Why is there so much unjust suffering in this world despite God?

Neela-the-blue-eyed


Dont you think the Law of Karma is extremely unfair?
Click to expand...
Not at all - quite the opposite actually

People get punished for what they did in their previous life, so they dont even know 'why' they are being Punished. Does this make them a better human being? Will they use their 'free will' to do good things, if they constantly feel that they are being unjustly punished? Won't this perpetuate the cycle of birth and death rather than come to a good solution?

Answer me.
Click to expand...

Even if a person does not know scripture they can experience guilt and thus be prevented from performing an activity that is liable to cause punishment - the culmination of many lifetimes of lessons learnt is to feel embaressment or reluctance at the appropriate time, and the opposite is indicative of many lifetimes of ignorance. (this happens through the agency of paramatma, an expansion of the controlling feature of god that grants rememberance, knowledge and forgetfulness - to get to how we we feel "guilt" for something we don't "remember" is a bit technical and warrants many scriptural quotes etc - but I am just giving you the essence of a brief over view) Sometimes atheists argue that they are quite well socialized around civil principles and don't require scriptures to tell them what is to be done and what is not to be done since they are by nature quite adverse to what scriptures declare as sin- this indicates a backlog of piety, having accrued the merit of learning from previous punishments ( ....... of course scripture offers more than mundane piety as the platform of perfection)
 
Last edited:
Neela-the-blue-eyed

PS: Please stop replying to my post assuming that I am an atheist.

That is a good way to digress the isssue and shun from answering my real question.
Click to expand...

To describe suffering in the world as "unjust" is an atheistic (perhaps mildly atheistic) argument since it contradicts the notion that god is just and fully in control of the universe

Assume that I 'am' indeed a believer. So please talk to me like you would to a believer, without getting defensive as if you were talking to an atheist. This will keep this discussion from digression into an atheist Vs theist war.
Click to expand...
Its difficult to talk to you like that on a forum like this because it is likely to get inundated with atheists

It is also difficult to talk to you as if you are a theist since that requires some familiarity from my side regarding what you know or what scriptures you are or aren't familiar with (like for instance if you understood what paramatma was it would be very easy to explain your answer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramatma

So given this situation, what do you suggest?
 
Neela-the-blue-eyed said:
Your arguments are very simplistic.

Specially your 2nd question. You really believe that it is 'not' possible to have justice 'without': God to violate the definitions of his nature (ie , His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way


C'mon!!
Click to expand...

An argument is simplistic when it is easily defeated. It requires much more than calling it such
 
Neela,

We live in a world that has, and continues to abandon God (and His laws, which determine that actions have consequences) on a regular basis. This is bound to have an effect on everyone's immediate and future circumstances. Some of the suffering we experience in the world is the result of first-hand evil, and some is the indirect consequence of evil - the end of long chains of events. Either way, the origin of evil is disobedience of God. The same ability that allows people to do good also allows them to neglect doing good, and suffer the consequences.

But it helps to keep in mind that the world isn't how God wants it. Just admitting that something like "injustice" still exists - even if you believe that consequences imitate justice - is to say that there is an imbalance that should be restored. Few people doubt that, but if it's true on a cosmic scale then the restoration would have cosmic implications. It's not simply a matter of tweaking it right.
 
Prince_James said:
Jenyar:

So then all good is simply what God wants?
Click to expand...
That sounds awfully simplistic. People have had some strange ideas about what is "good", so I would hesitate to say "all". But I would say that good is what God is, and therefore what we (should, if we know what's good for us) want, being created in His image. The intact image becomes a template for (and of) good, and perversion of the image results in the corruption of everything that depends on it (which would be why false ideas of God are so destructive). And in the absense of good, at a distance from it, it is also what God represents as an alternative. Good is the address of Paradise.
 
Jenyar:

Then I am perplexed: For if God is perfectly good and perfectly free, why did he not afford us the same blessing? For surely if he is perfectly good he seeks nothing else but good - lest he endorse evil - and surely is his freedom suffers not from his goodness. Yet humanity is held to be free (or do you claim we are determined?) and we are capable of good and evil both, despite our freedom not being founded upon such (as freedom and goodness are not mutually exclusive). Then it would seem either God is evil, incompetant, or both.
 
Prince James, you presume to know what God knows. My guess is that you'll never be so "good".

