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!)

[Divine Insight]

"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.

I don't see how this apology can be meaningful in this religion. If "With God all things are possible" simply means that God can save all men, then no one should ever fail to be saved. Yet according to Christ only few will be saved and apparently the vast majority will not see the Kingdom of God.

So I don't see where it helps to argue that "With God all things are possible" refers to God's ability to save men. If that were true then no one could be condemned in Christianity.

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.

I agree. But even he says right in the verse you posted that the Father God knows. So all Jesus is saying here is that he is not the same as the Father God, which pretty much conflicts with other places where he claims that he and the Father are one.

So even Jesus has the Father God knowing these things.

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.

I totally welcome these kinds of apologies for this religion. The problem is that they become nonsense. In other words, what sense does it make to say that God is "Love" if that word is being used to refer to a concept that is unlike our meaning of the word?

If God doesn't love as I understand the concept of love, then it's meaningless to tell me that God represents love when we're using the word to mean something totally alien to my understanding of the concept.

This becomes nothing more than semantic mumbo jumbo at this point.

Not only this, but when the Bible has this God commanding men to kill gay people as sinners who refuse to obey God, then I'm supposed to accept this as being a loving thing to do?

Sorry Otseng, but it's truly meaningless to tell me that God's idea of love has nothing to do with my idea of love. If that's the case, then how am I supposed to know what love means to this God?

Love becomes a meaningless word at that point.

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.

Well, I agree that if the God of the Bible is impotent and therefore basically inept at being able to deal with various situations this would indeed explain a lot. The problem is that the Bible never says that God does things because he can't do any better. If it actually stated this then that idea might be worth considering.

I will grant you, however, that proposing an impotent God who is incapable of dealing with various problems effectively does seem to be needed in Biblical theology.

But then could an impotent God blame people for not understanding why God is so incapable of solving problems wisely?

Surely a trustworthy God would have explained his deficiencies so that we could understand why he can't do any better than he does?

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.

Perhaps not, however, by your own argument it tends to require placing limitations on what God is capable of doing.

If the Biblical stories had explained God's ineptitude that would surely clear a lot of things up. But I just don't see those proclamations being made.

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.

I agree. But in science if we have theories that don't work we toss them out. Shouldn't we do the same thing with theologies that don't work? Most people have no problem tossing out Greek theology as pure mythology. Most Christians have no problem tossing out Islamic theology as being clearly false. In fact, most Christians have no problem tossing out other Christian theologies that don't fit in with their favorite Christian theology.

Same thing with other theologies. People who embrace a specific faction of the Abrahamic theologies typically have no problem tossing out things like Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.

And besides, I never said that "God" does not exist. I was pointing out the problems with the Biblical theology. The Bible could be totally man-made and false. That wouldn't mean that no God exists. All it would mean is that Hebrew mythology isn't any more true than Greek mythology. Greek mythology being false doesn't mean there is no God, right?

Who knows? Maybe Buddhism is the real description of "God"? Insofar as I know, Buddhism doesn't make detailed claims about how God might behave or what God might ultimately be like. It would be difficult to come up with objections to the God of Buddhism. Of course, just because they don't make any self-contradictory claims about their God doesn't mean they are right or that their theology is true.

But now, for the Biblical God, you have just argued that the Biblical God is limited in what he can do, and that God's concept of "Love" might be so vastly different from my understanding of "Love" that I wouldn't even recognize it.

Those kinds of arguments certainly aren't going to make the religion anymore compelling for me. Why should I want to believe in an impotent God who doesn't even understand "Love" in the same way I do?

There isn't a whole lot of motivation for me to believe in such a theology. As far as I can see there are only two motivations offered to me by this religion.

1. If I believe in this religion I'll be granted eternal life with this God who doesn't even understand Love in the same way I do.

I'm not convinced I would want to spend eternity living with a God who has a totally different idea of what "Love" means than I have.

2. If I refuse to believe in this religion I'll be damned to death, or possibly some form of eternal punishment.

To begin with, believing in a religion for negative reasons would be a fear-based belief.

And secondly, if this is any indication of how this God "Loves" the humans he creates, I'm not sure I would care to learn much more about his concept of "Love" anyway. He kills people for merely not believing in him? That doesn't sound like a very loving God to me.

But I guess my understanding of "Love" doesn't mean anything.

[Bust Nak]

Or (6) -- which is the case --that He allows evil/suffering because it serves His purposes, which are far greater and far higher than we can imagine.

That is impossible. Any purpose other than for the sake of evil and suffering itself, can be achieved without evil or suffering, given that God is omnipotent; and if God's purpose is evil and suffering itself then God is not good.

Just as a personal example, I've suffered through many things in my lifetime -- hospitalizations/surgeries, most recently the suicide of my brother. But in these things, as bad as they were, that's when I have grown the most in the Lord.

To fill the the above with a solid example: Had the goal have been to make you grow closer to the Lord, God could have achieved the same goal without allowing you to suffer through any hospitalizations/surgeries, let alone the suicide of a family member.

Now, one may ask rhetorically (and I'm sure will) why He doesn't do that for all people, regardless whether they love Him or not, or even believe in Him or not.

Well, my question is, why would you still trust in God, after what he has allowed all that to happen to you?

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.

For the record, only theists do that.

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.

Ask those who accuses God for bad.

And interesting thing is that when things are well...

"A drowning man catches at a straw." It's not that interesting. The interesting cases are those who still don't pray for divine help when things go bad.

