Problems with the Problem of Pain

[liamconnor]

The supposal of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is often attacked on the grounds of the presence of pain in the world. Such attacks paint the world as experienced so terrible, that one wonders why there are not more suicides: like 99% of humanity!

Yet every talk I have ever had with any atheist has revealed a relish in living.

It is as if there is just enough pain the world to reject theism; but not enough to go out and truly have a good time with friends over a pint of beer.

How do we reconcile the painting of reality made by atheists (who use the argument of the problem of evil: not all do) and the lives they live? Is this philosophical hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?

(I suppose I should add that any atheist who adds his bit obviously acknowledges his or her access to a computer! and the internet! to the health and education that enables him or her to engage in this debate!)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Indeed why isn't the universal question "If God is so Evil why is there so much happiness?"

We don't ask things the other way round because essentially we see that life is beautiful but that there are things that are marring it being fully so. There are big ugy black blotches on the canvas and we know, instinctively that they dont belong there.

Of course its the height of stupidity to reason that a gaping slash across the Mona Lisa proves that the artist can't exist (just a tad less stupid than claiming the painting painted itself). The beauty is still there the artists work is evident, the question must therefore be: Why is the painting damaged? Who did it? Why was it allowed? Can it be repaired?

In the senseless yapping of those who through ignorance, malice or frustration promote ideas that most people instictivey now are illogical, its hard for many seeking answers to the real questions to stay focused but focused they must stay. For nobody can find the answers unless they ask the right questions.



2c


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Indeed why isn't the universal question "If God is so Evil why is there so much happiness?"

That would be the question if you were promoting belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-malevolent god. Since there is some good in the world, it is clear that that kind of god doesn't exist.

Since the world is a mixed bag, part good and part bad, it is clear that any omnipotent god is also part good and part bad. A medium god.

The PoE (problem of evil) has nothing to say about a medium god.

We don't ask things the other way round because essentially we see that life is beautiful but that there are things that are marring it being fully so.

So, you think your god is better than medium, more like medium-good. That's fine. You still don't have a problem with the PoE. There are reasons not to believe in such a god, but the PoE isn't one of them.

Unless you believe in that Hellfire stuff. In that case, your god is essentially pure evil.

There are big ugy black blotches on the canvas and we know, instinctively that they dont belong there.

Of course its the height of stupidity to reason that a gaping slash across the Mona Lisa proves that the artist can't exist (just a tad less stupid than claiming the painting painted itself).

I'd deal with your logic, but I am stopped by your insult. People who don't agree with you are the height of stupidity?

...
In the senseless yapping of those who through ignorance, malice or frustration promote ideas
...

Yeah, I'm done with you.

[Tcg]

Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?

The extent of your argument seems to be that laptops and Wendy's burgers establish that god is good. It's not a terribly complex theology, but easy to understand. Hard to accept, but easy to understand.

I'm not sure that starving people in Somalia establish anything for your argument. Perhaps it is an appeal to not care about them as long as the good god has given you a laptop and some greasy burgers. Just ignore the suffering of others and chow down while you surf the internet god has provided.

Oh, and don't forget to smile. God loves a cheerful surfer... cheerful eater?... something like that.

[otseng]

The world is not terrible, on balance. Though some unfortunate peoples' lives are. God seems to ignore them.

But one wonders why any suffering exists at all if God is all those "omni"s he is claimed to be.

God does not ignore them. Instead God identifies with the needy much more than we think.

Mat 25:34-40 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

Is it God's job to "relieve" every suffering in the world? No. God never promised anyone we would have a pain-free world. As a matter of fact, Jesus made it clear that we would have problems.

Jhn 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

This entire concept of God needing to create a pain-free, trouble-free is a strawman attack on a God that is created in the minds of unbelievers. Sure, I can agree that this concept of an "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God" does not exist, but it does not match the concept of the God of the Bible. So, the argument does not disprove the existence of the Biblical God.

[otseng]

In the senseless yapping of those who through ignorance, malice or frustration promote ideas

Yeah, I'm done with you.

Moderator Comment

This is not going in a good direction. Please avoid comments that do not lead to a civil discussion.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

This entire concept of God needing to create a pain-free, trouble-free is a strawman attack on a God that is created in the minds of unbelievers. Sure, I can agree that this concept of an "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God" does not exist, but it does not match the concept of the God of the Bible. So, the argument does not disprove the existence of the Biblical God.

So what is the Biblical God like then?

Is he less than omnipotent?

Is he less than omniscient?

Is he less than all-loving?

I would be the first to agree that the God of the Bible certainly appears to be necessarily lacking all these attributes. But this then becomes problematic I think.

Especially when we consider the views that Christians hold. For example:

"With God all things are possible". In fact the reason Christians hold this view is because Jesus himself had proclaimed it to be the truth.

If God is not omnipotent, then it's not true that with God all things are possible.

God is also supposed to also be omniscient. In fact, this is necessary if we're going to hold that God can prophesize the future. And the ability for God to know how the future will unfold is paramount to Christianity.

Also we have Jesus, who is at least speaking for God if not himself God incarnate, telling us that we are to love our enemies. Yet we are to believe that God himself is not all-loving? How could it be that a God would command us to behave in a manner that he himself is not even capable of behaving?

