Why does God allow so much suffering?

It could be argued, that without suffering, there would be no compassion.
Also, I understand from some religious points of view that suffering on earth exists as it is a test from God to see how people react to that suffering, in one way being the "test of life".

If God doesn't know all he's not all knowing. There's no way around that.

It doesn't make any sense


Posted from TSR Mobile

and god might know the answers but keep them locked away until the time has
come he might have made himself temporarily forget we cant be sure tho

Ah the beauty of arguing for God. The ultimate cop out - we don't understand / we can't be sure. Must be lovely to have a get out of jail card.

I wonder if theists go around life arguing in the same manner about things not related to God. Or if they are actually capable of rational thought.

reiterating what I wrote in my RS exam

When will you deluded people come to terms with the fact that God
doesn't
exist?

"We don't know, we don't understand it" is the basic response of most atheistic physicists when confronted with the Kalam argument, for example, so that's blatantly hypocritical

That's the point, we don't know. But we don't pretend the answer is "God"...

Exactly, you don't know. In other words you have no basis for arguing God doesn't exist, and theists have many reasons for believing God does (Moral, Ontological, Kalam, Liebniz's cosmological, Fine Tuning arguments for a start, besides any personal experience) So who's on the stronger side? Moi

Posted from TSR Mobile

Exactly, you don't know. In other words you have no basis for arguing God doesn't exist, and theists have many reasons for believing God does (Moral, Ontological, Kalam, Liebniz's cosmological, Fine Tuning arguments for a start, besides any personal experience) So who's on the stronger side? Moi

Posted from TSR Mobile

Exactly, you don't know. In other words you have no basis for arguing God doesn't exist, and theists have many reasons for believing God does (Moral, Ontological, Kalam, Liebniz's cosmological, Fine Tuning arguments for a start, besides any personal experience) So who's on the stronger side? Moi

Posted from TSR Mobile

Read my edit to the other post. I do not know all of these but most of these apologetic ******** is based on the retarded assumption, note assumption not premise, of a "first cause" or versions of that.

Not knowing the exact scientific explanation for the origin of the universe does not equate to the answer being "God".

The ancient Greeks and Romans did not know about say how oceans works. They prayed to a "God" like Apollo in order to explain something they didn't understand. Your God, is nothing more than the manifestation of scared humans that need some sort of reason for their miserable existence in the universe.

I pity you.

They're all inconclusive/*****y arguments, no offense.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well, I guess you asked for this. Feel free to present any counter arguments - if we're going to talk Philosophy, let's do it properly:

Here is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Traditionally it relies on philosophical reasoning and logic, but modern science has given it new grounds to work with, so for the second premise I’m only including the scientific evidence. Remember: for an argument to be a good one, the conclusion must follow necessarily from the two premises, and the two premises must each be more likely true than their alternative. This is not a proof of God’s existence, it is an argument for it. A good argument will be enough to convince a reasonable person, only the unreasonable person needs a proof. The syllogism goes like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Firstly, it seems logically impossible for something to begin existing out of nothing whatsoever. To claim something can come from nothing is essentially an appeal to magic, and is as much a question of faith on the scientist’s part as any religiousdoctrine. Secondly, quantum mechanics has not disproved this premise at all. You may have heard of the so-called 'virtual particles' that come into being from 'nothing'. But what a physicist means by ‘nothing’ is not what a philosopher means by ‘nothing’. A physicist means a vacuum - but that isn't really nothing. It has space, physical laws and fluctuating energy waves for a start. The ‘nothing’ used for this argument really does mean nothing, including space itself. Thirdly, if you allow something to come from nothing, it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything wouldn’t just pop into existence from nothing all the time, all around us. If Big Bangs can do it, why not trees, or people, or planets?Fourthly, the scientific process constantly reaffirms this premise. Science is always looking for causes and, when confronted with a new discovery without an apparent cause, doesn't just say – ‘oh, it just popped into existence from nothing!’

Premise 2:
The Universe began to exist.For this premise there are two really amazing philosophical explanations for why the universe's past cannot be infinite, first formed by Ghazali in the eleventh century. They're great, but take a while to explain, so I’ve left them out here. The scientific arguments are as follows:Firstly, the Big Bang theory, unrefuted for a remarkably long time given the rate of modern scientific research, points towards a point of singularity – a beginning of the universe.Secondly, there are, as of today, no successful models of an infinite universe. Any ideas of an oscillating universe or baby universes have all failed due to inherent problems, like the build-up of entropy (unavailability of thermal energy causing decline into disorder).Thirdly, in 2003, three leading astrophysicists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe, such as ours, that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past and must have a beginning. Fourthly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all the energy in existence, even the energy in ‘multiverses’ (if they were to exist), given long enough, will eventually even itself out into one, constant concentration everywhere - rather than being clustered in objects like stars. Since this state has not been reached, it therefore follows that all the energy in existence has not been around eternally, and therefore had a beginning.

Conclusion
Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

What can we deduce about the properties of this cause? Firstly, it must be transcendent, spaceless and timeless with respect to the universe, since it created it. Secondly, it must be a mind endowed with freedom of the will. This is because, having existed timelessly, if it were not a mind its effects would have to exist timelessly (eternally) also (just like how an iron catalyst will always have the same effect in the same environment). As the effects have not existed eternally, the ‘cause’ chose the moment for its effect (the universe) to take place at an otherwise arbitrary point, which it could only have done if it was a mind and had free will allowing it to do so. Lastly, it must also be incredibly powerful and intelligent, how else would it have been able to create such a dazzlingly complex entity, with so much energy and so many constructs, constants and laws? Omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and a transcendent mind with free will? Sounds like God to me.

It's all pretty sound up until this point