God, Satan and Job

[Tim the Skeptic]

The book of Job starts out with the "divine beings", including Satan, getting together with God. (OK, this is bizarre considering what I understand of God/Satan relationship, but not my point here.) And then this conversation, as I interpret it, occurs:

God (to Satan): Isn't Job a great guy, he is a blameless and upright man.

Satan: Look at the way he's been blessed by you. Of course, he's a great guy.

God: OK, you can do to his life whatever you want but don't hurt him.

Satan destroys Job's wealth and kills his children. But he did so with God's permission, so, who's responsible? Is God the source of this evil that happens to Job?

[bernee51]

Epicurus' statement, does not prove the non-existence of god, it merely puports that any such entity is not deserving of the epithet.

That's what it purports, but there's a big hole in the argument. Prove to me that suffering can not be beneficial. Unless you prove that, then statement #2 fails.

Statement #2 does not refer to suffering, it refers to evil. The argument is that if something has the power to stop evil (regardless of the consequences of that evil) and does not it, is malevolent (i.e. wishing harm to others)

[bobfisher]

Statement #2 does not refer to suffering, it refers to evil. The argument is that if something has the power to stop evil (regardless of the consequences of that evil) and does not it, is malevolent (i.e. wishing harm to others)

Ok, evil. He would have to prove that temporary harm/evil does not yield a net benefit. If the experience of evil yields a net benefit, then God would be good for putting us through it, even though from our vantage point, we don't like it. The argument needs to look at the overall effect of evil, not the temporary effect.

[bernee51]

Epicurus' statement, does not prove the non-existence of god, it merely puports that any such entity is not deserving of the epithet.

That's what it purports, but there's a big hole in the argument. Prove to me that suffering can not be beneficial. Unless you prove that, then statement #2 fails.

Statement #2 does not refer to suffering, it refers to evil. The argument is that if something has the power to stop evil (regardless of the consequences of that evil) and does not it, is malevolent (i.e. wishing harm to others)

Ok, evil. He would have to prove that temporary harm/evil does not yield a net benefit. If the experience of evil yields a net benefit, then God would be good for putting us through it, even though from our vantage point, we don't like it.

Who said anything about 'temporary'? Both the evil and the outcome are a matter of opinion.

As I stated - the outcome is not the issue - it is the evil itself.

I repeat, Epicurus is not commenting on the benefits or otherwise of evil, he is remarking on the existence of evil.

I'm sure some good somewhere may have come out of, for example, the Holocaust. However, in and of itself it is pretty well regarded as an evil. I presume it would have been within the power of your god to have prevented it. One conveniently placed miscarriage could have fixed it.

You seem to be claiming your god's knowledge of the outcome justifies allowing an evil, in this case the torture and death of millions, to happen.

[bobfisher]

Who said anything about 'temporary'? Both the evil and the outcome are a matter of opinion.

As I stated - the outcome is not the issue - it is the evil itself.

I repeat, Epicurus is not commenting on the benefits or otherwise of evil, he is remarking on the existence of evil.

Epicurus can't comment on the possible benefits. He has to assume the benefits don't exist or simply ingore them, because if it turns out that the evil accrues to a net benefit, his argument fails.

[bernee51]

Who said anything about 'temporary'? Both the evil and the outcome are a matter of opinion.

As I stated - the outcome is not the issue - it is the evil itself.

I repeat, Epicurus is not commenting on the benefits or otherwise of evil, he is remarking on the existence of evil.

Epicurus can't comment on the possible benefits. He has to assume the benefits don't exist or simply ingore them, because if it turns out that the evil accrues to a net benefit, his argument fails.

The net benefit would be possible for an omnipotent god to instil without the provision of evil as an intermediary. The net benefit is irrelevent to the argument. The argument is sound.

[bernee51]

By the way, the NT teaches that we (believers) must suffer. It's not an option.

Someone else stated 6 centuries earler that 'all life is suffering'. And provided a guide to the path out of suffering.

Teachings I might add that have been borrowed from in the supposed words of Jesus.