Baron Max
 
Prince_James said:
Jenyar:

Then I am perplexed: For if God is perfectly good and perfectly free, why did he not afford us the same blessing? For surely if he is perfectly good he seeks nothing else but good - lest he endorse evil - and surely is his freedom suffers not from his goodness. Yet humanity is held to be free (or do you claim we are determined?) and we are capable of good and evil both, despite our freedom not being founded upon such (as freedom and goodness are not mutually exclusive). Then it would seem either God is evil, incompetant, or both.
Click to expand...
I'll try to ease your perplexity. According to Genesis 1:31 mankind was indeed created "very good" in God's eyes. It might only be an adjective in this sense, not necessarily describing a moral dimension, but it's still an important qualitative assessment: A good God declared us a good creation.

Where your reasoning goes wrong, I think, is when you think of good (or evil) as a self-evident, quantitative "thing". You make no real distinction between God and creation, or between what is good for God and good for his creation.

For God, "good" and "freedom" would simply be the extent of His nature (think of it as a circle), and when He sets us down in a world that depends on it, it becomes important for us to live out that good nature (remain inside the circle). Obviously that means knowing what God considers good or bad, which Adam and Eve did. And that's where freedom comes into play. "Freedom" has no boundaries of its own (by definition), so it relies on imposed boundaries. Our freedom is not good by definition - in some places they are mutually exclusive - it is only good within the boundaries of "good" (within the circle). When we step outside the circle, we abuse our freedom and sever the relationship with God, which can obviously have all kinds of consequences.

Obviously I've also simplified it, but it illustrates how evil and incompetence can be consequences of a combination of otherwise "good" things. It's precisely because God is good and not evil that such a boundary even exists to cross, and that the option of evil is open.
 
Last edited:
Prince_James said:
Jenyar:

Then I am perplexed: For if God is perfectly good and perfectly free, why did he not afford us the same blessing? For surely if he is perfectly good he seeks nothing else but good - lest he endorse evil - and surely is his freedom suffers not from his goodness. Yet humanity is held to be free (or do you claim we are determined?) and we are capable of good and evil both, despite our freedom not being founded upon such (as freedom and goodness are not mutually exclusive). Then it would seem either God is evil, incompetant, or both.
Click to expand...


taken from down the page
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1189773&postcount=17

The atheist will no doubt argue that a better solution must be available. He could even suggest that God may have created man in such a way that man would avoid evil altogether. This idea can be ressolved by pointing out that this scenario would mean that he would no longer have the capacity to exhibit free will and make choices - It would require that God create robots that act in programmed or predetermined ways .

If the atheist persists (like they are apt to) and asserts there must be a better solution to the issue of evil, give them this simple test.

Ask them to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that

(1) does not infringe human freedom (ie free will) , or
(2) cause God to violate the definitions of his nature (ie , His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way.

Don't expect much of an answer.
 
lightgigantic said:
It would require that God create robots that act in programmed or predetermined ways.
Click to expand...
Please prove that we aren't. ;)

lightgigantic said:
If the atheist persists (like they are apt to) and asserts there must be a better solution to the issue of evil, give them this simple test.

Ask them to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that

(1) does not infringe human freedom (ie free will) , or
(2) cause God to violate the definitions of his nature (ie , His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way.
Click to expand...
Firstly - I am intrigued as to what the "problem of evil" is? What is "evil"? How is it a problem? Why must there be a solution? Isn't "evil" merely a subjective description, such as "good"?. What is "evil" and what is "good"? Can you come up with a definition that an atheist would accept - e.g. one that does not rely on, or reference, God or religion.

Secondly - your solution assumes the existence of human free-will. Please prove this assumption to be true?

Thirdly - no atheist would come up with a solution, should you convince me (or any atheist) that one is needed, that involves God.
 
Sarkus...

I actually (as a non-theist) pondered on a more secular definition of "good" and "evil". The best I've been able to come up with references economics. For (a simplistic) example a "good deed" results in all parties gaining tangible, intangible, socially and/or personally economical benefits that were absent before or augments any similar attributes present. An "evil deed" results in a deficit of same. Might be food for thought in a separate thread.

It's just a start I guess...but removing the overpowering hold that religion has should begin somewhere right?

As to the "solution for evil", with Lightee's restriction, not even the RC god can come up with that, because any current solution inherently wipes out the notion of free will.
 
I think hes more bothered about the overall system rather than the minute parts that make up the system. As long as the systems are expanding and fractalling off as they should then i think the old duffers basically happy.
And suffering is part of the deal you enter into when you chose to be a living being (er..probably).
 
lightgigantic said:
The atheist will no doubt argue that a better solution must be available. He could even suggest that God may have created man in such a way that man would avoid evil altogether. This idea can be ressolved by pointing out that this scenario would mean that he would no longer have the capacity to exhibit free will and make choices -
Click to expand...

