctic despite the fact that all the atoms there are moving and thus "hot" going by that story's unscientific hogwash. Every time we feel cold we are still very much full of heat.
Second, darkness IS a thing. This is obvious to anyone that has eyes and come to think of it, to everyone who is blind too! Just because it cannot be measured as an independent quantity does not mean it isn't a thing. Describing darkness as the absence of light does not make it any less of a thing than describing tall as the absence of short does.
Moreover, I find if pretty funny that the text then tries to extrapolate that to evil implying that it isn't a real thing unto itself (whatever the hell that means). Most of the major religions are pretty clear that evil is definitely real and that's it the work of Satan or some form of adversary to God.
In short, as well as that story being an invention, it employs poor science and tortured logic.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Tetragon213
They insist on knocking on peoples' doors, which is ridiculously annoying, especially when it happens week after week. This isn't some stereotype btw. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/door-to-door/ explains why JW's do this.
Also, I cannot accept the views on blood transfusions, in that they refuse transfusions in the face of certain death. Especially when they make that decision on behalf of a child. http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full
Also, I cannot accept the views on blood transfusions, in that they refuse transfusions in the face of certain death. Especially when they make that decision on behalf of a child. http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full
also http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ex-jehovahs-witness-schoolgirl-exposes-organisation-as-a-religion-that-destroys-lives-10273064.html
Original post by RobML
Creating an action and commiting an action are one and the same.
Evil is a noun though; I don't think they are the same.
I'm tired. Agree to disagree?
Why does God allow so much suffering?
Easy answer:
Doesn't exist
Easy answer:
Doesn't exist
Original post by champ_mc99
Evil is a noun though; I don't think they are the same.
I'm tired. Agree to disagree?
I'm tired. Agree to disagree?
Create and commit are both verbs, they both mean to bring about, creating and commiting evil both mean to bring about evil.
Nah
Why ask me? Go and ask god is my answer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RobML
Create and commit are both verbs, they both mean to bring about, creating and commiting evil both mean to bring about evil.
Nah
Nah
Not in this case. Creating evil here I would say means creating the potential for it to happen. It's like in sport where the rule makers tell you what actions causes a foul without having to commit the foul themselves. God is the rule maker whilst you and I are the players.
OK you win then.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- motivation for a levels
- discuss the view that the idea of Purgatory makes more sense than Hell
- GCSE English language question 5
- Edexcel IGCSE RS - The Religious Community Revision
- I think I'm (possibly) dead
- AQA A-level Religious Studies 1 (7062/1) 12 Jun & 2 (7062/2A-2E) 19 Jun [Exam Chat]
- I am insecure about my nose - is a sin in Christianity to get a nosejob?
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- Can someone please mark this out of 30(all my teachers refused)
- Can someone mark my essay, please I beg
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- A&P revision recommendations
- i dont feel close to god anymore
- Macbeth essay
- When you find out that someone who used to bully you is achieving a lot
- Eduqas A-level Religious Studies 1 (A120UA0-1-A120UF0-1) & 2 (A120U20-1) [Exam Chat]
- Explore how Shakespeare presents attitudes to the supernatural
- How to accept the past
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