- Maybe he now has true understanding of suffering so in the future he will be able to comfort others who suffer

He died in an earthquake. How is he going to comfort others?

- Maybe he finally learned with an absolute knowing that there are things far more important than his own selfish desires. Maybe he deeply regrets where he focused his time and efforts in life. Maybe he longs to hold his children & wife one more time before he dies, but can not. Now, I admit, if God did that to a person and then and never restored the person to life to reap the benefit of his new understanding, I myself would consider that to be just plain cruel.

I don't think that THH claimed that the person was 'restored to life' - in fact I think such a claim would be an anathema to him. So I guess your second option must be true..."I myself would consider that to be just plain cruel."

[bobfisher]

The net benefit would be possible for an omnipotent god to instil without the provision of evil as an intermediary. The net benefit is irrelevent to the argument. The argument is sound.

Not necessarily. In one case I have had an actual experience of evil and in the other case I have not. They are not identical situations. Can one who lacks an experience of evil be identical to one who has actually experienced evil? There are limits to omnipotence. Can God make 1=2.

[bobfisher]

He died in an earthquake. How is he going to comfort others?

In the resurrection afterlife.

I don't think that THH claimed that the person was 'restored to life' - in fact I think such a claim would be an anathema to him. So I guess your second option must be true..."I myself would consider that to be just plain cruel."

I know he doesn't. That's my belief. If you guys are claiming that the existence of evil is logically impossible to reconcile with a loving God then you have to deal stuff that God normally does, like raise the dead.

[The Happy Humanist]

Statement #2 does not refer to suffering, it refers to evil. The argument is that if something has the power to stop evil (regardless of the consequences of that evil) and does not it, is malevolent (i.e. wishing harm to others)

Ok, evil. He would have to prove that temporary harm/evil does not yield a net benefit. If the experience of evil yields a net benefit, then God would be good for putting us through it, even though from our vantage point, we don't like it. The argument needs to look at the overall effect of evil, not the temporary effect.

In the vast majority of cases, evil acts, whether performed by humans or by God/Nature, do not yield observable net benefits. The Tsunami and Katrina caused terrible suffering. Of course there are always isolated "silver linings," such as some contractors getting some juicy contracts, or "great stories of hope and courage," or even the possibility that Pres. Bush will capitulate and sign the Kyoto Protocol. These are more along the lines of salves for the wounds inflicted. There is no doubt humanity would have been much better off without these occurrences. They were definitely net losses.

So what you are proposing, i.e., there may be net benefits to the suffering of mankind, would fall under the rubric of "extraordinary claims." And such claims demand extraordinary proof. So the burden of evidence is on the believer to prove that there could be net benefits to evil acts or suffering, rather than on the disbeliever to prove that evil is evil and suffering is suffering; these would seem to be self-evident.

[The Happy Humanist]

He died in an earthquake. How is he going to comfort others?

In the resurrection afterlife.

I don't think that THH claimed that the person was 'restored to life' - in fact I think such a claim would be an anathema to him. So I guess your second option must be true..."I myself would consider that to be just plain cruel."

I know he doesn't. That's my belief. If you guys are claiming that the existence of evil is logically impossible to reconcile with a loving God then you have to deal stuff that God normally does, like raise the dead.

First of all, how many times a day, on average, does God raise the dead? Certainly not every time a desperate prayer is recited over the deceased. In fact the last time I heard of it happening was when Jesus raised Lazarus. And of course we can't find the paperwork on that one.

Second, why should we think that raising the dead is such a magnanimous act? Who created Death in the first place? If someone is hitting you in the head with a hammer, do you praise him as a great hero when he stops?

Third, if your argument is that there is a reward in heaven that is so wonderful, it more than compensates for any suffering experienced on earth, then what kind of a favor is God doing to someone by raising them from the dead, and postponing their just rewards? Poor Lazarus might have been just settling into his cloud, getting a massage when he was called back to Earth. This is infinite goodness? Sounds more like cruelty to me.