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!)

[PinSeeker]

There are no contradictions in God's Word.

Bottom line, a supposedly perfect creator, creating less than perfect creation. That's the contradiction right there in the rawest form. Your response can be summed up as: there is a reason God created things that way, whether we know what that reason is or not; but that doesn't resolve the contradiction, no amount of reason can reconcile the concept of a perfect creator creating imperfection.

Nope. You're crossing things up and applying apples to oranges, something all atheists do quite often, either unintentionally or intentionally (it really matters not which; the end result is the same). Regarding God's creation, it was originally good, not in need of redemption. Man, however, disobeyed Him and therefore brought the consequences -- which God made very clear at the outset -- upon it, and upon himself. I keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to sink in...

[1213]

Do you want to become like God?

If not, then why believe in an ancient collection of fables that is focused on people who supposedly do?

Bible tells Eve wanted to know like God. For me, it is enough to know like a children, from teachings of the Father.

[1213]

[Replying to post 57 by 1213]

People didn’t need to learn evil. They wanted to learn it the hard way. People could have asked all things directly from God, but no, they rather wanted to become like God and that led us to this first death, where all kind of evil things can be experienced without them destroying our soul.

There is absolutely no justification for making claims like this.

That is what the Bible tells. But obviously you don’t have to believe it.

for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit of it, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.
Gen. 3:5-6

Therefore Yahweh God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed Cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Gen. 3:23-24

[1213]

People didn’t need to learn evil. They wanted to learn it the hard way. People could have asked all things directly from God, but no, they rather wanted to become like God and that led us to this first death, where all kind of evil things can be experienced without them destroying our soul.

That's even worse. What a flawed far from perfect creation. Hint: you were supposed to be making the case that perfection is logically impossible and hence beyond the abilities of even omnipotence.

Why should I make the claim that perfection is impossible?

[Bust Nak]

Regarding God's creation, it was originally good, not in need of redemption. Man, however, disobeyed Him and therefore brought the consequences...

Which by definition means creation is not perfect. "Originally good" is not good enough to qualify as the creation of a perfect creator.

-- which God made very clear at the outset -- upon it, and upon himself. I keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to sink in...

It gets ignored because it's irrelevant to the problem of evil. It is literally impossible for a perfectly created being to disobey God, he would be too smart, too moral, too knowleagable to do so. Disobedience indicates an inadequacy in some or all of these areas.

Why should I make the claim that perfection is impossible?

Because it is a way out of the problem of evil. If perfection is impossible then one cannot fault God for failing to do the impossible, it would literally be beyond his power.

[PinSeeker]

Regarding God's creation, it was originally good, not in need of redemption. Man, however, disobeyed Him and therefore brought the consequences...

Which by definition means creation is not perfect. "Originally good" is not good enough to qualify as the creation of a perfect creator.

We disagree. An allegory for you:

Bust Nak is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. Just then, some wise guy comes and stomps on it a few times and destroys it. Question: Was the sandcastle never totally awesome or great, since it is now just a pile of loose sand (rubble)?

-- which God made very clear at the outset -- upon it, and upon himself. I keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to sink in...

It gets ignored...

Thank you. Yeah, it gets ignored because it totally refutes your ridiculous narrative. Thank you.

Need we go further?

[Divine Insight]

We disagree. An allegory for you:

Bust Nak is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. Just then, some wise guy comes and stomps on it a few times and destroys it. Question: Was the sandcastle never totally awesome or great, since it is now just a pile of loose sand (rubble)?

What a ridiculous apology this is.

First off Bust Nak isn't an omnipotent God. All you've done here is suggest that your God isn't anymore powerful than Bust Nak.

Moreover, who is so powerful that they can stomp on God's sand castle?

Apparently you believe that humans are more powerful than your God.

I feel sorry for your powerless God already.

[Tcg]

We disagree. An allegory for you:

Bust Nak is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. Just then, some wise guy comes and stomps on it a few times and destroys it. Question: Was the sandcastle never totally awesome or great, since it is now just a pile of loose sand (rubble)?

Apparently you believe that humans are more powerful than your God.

Exactly. As I pointed out a another thread with a similar theme, this would make humans the God of God.

They are of course, given that they invented him and do with him as they please. They even invent his omniimpotence when it serves their purpose.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 76 by PinSeeker]

Bust Nak is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. Just then, some wise guy comes and stomps on it a few times and destroys it. Question: Was the sandcastle never totally awesome or great, since it is now just a pile of loose sand (rubble)?

OR
PinSeeker is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. PinSeeker says that they can admire it but they must not take a photograph of it or else it won't last. Just then, some wise guy says "That's nonsense. This awesome structure just has to be recorded". So they take a picture. PinSeeker goes ballistic and smashes the sandcastle and tells them that they were warned it wouldn't last. Question: Who was responsible for actually destroying the sandcastle?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 76 by PinSeeker]

Bust Nak is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. Just then, some wise guy comes and stomps on it a few times and destroys it. Question: Was the sandcastle never totally awesome or great, since it is now just a pile of loose sand (rubble)?

OR
PinSeeker is playing on the beach in Cancun, Mexico. He builds a totally awesome sandcastle. His family is incredulous. "That's great, son! We're so proud of you," they say. PinSeeker says that they can admire it but they must not take a photograph of it or else it won't last. Just then, some wise guy says "That's nonsense. This awesome structure just has to be recorded". So they take a picture. PinSeeker goes ballistic and smashes the sandcastle and tells them that they were warned it wouldn't last. Question: Who was responsible for actually destroying the sandcastle?

We can take this much further as well.

Who destroyed Bust Nak's sandcastle?

Was it a person that Bust Nak himself had designed and created? If so, then Bust Nak has no one to blame but himself for having designed people who go around destroying things for no good reason.

So, let's take that same analogy and see how well it plays out with a God who created humans who behave in ways that the God doesn't like. Who would be responsible for those humans? Obviously, God would be responsible for them since he's the one who designed and created them.

So this analogy is utterly ridiculous.

In fact, any analogy where the Biblical God's behavior is being compared with human behavior will always backfire and do nothing other than show how utterly stupid the God would need to be.

So the moment theists resort to trying to justify their God's behavior by pointing to the behavior of mortal humans they have already lost the argument.

This also demonstrates that they don't even truly understand the depth of the problems associated with their own theology.