It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for a God to command humans to behave in ways that would be superior to how the God himself could behave.

I just don't see how it's possible to support this religion without holding to the notion that the God is omnipotent, omniscient, and loves unconditionally.

Yet, at the same time I totally agree with you that the Biblical God fails at all of these characteristics. Therefore it makes sense to conclude that the Biblical God has none of these traits.

But this becomes a grave theological contradiction rending the Biblical theology then self-contradictory and thus unrealistic.

So, in a way I agree with you that the God of the Bible cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. But then this pretty much exposes the theology to be inconsistent in the claims it makes about its own God.

So how can you not see this as being a problem of inconsistency concerning the Biblical God?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Indeed why isn't the universal question "If God is so Evil why is there so much happiness?"

That's easy to answer. God allows happiness to achieve his overall goal of evil.

If humans never experienced happiness, we wouldn't fully feel the impact of his evilness. He allows just enough happiness to give us the false hope that he is good.

Once he sets us up to hope, he pulls the rug out from under us in a way that the experience of his evil intent is much worse than if he never teased us with false hope.

[1213]

...
How do we reconcile the painting of reality made by atheists (who use the argument of the problem of evil: not all do) and the lives they live? Is this philosophical hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?
...

It surely looks hypocrite.

It is little disturbing that often people think it is their own merit, when things go well, but when things go bad, God is the one who is blamed. If one accuses God for “bad�, he should thank God for all the good things logically. It makes me wonder why it is not usually so. And interesting thing is that when things are well, people often reject God, as we can see in modern western world where things have long been well. But when problems come, people turn back to God, either to blame Him, or to ask help.

Would be nice to hear from atheists, should God care of people if they are unthankful egoistical bastards when things are well and when things are not well, people are hypocrite cranks that don’t take responsibility of their own actions.

[Divine Insight]

...
How do we reconcile the painting of reality made by atheists (who use the argument of the problem of evil: not all do) and the lives they live? Is this philosophical hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical to denounce a good god on the grounds that people are starving in Somalia while typing on a laptop and eating a burger from Wendy's?
...

It surely looks hypocrite.

It is little disturbing that often people think it is their own merit, when things go well, but when things go bad, God is the one who is blamed. If one accuses God for “bad�, he should thank God for all the good things logically. It makes me wonder why it is not usually so. And interesting thing is that when things are well, people often reject God, as we can see in modern western world where things have long been well. But when problems come, people turn back to God, either to blame Him, or to ask help.

Would be nice to hear from atheists, should God care of people if they are unthankful egoistical bastards when things are well and when things are not well, people are hypocrite cranks that don’t take responsibility of their own actions.

The answer to your question is simple.

Atheists don't actually believe that there is a "bad God".

They simply reject religions that claim that a good God exists when there is obviously so much bad in the world.

So atheists aren't blaming any God for anything. They are simply pointing out the absurdities of these obviously false religions.

[otseng]

"With God all things are possible". In fact the reason Christians hold this view is because Jesus himself had proclaimed it to be the truth.

The context of what Jesus was referring to was who can be saved.

Mat 19:23-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus was not necessarily making here a philosophical statement about God's qualities, such as omnipotentence.

Instead of being omnipotent, the Bible describes God as "the most high God":

Gen 14:20 - And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

The Bible does not describe God as being able to absolutely anything. There are things that God cannot do, such as lie.

Heb 6:18 - That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

God is also supposed to also be omniscient. In fact, this is necessary if we're going to hold that God can prophesize the future. And the ability for God to know how the future will unfold is paramount to Christianity.

Yes, there are verses that allude to God knowing all things.

Mat 10:30 - But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Psa 139:4 - For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

But, there are also verses that allude to Jesus not knowing all things.

Mat 24:36 - But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Yet we are to believe that God himself is not all-loving?

The problem is people believing that such an all-loving God would must fulfill a person's expectations of love. God should feed all the poor, God should heal all the sick, God should regrow limbs, God should pay for all my bills, etc.

God does love people and God is love.

1 Jo 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

But our concept of love is not necessarily how God operates.

just don't see how it's possible to support this religion without holding to the notion that the God is omnipotent, omniscient, and loves unconditionally.

I don't like the omni terms (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent) because everybody have different views of what they mean. But more importantly, the terms are not used in the Bible. So, there is no strong Biblical support for the usage of these vague words.

Yet, at the same time I totally agree with you that the Biblical God fails at all of these characteristics. Therefore it makes sense to conclude that the Biblical God has none of these traits.

But this becomes a grave theological contradiction rending the Biblical theology then self-contradictory and thus unrealistic.

If theology is not based on the Bible, but only based on philosophy, I agree that it is unrealistic. Purely basing a view of God on philosophy and not on how God is described in the Bible does not demonstrate the Biblical God is unrealistic.

So, in a way I agree with you that the God of the Bible cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. But then this pretty much exposes the theology to be inconsistent in the claims it makes about its own God.

Theology can be wrong, just like scientific theories can be wrong. Theology is man's interpretation of the reality of God. Science is man's interpretation of the reality of the natural world. But, just because a theory is wrong does not prove the natural world does not exist. Likewise, theology can be wrong, but it does not prove God does not exist.