Theists should really stop making the free will infringement excuse to the existence of 'evil'. Is our 'free will' harmed by any additional paramaters that god decided to leave out of this universe at the last minute? Safe to say that if god left certain things out of the universe, we would be non the wiser. Would these missing parameters effect our free will? Probably about as much as they would effect it if 'evil' wasn't there. I find it more believable that there is no 'loving', intelligent creator out there hence why this universe is an unforgivable environment and why only the fittest survive... before eventually dieing in horrible pain of course :eek:

It would require that God create robots that act in programmed or predetermined ways .
Click to expand...

Not to harm our ego, but god or no god... Are we not already robots? I can not do anything that is outside my 'programmed' nature. With free will, there should be no bounds, rather than being slaves to our genes.
 
lightgigantic said:
Neela-the-blue-eyed







Even if a person does not know scripture they can experience guilt and thus be prevented from performing an activity that is liable to cause punishment - the culmination of many lifetimes of lessons learnt is to feel embaressment or reluctance at the appropriate time, and the opposite is indicative of many lifetimes of ignorance. (this happens through the agency of paramatma, an expansion of the controlling feature of god that grants rememberance, knowledge and forgetfulness - to get to how we we feel "guilt" for something we don't "remember" is a bit technical and warrants many scriptural quotes etc - but I am just giving you the essence of a brief over view) Sometimes atheists argue that they are quite well socialized around civil principles and don't require scriptures to tell them what is to be done and what is not to be done since they are by nature quite adverse to what scriptures declare as sin- this indicates a backlog of piety, having accrued the merit of learning from previous punishments ( ....... of course scripture offers more than mundane piety as the platform of perfection)
Click to expand...


That was not the answer to my question. You know that was not.
 
Sarkus

It would require that God create robots that act in programmed or predetermined ways. ”

Please prove that we aren't.
Click to expand...
If you think this then you have no problem with why there is "evil" in the world, since its impossible to do things either good or evil without free will


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If the atheist persists (like they are apt to) and asserts there must be a better solution to the issue of evil, give them this simple test.

Ask them to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that

(1) does not infringe human freedom (ie free will) , or
(2) cause God to violate the definitions of his nature (ie , His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. ”

Firstly - I am intrigued as to what the "problem of evil" is? What is "evil"? How is it a problem? Why must there be a solution? Isn't "evil" merely a subjective description, such as "good"?. What is "evil" and what is "good"? Can you come up with a definition that an atheist would accept - e.g. one that does not rely on, or reference, God or religion.
Click to expand...

So you have no business analyzing anything that goes down in the world in the name of right or wrong acts - after all such decsriptions are all subjective and all activities are pre programmed - whether a terrorist crashes a plane into a highrise or a governemnt watchdog commitee establishes policies to prevent corruption in the public sector are of equal standing since in all cases tere is no issue of free will that grants significance to activities of determination (the legal system operates on the principle of free will - if a person murdered all your relatives with a fireman's axe would you be prepared to absolve them of any punishment since it was all a preprogrammed response .... after all,nobody can exhibit free will???)

Secondly - your solution assumes the existence of human free-will. Please prove this assumption to be true?
Click to expand...
If there is no basis for free will why would you even bother to try and convince me (or anyone) of anything - surely if I am advocating that there is free will it must just be my preprogrammed nature which, you, also being completely absent of free will, are totally incapable of surmounting with any amount of endeavour.

Thirdly - no atheist would come up with a solution, should you convince me (or any atheist) that one is needed, that involves God.
Click to expand...

Well given that the issue in contention is a problem with the nature of god and suffering in the world, it would be reasonable to expect that the answer would have somethign to do with god - if you want to tag ".... but god doesn't exist" to your comments, this is not the place - the opening thread establishes that god is a given (even if you only want to discuss god as a theoretical notion) - in otherwords to participate in this discussion as an atheist, in order to add a progressive element, you haveto at least accept god as an idea, otherwise there is nothing much to really respond to
 
Last edited:
Neela-the-blue-eyed said:
That was not the answer to my question. You know that was not.
Click to expand...


I am not a mind reader, even if you happen to be one.
:p

But rather than losing your socks about it, if you want a reply you will have to rely on the standard forms of communication by expressing exactly what parts of your question were not addressed
;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top