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!)

[Bust Nak]

It was not needed, people wanted to know evil, that is why we are here. God was nice in giving us what we asked for, especially because nothing of this can really destroy soul.

That's an imperfection too, it wasn't needed, yet we still asked for it. Something went wrong.

[Divine Insight]

I disagree with you, evil is not a problem. Evil cannot destroy soul and body can be replaced. God is perfect and this first death is perfect for its purpose, for lesson.

If lessons needed to be learned then it's not all perfect, something went wrong.

It was not needed, people wanted to know evil, that is why we are here. God was nice in giving us what we asked for, especially because nothing of this can really destroy soul.

I never told any God that I wanted to know evil. Neither do I want to know evil. Do you?

If you didn't ask God to know evil and you have no interest in wanting to know evil, then why do you believe an ancient religious fable that claims that you, as a human, wanted to know evil?

When you apologize for this religion by supporting these types of charges it makes against humans, it doesn't loan support to the religion at all. Moreover, how can you think it would support the religion unless you personally see these charges as being valid for you?

The charges you have just proposed do not apply to me. I never asked anyone to know evil, nor was there ever a time when I wanted to know evil.

So I can see that these charges are clearly false.

Why do you accept that these charges are valid for you?

And if you don't, then why are you supporting a religion that makes false charges against you?

These kinds of apologies don't make any sense to me. Unless the apologist thinks that everyone wants to know evil. But that's jumping to a totally unwarranted conclusion. And it also requires that the apologist must want to know evil, otherwise why would the apologist be buying into these charges?

[Divine Insight]

It was not needed, people wanted to know evil, that is why we are here. God was nice in giving us what we asked for, especially because nothing of this can really destroy soul.

That's an imperfection too, it wasn't needed, yet we still asked for it. Something went wrong.

Why even concede that "we asked for it". That's already a concession that doesn't even need to be made.

None the less I agree with you, even if we did, that could only have been because we were poorly designed creatures in the first place.

But in truth, "We didn't". Especially if it's required that I be included in that "we" which in Christianity is an absolute necessity. Because Christianity cannot afford to have so much as a single solitary human exempt from their condemnation.

[1213]

It was not needed, people wanted to know evil, that is why we are here. God was nice in giving us what we asked for, especially because nothing of this can really destroy soul.

That's an imperfection too, it wasn't needed, yet we still asked for it. Something went wrong.

Sorry, I don’t see why I should think perfect world is where we don’t have freedom and opportunity to know good and evil like God.

[1213]

I never told any God that I wanted to know evil. Neither do I want to know evil. Do you?

I don’t know how things would be, if I would not know evil. It is possible that in that case I would want to know it. It is possible that I would want to know what evil means.

The charges you have just proposed do not apply to me. I never asked anyone to know evil, nor was there ever a time when I wanted to know evil.

Ok, so you don’t want to know. But Eve wanted to know and that is the reason why we are on this lesson. It is possible that Adam didn’t want to know, but just wanted to please Eve.

[Divine Insight]

I never told any God that I wanted to know evil. Neither do I want to know evil. Do you?

I don’t know how things would be, if I would not know evil. It is possible that in that case I would want to know it. It is possible that I would want to know what evil means.

What kind of an untrustworthy God wouldn't even want you to understand the difference between what's right and wrong?

This whole religion is based on an insanely ridiculous idea.

The charges you have just proposed do not apply to me. I never asked anyone to know evil, nor was there ever a time when I wanted to know evil.

Ok, so you don’t want to know. But Eve wanted to know and that is the reason why we are on this lesson. It is possible that Adam didn’t want to know, but just wanted to please Eve.

Anything is possible in an already ridiculous fairy tale.

What do you mean by "know"?

Do you simply mean to have a comprehension of the difference between what's right and wrong? Or are you using the term "know" to mean to want to actually experience evil?

Seems to me the latter would be like asking someone if they want to experience being burnt. Knowledge that it's not only going to be painful, but that it might also cause potential permanent damage should be more than sufficient for any sane person.

If someone told you that these mushrooms are poisonous and will kill you if you eat them are you going to want to eat them to "know" this evil? I seriously doubt it.

Again, you're supporting an ancient collection of fables that is based on absolute absurdity.

Does your child need to actually rob a bank in order to understand that robbing a bank is wrong? Of course not. You can explain to them in perfectly rational intelligent ways why it would be wrong to rob a bank without them having a need to actually go out and do it themselves.

In fact, if we actually had to experience every evil act in order to "know" those evil acts, then we'd each have to do every single evil act that exists to know why it's wrong. Do we need to do this? No, of course not.

So, your argument simply doesn't hold water.

There is no need for a person to actually commit an evil act in order to be able to understand why it is not in anyone's interest to do so.

So you are supporting a religion that basically requires that its followers and believers aren't capable of comprehending the simplest of ideas.

Your arguments for this religion are simply not making any sense at all.

[Bust Nak]

Sorry, I don’t see why I should think perfect world is where we don’t have freedom and opportunity to know good and evil like God.

What's this about not having freedom and opportunity? Nothing I said imply there was no freedom and opportunity to know good and evil like God. The point was not knowing good and evil is a flaw in itself, it is a deficiency in knowledge.

[1213]

What kind of an untrustworthy God wouldn't even want you to understand the difference between what's right and wrong?

Why you even ask?

The difference was, know like God knows, or know like children, by asking directly from God.