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.

Yes, that's what a god logically must do to qualify as both omnipotent and good. Hence the problem of evil.

[AdHoc]

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!)

Hi liamconner,
I think this is an interesting question. I think its hypocritical for all of us to blame someone else if its in our power to do something to help starving people in Africa.

That would be like blaming China for the problems in the middle east when its in our power to stop raining bombs on them.

On the other hand, I don't agree that there is a Problem of Pain in a world where free will exists.

[Divine Insight]

There's no way in this life to know how or why... indeed it's beyond us to know or understand these things, but one day we will see and understand and know.

In other words, you agree that this religion makes no sense and cannot be understood. But you buy into the totally unrealistic claim that one day, after you die, you will finally be able to see and understand how it could make sense, even though it clearly makes no sense now.

Isn't that a rather ridiculous argument to believe in a religion? After all, the same argument could be made for Islam. It may appear to you today to be utter nonsense, but hey, after you die, it will all make sense. Just trust in Allah and all will be well.

That's basically the argument you just gave for Christianity.

It makes no sense and cannot be understood or rationalized in this life. But hey, just believe in it anyway, and after you die, it will all make sense.

How can you not see how empty and devoid of any rational meaning such a claim is? It's certainly not going to qualify as a compelling logical argument of any kind.

Clearly you are believing in something that even you openly confess cannot be understood to make any sense. Like I say, you could make precisely the same argument for Islam and the argument would be just as worthless there as it is for Christianity.

[PinSeeker]

Or (6) -- which is the case --that He allows evil/suffering because it serves His purposes, which are far greater and far higher than we can imagine.

That is impossible.

In your opinion, sure. But our opinions -- yours, mine, everyone's -- are extremely limited in light of God's thoughts and ways.

Any purpose other than for the sake of evil and suffering itself, can be achieved without evil or suffering, given that God is omnipotent...

Well, God can do anything, so in that sense, I agree. But it may not be the best way (according to God, not us) to achieve that purpose. Now, you will have to think on a slightly <smile> smaller scale for this, but if you are a father, maybe you can relate -- sometimes it is better to let our children walk though troubled times (and for us to walk with them through those troubled times) so that they grow as men or women and in psychological and emotional maturity and strength. Many times, this is the most effective parenting we can do. It is the same with God the Father, albeit on a much larger scale.

...and if God's purpose is evil and suffering itself then God is not good.

Well, if that were His purpose, then I would agree, but it's not. God is good. He is perfectly faithful, and His steadfast love endures forever.

Well, my question is, why would you still trust in God, after what he has allowed all that to happen to you?

And my question in return is, how could I not trust in God, considering all He has done for me through all these things?

[Divine Insight]

And my question in return is, how could I not trust in God, considering all He has done for me through all these things?

So he arranged that your brother would commit suicide specifically so that you could grow?

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this conclusion?

[PinSeeker]

In other words, you agree that this religion makes no sense and cannot be understood.

No, it makes perfect sense in light of Who God is, but only that I, in my extremely limited state, can't fathom the infinite wisdom and knowledge of God.

Isn't that a rather ridiculous argument to believe in a religion?

To those who are perishing, sure.

...the same argument could be made for Islam.

Actually, no. Ask a Muslim if Allah is his/her father, and if Allah loves him/her. You'll get some... interesting... answers.

It makes no sense and cannot be understood or rationalized in this life. But hey, just believe in it anyway, and after you die, it will all make sense.

Well, but then, I will be truly alive, and my faith will be sight.

[PinSeeker]

So he arranged that your brother would commit suicide specifically so that you could grow?

He allowed (not "caused") it to happen. God causes all things -- all things, even those that we consider painful -- to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. And as James says:

• Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this conclusion?

Well, I might, if such a silly conclusion were really my conclusion.

[Divine Insight]

So he arranged that your brother would commit suicide specifically so that you could grow?

He allowed (not "caused") it to happen. God causes all things -- all things, even those that we consider painful -- to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. And as James says:

• Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this conclusion?

Well, I might, if such a silly conclusion were really my conclusion.

So what happened to your brother then? Did he go to hell?

Or was he so fully "grown" in his relationship with God that he was more ready to go be with God then you are?

Your arguments simply aren't making any sense PinSeeker. You are clearly not thinking them through to the bitter end.

[Bust Nak]

Well, God can do anything, so in that sense, I agree. But it may not be the best way (according to God, not us) to achieve that purpose.

To say to achieving the purpose P using way A is better than achieving P via B, is equivalent to saying the the purpose is P AND A. In other words, if the journey matters as well as the destination, then the purpose includes both the journey and the destination. As such we can simply the equation by combine the journey and destination into one umbella goal. With that out of the same, there is an objectively best optimal, way to achieve any given purpose - click your divine finger and make it happen in an instance.

Now, you will have to think on a slightly <smile> smaller scale for this, but if you are a father, maybe you can relate -- sometimes it is better to let our children walk though troubled times (and for us to walk with them through those troubled times) so that they grow as men or women and in psychological and emotional maturity and strength.

Sure, it is better than keeping them shaltered so they can't even tied their own shoes, but it's not as good as "zap!" Full grown men and woman with instant psychological and emotional maturity and strength. Letting them get into trouble is the most effective parenting we can do because we can't zap perfect adults into existence, the same does not apply with God.

And my question in return is, how could I not trust in God, considering all He has done for me through all these things?

But all of those things are meaningful only because God allowed you to suffer in the first place.