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?

[wiploc]

[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.

Then he doesn't desire to prevent all evil. Or at least that desire is on a back burner because first he wants to get him some of that evil.

The PoE points out that if he had the power and the will to prevent all evil, then there would be no evil. You're saying, but what if he doesn't have the will? That's fine, it's just not a refutation of the PoE.

[ttruscott]

The lack of falseness. If there was a god who,
1. Desired to prevent all evil if he had the power, and

No such GOD is proven nor suggested by Christian doctrine. GOD desired we would CHOOSE to fulfill our ability to become perfectly eternally good but allowed those who wanted to to choose to become perfectly eternally evil.

This statement simplistically denies the difference between what GOD wishes and what HE allows or decrees....

2. had the power to prevent all evil, then there would be no evil.

This statement denies the Christian pov that when the last sinful elect is sanctified and made righteous, GOD will be free of HIS promise to protect them from judgment and the judgement will take place immediately and irreconcilably. .

This pov shortsightedly sees a postponement of the judgement as an inability to make good on the promise of judgement.

[marco]

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.

Because it IS bad. People are punished not to delight them but to make them sorry they ever committed a crime. Actually that was once upon a time - we recognise pain is bad these days and it isn't nice to inflict it on criminals, at least here in the UK. I believe it is wrong to shout at murderers or address them impolitely. I wonder if hell has the same courtesies.

[Wootah]

Then he doesn't desire to prevent all evil. Or at least that desire is on a back burner because first he wants to get him some of that evil.

The PoE points out that if he had the power and the will to prevent all evil, then there would be no evil. You're saying, but what if he doesn't have the will? That's fine, it's just not a refutation of the PoE.

I still think your not examining the Christian position. If he ends evil, he ends all of us. We are the evil 'he wants to get some of'.

Waiting a pwriod of time, redeeming some of the evil, before he ends it all seems a perfectly valid position for an omni God to take.

[wiploc]

Then he doesn't desire to prevent all evil. Or at least that desire is on a back burner because first he wants to get him some of that evil.

The PoE points out that if he had the power and the will to prevent all evil, then there would be no evil. You're saying, but what if he doesn't have the will? That's fine, it's just not a refutation of the PoE.

I still think your not examining the Christian position.

I'm doing the best I can.

If he ends evil, he ends all of us. We are the evil 'he wants to get some of'.

God made us fundamentally evil?

Waiting a pwriod of time, redeeming some of the evil, before he ends it all seems a perfectly valid position for an omni God to take.

I want to ask why he'd wait, but that's not the point. If he is omnipotent, he doesn't have to wait. Whatever it is he's waiting for, he can have without waiting. That's what omnipotence is.

So, if he tolerates evil for awhile, it is either because he's okay with evil, or it's because he's not strong enough to get rid of it.

There may be some X factor that he also wants, in addition to preventing evil. If the X factor is evil itself, then god isn't omnibenevolent. If the X factor is something other than evil, then an omnipotent god wouldn't have to put up with evil to get it.

You suggest that we are the X factor. An omnipotent god could redeem us without waiting. An omnibenevolent god wouldn't have had us fall in the first place.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 64 by wiploc]

Yes God made us fundamentally evil. But it might not sound right using that language. Another word for sin is to miss the mark, as sinners we are 'mark missers'. We don't pass the grade. We aren't righteous enough or holy enough.

If you think omnipotence includes illogical concepts then your position makes sense. For instance, if God can make 'square circles' then we could also assume he can make creatures that are equal to God. Can God make a creature greater than or equal to Himself? If you think so then I would question whether your definition of omnipotence is rational.

So for a time an Omni God is tolerating this reality while some of us sinners turn back to God and repent with the blood of Jesus as their sacrifice for their sins.

An omnibenevolent god wouldn't have had us fall in the first place.

I don't want you to give up on the previous point before we move on unless you are ready.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 64 by wiploc]

Yes God made us fundamentally evil. But it might not sound right using that language. Another word for sin is to miss the mark, as sinners we are 'mark missers'. We don't pass the grade. We aren't righteous enough or holy enough.

I suspect you are conflating sin and evil. I don't want to shove my definitions on you, but I will share them with you so that you can know what page I'm on.

Sin is the doubting or disobeying of gods. Evil is the sources of unhappiness, or, by extension, unhappiness itself. So the problem of evil is often called the problem of suffering.

Evil, in all its forms, is the punishment for sin.

It's easy to confuse the two since some sins cause unhappiness. Gluttony, for instance, is a "moral evil," it is disobedient, and it has some tendency to make people unhappy.

But let's say that god did make us fundamentally evil. In that case, god chose evil. He tolerates evil. He is not (on the assumption that he had the power to do otherwise) omnibenevolent.

If you think omnipotence includes illogical concepts then your position makes sense.

Not me. First, I don't believe in gods at all. Second, a true omnipotent god would be impossible to discuss logically. That is, we couldn't draw any logical conclusions about gods who make logic unreliable.

