"Whatever arguments you use, they are all excuses or rationalizations for the pain and suffering we see in this world where God is the ultimate expression of 'love.'"This statement is made by our friend Skepie. The equation says "if Pain, then no God." The rationale is that loving parents would never subject their children to pain.Neither would a loving God. The very presence of pain disphttps://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240608_ASP002.jpgroves the existence of God because loving God would never allow pain. Should we think that's true?
The rationale behind the equation (if Pain then no God) is the assumption that the most important value in all of existence is to be free of pain, or to be comfortable.God would never allow extreem discomfort. Is this true? No, I think there is a higher value. It's More important to be free than to be comfortable.
These are competing values so comfort is not the highest value. But there is a reason to think freedom is a higher value than comfort, and this can be proven. The reason is because without freedom, and I include free will, you can't have love and you can't have a moral universe; and that would negate what I think are God's two major reasons for creating.If true this means freedom is a higher value a priori.
At this point the regular Free will defense kicks in. God must allow free will, which means he risks causing pain through our bad choices, and thus free will necessities pain and freedom outweighs comfort as a value.
Skeptics often make the argument that no parent would willingly subject his/her child to suffering. Thus God, being the ultimate parent, would never subject his children to pain. That is directly contradicted by many examples where parents do subject their children to pain. Parents regularly subject their children to emotional pain not understanding what it means to be a child. they do this because they love them and whatever the issue is, the parents are doing what they think is best for the child. Forbidden friendships they think are harmful when the child is emotionally bound to that person, all kinds of embarrassment from going to school to getting off drugs and so on. The drug example, if a child is known to the parent to be a drug addict the parent will insist the child get off drugs. Of course this could be very painful. It is a pain a loving parent would impose it doesn't make the paret less loving.
I hear the skeptic saying all of those examples are done for the good of the child. How is a world of pain for the good of humanity? I am dealing with pain related to the choices we make. Natural disasters are a different issue* Freedom, including free will, is for the good of humanity. God has to allow pain as a consequence of free will, They might ask why does God allow natural disasters? That is not a question of will But it is a consequence of a naturalistic world
. A Naturalistic world (although one in which God intervenes at times) is necessitated by the search for truth and good. This is why God keeps a world that can run on its own by naturalistic laws. If we were super naturally protected from all pain we should have no need to search for the truth of God. But in searching one develops the values of the good. That's why the search is important.A naturalistic world where there is no pain and suffering negates the need for a search for thinking God's action would be obvious.This all indicates that the existence of pain in the world is not proof against God's existence,especially when he provides the means to endure.
16 comments:
Joe: The rationale behind the equation (if Pain then no God) is the assumption that the most important value in all of existence is to be free of pain, or to be comfortable.God would never allow extreem discomfort. Is this true? No, I think there is a higher value. It's More important to be free than to be comfortable.
The problem with this position is that the great reward for Christians is heaven, which is advertised on the basis of a place where you will be happy; i.e., free of pain and comfortable. That seems to imply that being free of pain and comfortable actually is the ultimate goal.
Is there free will in heaven? I am not sure what the Christian position on that is. I guess so, but it never seems as important as being free of pain and comfortable.
Pix
"The rationale is that loving parents would never subject their children to pain.Neither would a loving God."
- No. The rationale is that the loving God wouldn't allow gratuitous pain that serves no purpose. Why do we suffer from horrible diseases? It is to teach a lesson, like punishing an errant child? I don't think so. Why do innocent babies starve and die? Why to the elderly get arthritis and cancer, even after living a good and honorable life?
"God must allow free will, which means he risks causing pain through our bad choices, and thus free will necessities pain and freedom outweighs comfort as a value."
- That is not an explanation for what we see, which has nothing to do with free will. It is pointless and gratuitous suffering that God inflicts on his people.
"I am dealing with pain related to the choices we make. Natural disasters are a different issue*"
- You aren't addressing the issue that skeptics are raising. Why? What is your explanation for all this suffering? If God - the guy who creates the world - makes all this exist, it's because that is what he wants. It's his design. How can you think he is expressing his love? What kind of love is that?
Px: "
The problem with this position is that the great reward for Christians is heaven, which is advertised on the basis of a place where you will be happy; i.e., free of pain and comfortable. That seems to imply that being free of pain and comfortable actually is the ultimate goal.
Freedom from pain is not the point of being a Christian it's a side effect the Point is to know God. Now of course one wants to know God to be happy, that does not mean that comfort is the greatest goal in this life.
Px: "Is there free will in heaven? I am not sure what the Christian position on that is. I guess so, but it never seems as important as being free of pain and comfortable."
