Problem of suffering

[Wootah]

I want to suggest that the problem of suffering is solved by saying that the suffering is worth it.

Granted not everyone can cope but our willingness to endure demonstrates that love is greater than suffering.

God's love is demonstrated despite the suffering.

What do you think?

[marco]

Or you could just as easily show the verse in scripture that refutes my view?

When someone comes up with a hypothesis it is not assumed true without proof. If it is claimed there's life on Mars, the onus is on the claimant to prove the claim. Experience tells us that pain is bad; Scripture tells us that God is good. We have a problem, Houston.

[marco]

I know and I appreciate your candor without hostility...but it resonates with Christian doctrine that those who reject YHWHH are left to sin and cannot understand the spirit.

And those who accept YHWH don't sin? Or if sin is evidence of rejection, then no one on earth accepts YHWH.

Sure, from a secular pv that has no idea of the spiritual events that are causative of things secular...

That is the only view allowed humans. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard .... we have no idea of the spiritual events, if any, that cause us pain. We do, however, have a very clear idea of cause and effect and most of us judge pain as bad. I imagine that were God vulnerable to pain, he too would have the same opinion.

[Bust Nak]

We will try to get as far as we can to understanding there is only 1 way.

Okay.

That sounds melodramatic. What does running foul of imperfection mean?

Being less than perfect, which directly contradict with being perfect.

Are you saying that God took a risk by trying to save mankind rather than just staying holy and righteous and perfect and simply judging us?

No, I am saying God cannot exist since no logical contradiction can exist.

It's rational to choose less optimal paths all the time. Or to be more precise the path chosen may not appear to others as the optimal path.

Right, but a perfect God isn't going to mistakenly take a path that only appears to be the optimal but isn't actually optimal. A god that willingly takes the less than optimal path, regardless of appearance to others, is not rational.

What was the trivial alternative?

The non horrible version, obviously. Give me something to work with, suggest a scenario and I'll outline what the non horrible version would look like.

[ttruscott]

I understand that some Christians blame all this on 'the fall,' blaming it on the creature rather than the creator. But even if this is so, then it is even worse, because it shows God purposely inflicted these horrors on his creation as punishment.

Your intransigence against the Christian ideology that the creature is responsible by their free will both for the creation of evil and the necessity for the punishments of evil is well known. It doesn't of course make you right.

To deny HIS right to purposely inflict punishments and judgements upon criminals given to evil is to put yourself above every justice system of every culture on earth.

[ttruscott]

Or you could just as easily show the verse in scripture that refutes my view?

Experience tells us that pain is bad; Scripture tells us that God is good. We have a problem, Houston.

If pain is considered to be universally bad, why is it used for correction on all levels of society? The utopia of no pain will be ushered in when no more correction is needed for creation, that is, with the heavenly state.

[ttruscott]

I know and I appreciate your candor without hostility...but it resonates with Christian doctrine that those who reject YHWHH are left to sin and cannot understand the spirit.

And those who accept YHWH don't sin? Or if sin is evidence of rejection, then no one on earth accepts YHWH.

There are 3 degrees of rejection. 1. There is the total rejection of HIS deity and of HIS offer of salvation for all sin by the Satanic. 2. There is the rebellion of some of those who accepted HIS deity and offer of salvation, becoming HIS elect, but who rejected HIS plan of judgement for the Satanic demons. 3. And there is the rejection by some of the rest of the elect against HIS plan to force the newly sinful elect to live with the Satanic demons to learn the reality of the nature of evil, both their own and the evil of the Satanic.

All three level of sinners live together on earth under the delusions that sin brings upon them and yes, until they are brought back to their first faith, they do indeed all reject YHWH as their GOD.

Sure, from a secular pv that has no idea of the spiritual events that are causative of things secular...

That is the only view allowed humans. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard .... we have no idea of the spiritual events, if any, that cause us pain. We do, however, have a very clear idea of cause and effect and most of us judge pain as bad. I imagine that were God vulnerable to pain, he too would have the same opinion.

I am a Trinitarian...GOD knows both physical and mental emotional anguish.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 40 by Bust Nak]

I just dont understand how you conclude we are not talking about an omni God.

This is key.

If you aren't going to deny the existence of evil, and if you aren't going to say that your morality is irrational, that leaves the other three moves:

1. God isn't that powerful.
2. God isn't that smart/knowing.
3. God isn't that good.

But to make one of those moves--and to know that you made it--is to concede that the PoE is correct. So you have to make the move without knowing what you gave up.

You have to say, "God isn't really strong enough to do that," while still somehow believing that god can do anything.

Or you have to say, "God isn't really all that good," while still believing that he is perfectly good.

Unless you can manage this, you can't defend against the PoE.

Taken at face value we have miracles in the Bible like creation attesting to his power. So if God doesnt do X does not mean God cant do X. Can you see that?

If he can do it and doesn't, then he isn't all that good. If he has the will to do it but can't, then he isn't all that powerful. The only other option (assuming you reject moves 4 and 5) is to say that god is to ignorant or stupid to use his power to effect what he wills.

You can't see more than 3 moves? Is that what you are saying? Can you explain why the PoE isn't just a series of false dichotomies?

[wiploc]

You can't see more than 3 moves? Is that what you are saying?

There are five relevant moves. You don't seem to be using the last two, so that leaves the first three.

Can you explain why the PoE isn't just a series of false dichotomies?

The lack of falseness. If there was a god who,

[wiploc]

You can't see more than 3 moves? Is that what you are saying?

There are five relevant moves. You don't seem to be using the last two, so that leaves the first three.

Can you explain why the PoE isn't just a series of false dichotomies?

The lack of falseness. If there was a god who,
1. Desired to prevent all evil if he had the power, and
2. had the power to prevent all evil,
then there would be no evil.

[Wootah]

[Replying to wiploc]

The lack of falseness. If there was a god who,
1. Desired to prevent all evil if he had the power, and
2. had the power to prevent all evil,
then there would be no evil.

Or he can be waiting for a period of time for some of the evil beings to choose him.

It really does seem like a valid third option.