So, for the purpose of discussing omnipotence, we have to assume that that omnipotence is of the punk variety. A punk omnipotent god can do anything except violate logic. We can have logical discussion about a god like that.

So that's the kind of omnipotence I assume we're talking about.

For instance, if God can make 'square circles' then we could also assume he can make creatures that are equal to God. Can God make a creature greater than or equal to Himself? If you think so then I would question whether your definition of omnipotence is rational.

I don't see the difference in making a square circle and being omnipotent but unable to prevent evil (even while also achieving other goals, like redeeming certain people and consigning the rest of us into the fires of Hell). Nor do I see the difference in a square circle and a god who is omnibenevolent but tolerates evil.

An evil-tolerating god who is both omnipotent (so his failure to prevent evil can't be due to inability) and omnibenevolent (so his failure to prevent evil can't be due to lack of will) is a contradiction, exactly like a square circle.

So for a time an Omni God is tolerating this reality while some of us sinners turn back to God and repent with the blood of Jesus as their sacrifice for their sins.

An omnibenevolent god wouldn't have had us fall in the first place.

I don't want you to give up on the previous point before we move on unless you are ready.

I have trouble telling the points apart. Why? Because I'm never sure whether your point is that god isn't strong enough or isn't good enough. Why does he want to wait awhile, tolerating evil, before he eliminates it? Is it because he isn't strong enough, or because he doesn't care enough?

But I'm happy to talk about whichever issue you think we're on.

Incidentally, when I bait you like this, it's in hopes that you'll step up and disclose what you think keeps god from preventing evil. Then, see, I will know whether we're talking about the failure of omnipotence or the failure of omnibenevolence.

Plantinga argues that god could have created a world in which we freely chose not to sin--but, if he did that, our free choices wouldn't count as free will since god created the world knowing every decision that we would ever make.

But see, that would mean we wouldn't have free will in any world created by an omniscient god. If god's foreknowledge technically robs us of free will in goodworlds, then it technically robs us of foreknowledge in badworlds too.

That's a demonstration, an illustration. Because Plantinga stepped up and explained what he was thinking, I can explain what was wrong with it. As long as you just hint that there might be some kind of reason for god's failure to prevent evil, I have to stay generic in my refutation.

But the generic refutation remains compelling: An omnipotent god would have the power to prevent evil. An omnibenevolent god would have the will to prevent evil. A god who was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would prevent evil. If such a god existed, there would be no evil. If evil exists, there is no such god.

[marco]

Yes God made us fundamentally evil. But it might not sound right using that language. Another word for sin is to miss the mark, as sinners we are 'mark missers'. We don't pass the grade. We aren't righteous enough or holy enough.

Were this so it would mean the maker has made faulty articles. If they are faulty by design then God made man to do wrong. There can be no complaint, then, when man does wrong. Perhaps a better hypothesis is that God made man with the potential for good and for evil, leaving the choice to man. Man can then be blamed for his wrong choices.

As for pain and evil outside of man's control or choice, God created that. If we use the analogy of a parent and child it is hard to see why a good parent would deliberately place unavoidable evil in the child's path. The conclusion is that God put the work together, allowing it to grow in its own fashion from useful laws. If we say that things grew from incredibly happy chance, we have the same position. Evil is just a thing of chance and chance may be another term for god.

[Wootah]

Yes God made us fundamentally evil. But it might not sound right using that language. Another word for sin is to miss the mark, as sinners we are 'mark missers'. We don't pass the grade. We aren't righteous enough or holy enough.

Were this so it would mean the maker has made faulty articles. If they are faulty by design then God made man to do wrong. There can be no complaint, then, when man does wrong. Perhaps a better hypothesis is that God made man with the potential for good and for evil, leaving the choice to man. Man can then be blamed for his wrong choices.

As for pain and evil outside of man's control or choice, God created that. If we use the analogy of a parent and child it is hard to see why a good parent would deliberately place unavoidable evil in the child's path. The conclusion is that God put the work together, allowing it to grow in its own fashion from useful laws. If we say that things grew from incredibly happy chance, we have the same position. Evil is just a thing of chance and chance may be another term for god.

Not at all. If i make a pot from clay then by default of the materials it can be broken. That doesn't make the pot any less valueable or does it make me incompetent.

You weren't made with fault. Free will is not a fault. So your point doesn't stand.

[ttruscott]

Perhaps a better hypothesis is that God made man with the potential for good and for evil, leaving the choice to man. Man can then be blamed for his wrong choices.

Yes indeed.

As for pain and evil outside of man's control or choice, God created that.

All evil was created by the creation as you just said so that can't be reversed just one sentence later and not be contradictory.

Pain is certainly outside of our choice but all pain has a direct relationship to our sin therefore we have some control over it. Don't like pain; don't sin. The relationship of their sin to their pain, for the legitimate but sinful children of GOD, is written up in Heb 12:5-11. [These verses distinctly say they don't refer to the relationship between the non-elect non-children's sin and their pain when judged.]... Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.