Freedom is the basic value behind free will. Without free will there is no moral judgment or love. Freedom is worth suffering to achieve this freedom is the higher value.
"
im-skeptical
"The rationale is that loving parents would never subject their children to pain.Neither would a loving God."
- No. The rationale is that the loving God wouldn't allow gratuitous pain that serves no purpose. Why do we suffer from horrible diseases? It is to teach a lesson, like punishing an errant child? I don't think so. Why do innocent babies starve and die? Why to the elderly get arthritis and cancer, even after living a good and honorable life?
You confuse different kinds of pain, I divided them into two ,those that stem from free will and those have no will involve. You mix the two they need to be answered separately. Children dying of disease is in the no will category it is not a result of human will. You assert that kind of theology seeks to impose theologocal meaningbut this is BS as an answer it's not any kid of doctrinal answer. It's NOT required to Christians to think that way. Pain in the no will sese stems fro a real physical world. That has to be risked since if God always heald our wounds there would be no search and thus no iternalizing values.I already explained this. You have no bassis for the assertion that christians must imose will related meanings on that kind of sffering.
Me:"God must allow free will, which means he risks causing pain through our bad choices, and thus free will necessities pain and freedom outweighs comfort as a value."
Skep- That is not an explanation for what we see, which has nothing to do with free will. It is pointless and gratuitous suffering that God inflicts on his people.
I just told you it has nothing to do with free will. God is not imposing it. He's not blocking it but he is not imposing it,
"I am dealing with pain related to the choices we make. Natural disasters are a different issue*"
- You aren't addressing the issue that skeptics are raising. Why? What is your explanation for all this suffering? If God - the guy who creates the world - makes all this exist, it's because that is what he wants. It's his design. How can you think he is expressing his love? What kind of love is that?
come on now I explained this you are not listening. The world of suffering is allowed because God wants man to search for him. , If God healed all our hearts and blocked all our pain so no one suffered there would be search, everyone would. It is only through the search that we internalize the values of the Good. That's why there must be a search and it can't be obvious that God exists.
"The world of suffering is allowed because God wants man to search for him."
- OK. So the baby is born to an impoverished mother in a war zone, has little or nothing to eat, gets wounded by an explosion, and dies in pain. And the search for God doesn't get very far. In fact, the baby never even heard of Jesus. Yes, that sounds like a good reason for all the suffering.
"The Pix" demolishes Metacrock one again.
Hey Mrs A why don't you show me the actual logic that wins for him?
im-skeptical said...
"The world of suffering is allowed because God wants man to search for him."
- OK. So the baby is born to an impoverished mother in a war zone, has little or nothing to eat, gets wounded by an explosion, and dies in pain. And the search for God doesn't get very far. In fact, the baby never even heard of Jesus. Yes, that sounds like a good reason for all the suffering.
That is one of the great tragedies of a random world, all sorts of people die and don't get the chance at life. When children die they have not reached the age of accountability thus they are instantly with God forever..
"thus they are instantly with God forever.."
That is a logical conclusion? And if he can allow babies into heaven without having the experience of living, why not just let the rest of us in, too. Why bother with earth at all? But let's just assume that you're right. So can you tell me why God went to the trouble of making those babies suffer? Does he get his kicks that way?
"thus they are instantly with God forever.."
That is a logical conclusion?
Yes because they have not reach the age of accountability that means they are not old enough to understand what sin is so they can't be held accountable.
And if he can allow babies into heaven without having the experience of living, why not just let the rest of us in, too.(?)
We can understand when we sin, thus we are accountable.
Why bother with earth at all? But let's just assume that you're right. So can you tell me why God went to the trouble of making those babies suffer? Does he get his kicks that way?
He's saving the from suffering by not holding them accountable for sin. why allow then to die/ U answered this already because we are in a random world god can't protect us from everything because that would negate the search. God's supernatural prptection comes in the zone so to speak. when conditions are right
"because they have not reach the age of accountability"
- Something doesn't make sense here. We have this planet so we can learn the things God thinks we need to know to live with him in heaven. But not everyone has to learn those lessons. Either we need to have this experience or we don't. Which is it?
"We can understand when we sin, thus we are accountable"
- Why couldn't God make us all accountable? Let the baby live and grow up. Then you can hold him accountable. But making him suffer and die is just cruel.
"He's saving the from suffering by not holding them accountable for sin."
- Oh, so all that earthly suffering doesn't matter to God. I'd say that makes him a sadistic monster.
"because we are in a random world god can't protect us from everything because that would negate the search."