Do you simply mean to have a comprehension of the difference between what's right and wrong? Or are you using the term "know" to mean to want to actually experience evil?

I think it was about to really know them, know what they really mean. And there is two ways, ask directly from God, or the hard way, by experience. And it really seems people usually understand/believe only after they have experienced.

Does your child need to actually rob a bank in order to understand that robbing a bank is wrong? Of course not. You can explain to them in perfectly rational intelligent ways why it would be wrong to rob a bank without them having a need to actually go out and do it themselves.

Actually, it would be probably better lesson that he would be robbed. That could make him learn why it is not good and right.

I people don’t want to listen, but want to learn it the hard way, I don’t see problem in that, when this is not the real life, but more like simulation.

There is no need for a person to actually commit an evil act in order to be able to understand why it is not in anyone's interest to do so.

I agree with that. But people wanted to know good and evil like God knows. We could also have asked directly from God what things means. But people wanted this.

Your arguments for this religion are simply not making any sense at all.

How can you comment a matter that doesn’t make sense to you? I think it is not reasonable to say idea is not right or good, if it doesn’t make sense to you.

[1213]

...What's this about not having freedom and opportunity? Nothing I said imply there was no freedom and opportunity to know good and evil like God. The point was not knowing good and evil is a flaw in itself, it is a deficiency in knowledge.

Apparently knowing good and evil like God knows, is painful. Maybe God wanted to spare us from the pain. I think it is not a flaw.

[Divine Insight]

What kind of an untrustworthy God wouldn't even want you to understand the difference between what's right and wrong?

Why you even ask?

The difference was, know like God knows, or know like children, by asking directly from God.

The problem is that this isn't the Biblical Story. Also, if you want to refer to Adam and Eve as "God's Children", then surely God would want them to grow up and become mature gods in their own right. That's how parenting works. It would be totally ignorant for a parent to expect their children to remain child-like forever.

So apparently what you have fallen for here is the idea that the God of the Bible is raising human pets (not children) and that he doesn't want his human pets to become fully educated. Kind of like White Americans wanted to keep their Black Slaves perpetually ignorant.

Why would a God have a fear that humans might actually learn and understand things? Especially if these humans are his children?

The arguments you've been taught do not make sense. You should be rejecting them instead of trying to pass them on to others.

Do you simply mean to have a comprehension of the difference between what's right and wrong? Or are you using the term "know" to mean to want to actually experience evil?

I think it was about to really know them, know what they really mean. And there is two ways, ask directly from God, or the hard way, by experience. And it really seems people usually understand/believe only after they have experienced.

If the best way to understand something is through experience then this God should have been intelligent enough to know this. There would be no reason for this God to then act like his so-called "children" are doing something wrong by seeking knowledge. After all, if God wanted ignorant human children why not just design them to be stupid? That would have solved all his problems.

Then he could have had the ignorant pets that you seem to think he so desires.

Does your child need to actually rob a bank in order to understand that robbing a bank is wrong? Of course not. You can explain to them in perfectly rational intelligent ways why it would be wrong to rob a bank without them having a need to actually go out and do it themselves.

Actually, it would be probably better lesson that he would be robbed. That could make him learn why it is not good and right.

Having the child robbed to understand what robbery is like does not require that the child actually robs anyone. So I don't see where this would be apologetic for anything in the Biblical stories.

I people don’t want to listen, but want to learn it the hard way, I don’t see problem in that, when this is not the real life, but more like simulation.

Again. Speak for yourself. Your views are not making any sense. I don't need to jump into a river of hot lava to understand that jumping in molten lava is not a good idea. Same thing is true of robbing banks.

So again, your "accusation" that people don't want to listen doesn't apply to me. Therefore you argument doesn't apply to me. But the problem is that apologies for the Biblical God must necessarily apply to all humans. Your arguments are failing miserably to meet that criteria.

There is no need for a person to actually commit an evil act in order to be able to understand why it is not in anyone's interest to do so.

I agree with that. But people wanted to know good and evil like God knows. We could also have asked directly from God what things means. But people wanted this.

Again, you are making broad charges that don't apply to me. And if they don't apply to me, then your religion and God don't apply to me either.

Obviously, if you believe these charges apply to you, then I can understand why you see this religion as having some sort of merit. But when they don't apply to me your arguments fail to be compelling.

Your arguments for this religion are simply not making any sense at all.

How can you comment a matter that doesn’t make sense to you? I think it is not reasonable to say idea is not right or good, if it doesn’t make sense to you.

Because you are arguing for a religion that claims that its God is the creator of everyone, this would then include me. The charges you make about what people supposedly want and demand from this God then must also be true for me. But I know that the charges you have accepted for yourself do not apply to me. Therefore the religion you are supporting cannot be true.

I cannot be an exception to the charges you make against "people". Because if I'm an exception then the whole religion fails.

But I am an exception to the charges you make. Therefore the religious paradigm you have been taught to believe must necessarily be false.

It doesn't even matter if the charges you make against people apply to you. All that does is explain why you have accepted that this religion has some sort of merit.

It's too bad that you can't see that the charges are false in general. If you could see that then you would instantly realize that the religion must also be false.

This is core to logic itself. One counter-example can prove a claim to be false. I am a counter-example to the charges you make against "people", therefore I can clearly see that those charges are false.

This does not come down to my "opinion", but rather it comes down to what I know to be true.