- Making babies suffer and die negates the search.
From your answers, I can see that you are simply groping for excuses. It's plain to see that if God exists, he is cruel and unloving. But you refuse to believe what contradicts your religious indoctrination. You have to throw logic under the bus.
im-skeptical said...
me":"because they have not reach the age of accountability"
skep- Something doesn't make sense here. We have this planet so we can learn the things God thinks we need to know to live with him in heaven.
that's not exactly it. life is not about learning things we need to know in heaven.
But not everyone has to learn those lessons. Either we need to have this experience or we don't. Which is it?
some people don't live a full life they may not grow up why do they need it? they will never be accountable for sin because they are too young, they wont get any older.
"We can understand when we sin, thus we are accountable"
- Why couldn't God make us all accountable? Let the baby live and grow up. Then you can hold him accountable. But making him suffer and die is just cruel.
God is not killing babies we live in a random world we all risk death in infancy some die then some don't/
7:34 AM
"He's saving the from suffering by not holding them accountable for sin."
- Oh, so all that earthly suffering doesn't matter to God. I'd say that makes him a sadistic monster.
Now you are twisting what I said because you don't want answers.
"because we are in a random world god can't protect us from everything because that would negate the search."
- Making babies suffer and die negates the search.
God is not Making anyone die, He's taken a hands off publicity he's making anything. Bbbies suffering and dying does not negate the search. <./b>
From your answers, I can see that you are simply groping for excuses. It's plain to see that if God exists, he is cruel and unloving. But you refuse to believe what contradicts your religious indoctrination. You have to throw logic under the bus.
"life is not about learning things we need to know in heaven"
- Ok. So it's about the "search" for God, then. But what is this search if not a process of discovery? And why does life on earth have to be part of it? I think you have to admit that the experience of life is an essential part of God's plan.
"some people don't live a full life they may not grow up why do they need it?"
- Because the experience of earthly life is essential? That is, unless it really isn't. You are standing on both sides of the fence, Joe.
"God is not killing babies we live in a random world"
- Oh, right. None is this is God's responsibility. The guy who designed the world, and fine-tuned it to his precise specifications, has no responsibility for what happens in this "random" world.
"Now you are twisting what I said because you don't want answers."
- It is the logical consequences of your own claims that are twisted. As I said, you have thrown logic under the bus.
"God is not Making anyone die, He's taken a hands off publicity he's making anything. Bbbies suffering and dying does not negate the search."
- The all-powerful creator of everything that exists, who makes the rules that the entire universe must abide by, says, "Hey, don't blame me. I had nothing to do with it."
Joe:"life is not about learning things we need to know in heaven"
Skep:- Ok. So it's about the "search" for God, then. But what is this search if not a process of discovery? And why does life on earth have to be part of it? I think you have to admit that the experience of life is an essential part of God's plan.
Sure it is that/s not the point I was making.
Joe: "some people don't live a full life they may not grow up why do they need it?"
Skep- Because the experience of earthly life is essential. That is, unless it really isn't. You are standing on both sides of the fence, Joe.
The world has that random element. Even though a full life holds a lot of important things it is not goateed that everyone get's one. It's not essential to salvation for children, children are not going to be punished for sin, Adults even if they die young still had a chance to seek truth and to live good.
Joe: "God is not killing babies we live in a random world"
Skep- Oh, right. None is this is God's responsibility.
I know important it is for you to blame God for everything. After all he failed to make you king.
Skep: The guy who designed the world, and fine-tuned it to his precise specifications, has no responsibility for what happens in this "random" world.
why would setting up a habitat make God responsible for your choices? You still have to decide your own course..
Joe: "Now you are twisting what I said because you don't want answers."
- It is the logical consequences of your own claims that are twisted. As I said, you have thrown logic under the bus.
Give me an example, everything I have said flows logically from the presuppositions, you haven't given an example the one's you attempted change my view to your view of what you think I think, You twisted my words to ,make it fit your views but you give no example of my views as illogical..
Joe: "God is not Making anyone die, He's taken a hands off publicity he's making anything. Babies suffering and dying does not negate the search."
Skep:- The all-powerful creator of everything that exists, who makes the rules that the entire universe must abide by, says, "Hey, don't blame me. I had nothing to do with it."
He gives you free will so you can choose to obey or not, you choose not then you blame God for having rules.
9:39 PM
You keep evading the issue: why there is pain and suffering in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing and loving God? It has nothing to do with free will. It is not our choice to be stricken by some horrible disease. It was God's choice to put that disease in our world and make us vulnerable to it.
Post a Comment