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

[spamandham]

All this is either bravado or alternatively you have evidence that god doesn't exist

I can prove that certain conceptions of god are impossible. It's trivial to prove that an omnipotent god is impossible. It's also trivial to prove that "exists outside time" is incoherent, and so any definition of a god that involves that is incoherent as well. I can also demonstrate that the universe was not created, and so there is no role for a "creator". This doesn't cover all possible definitions of gods, but it probably does address what most people think about a god.

That aside, I need no evidence at all to judge that leprechauns are obvious myth and don't exist. I am not the least bit concerned I might be wrong about that. I am also justified in rejecting the idea that there is a malevolent creator of the universe planning to torture anyone who believes in god. I have no more reason to accept your god than I have to accept this malevolent god. My only rational course of action is to conclude they are both myth.

A judgement based on what the term "god" actually means - perhaps you could say you are a god that is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent etc - which would kind of make you a measley god ....

The "god" you described is defined inconsistently and thus can't exist. Omnipotence leads to paradoxes, and is not a coherent concept. Any god defined using it is thus also not coherent.

It doesn't matter what my conception of god is. What matters is whether or not you can prove I'm not god according to your conception of god. How do you know I'm not omnipotent, etc? If you can't prove I'm not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, then you are not justified in claiming I'm not god according to the standards of judgement you seem to wish to apply to me.

 

[lightgigantic]

I can prove that certain conceptions of god are impossible. It's trivial to prove that an omnipotent god is impossible. It's also trivial to prove that "exists outside time" is incoherent, and so any definition of a god that involves that is incoherent as well. I can also demonstrate that the universe was not created, and so there is no role for a "creator". This doesn't cover all possible definitions of gods, but it probably does address what most people think about a god.

That aside, I need no evidence at all to judge that leprechauns are obvious myth and don't exist. I am not the least bit concerned I might be wrong about that. I am also justified in rejecting the idea that there is a malevolent creator of the universe planning to torture anyone who believes in god. I have no more reason to accept your god than I have to accept this malevolent god. My only rational course of action is to conclude they are both myth.




The "god" you described is defined inconsistently and thus can't exist. Omnipotence leads to paradoxes, and is not a coherent concept. Any god defined using it is thus also not coherent.

It doesn't matter what my conception of god is. What matters is whether or not you can prove I'm not god according to your conception of god. How do you know I'm not omnipotent, etc? If you can't prove I'm not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, then you are not justified in claiming I'm not god according to the standards of judgement you seem to wish to apply to me.

In short here's why not even atheists like Dawkins make such foolish statements

To know that a god does not exist relies on perfect knowledge of all phenomena (omniscience) - To attain omniscience one would require access to all aspects of the phenomenal world (omnipresence).

Given the inherent limited nature of mankind, it appears that your dogmatic claim is self defeating, as are all negative absolutes ("never say never") in debates of logic

 

[spamandham]

Given the inherent limited nature of mankind, it appears that your dogmatic claim is self defeating, as are all negative absolutes ("never say never") in debates of logic

I've mad no dogmatic claims, as much as you keep trying to put dogmatism in my mouth. I've been very careful to make it clear these are judgements, and have demonstrated why these judgements are justifiable. Nothing more. You have attempted to paint me with strawmen, and when I pointed it out, you tried to twist it as "oh you stupid atheists just can't comprehend what we fine theists are talking about."

You are the one making an unsupportable dogmatic claim about the existence of an incomprehensible whatnot that you call god and define using inconsistent concepts. Not once have you explained why you, or anyone else, aught to take the idea of your god seriously.

You have made a further dogmatic claim that I'm not that god, which you can also not support.

You know what, I AM that god afterall! For your failure to recognize me, I sentence you to return in your next life as a gay atheist amputee. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[lightgigantic]

spamandham

I've mad no dogmatic claims, as much as you keep trying to put dogmatism in my mouth. I've been very careful to make it clear these are judgements, and have demonstrated why these judgements are justifiable. Nothing more. You have attempted to paint me with strawmen, and when I pointed it out, you tried to twist it as "oh you stupid atheists just can't comprehend what we fine theists are talking about."

The actual issue is that in a debate you will be held accountable for the words you use - so if you want to advocate your stance as above, you will have to avoid using phrases like "god is an obvious myth" - you cannot hid e on the neutral ground of agnosticism to fire off your atheistic claims

You are the one making an unsupportable dogmatic claim about the existence of an incomprehensible whatnot that you call god and define using inconsistent concepts. Not once have you explained why you, or anyone else, aught to take the idea of your god seriously.

I am just trying to initially determine how serious your claims of god's non existence are

You have made a further dogmatic claim that I'm not that god, which you can also not support.

as long as you want to maintain yourself on the platform of insanity, advocating that you are omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, yes, it is a difficult claim to support

You know what, I AM that god afterall! For your failure to recognize me, I sentence you to return in your next life as a gay atheist amputee. Thanks for the laughs.

Your plurality is becoming difficult to follow.

 

[Kendall]

why is there unjust suffering in this world despite god? when you see someone suffering, in need or hurt do you think it coulden't be you, you woulden't have done that or your smarter becouse you are fine. In reality if you except that whatever happens is normal or has to be, you are wrong, there are reasons for everything but the reasons dont have to be right or needed. Pain is the brains warning of a problem, same for suffering to a community.

 

[Leo Volont]

Why is there so much 'unjust' suffering.

Well, because of Karma.

And then there is the mistaken conception that individuals are only morally responsible for themselves. Why think that? No. Individuals carry the Karma of their families, their ancestors, their clans, Society, Culture, their Religion of Choice. Perhaps all of Humanity shared in some collective Karma.

Why Suffering?

Well, the World is being punished for tolerating Republicans. When Greed and War Mongering are held up as Virtues, then we can only expect that God, or at least His Avenging Angels should be highly annoyed.

Why should God punish everybody?

Well, how do we deal with swamps. We do not just go after the alligators and the mosquitos, do we. No. The whole thing is drained and filled. That must be tough on the swamp animals, huh?

Well, while we have proven no better than swamp animals, than we should expect no better. Collectively.

We live as one. We die as one.

 

[Kendall]

Say your community offers one path only and there's a dead end, is it your fault when you take it or your community's for not having better paths available? Or is it strange that I starved my dog and he bit me!

 

[Pete]

Hi,

I'm new to the group. I am sure this questione may already have been discussed ad nauseam before.

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

I would request only the believers to answer this question. As any answers from the atheists would be irrelevant.

Thanks,
Neela

Hi Neela, and welcome to Sciforums.
This question does pop up a lot, but people are always willing to discuss it.

You won't have any luck having an atheist-free discussion here... but please don't let that discourage you. I'm sure that there are other online discussion arenas where you could have a mostly atheist free discussion, but if you find one, please come back here and share with us what you learned.

Here's a recent thread in which I was involved that touched on the question. [post]1148694[/post]. It covers other stuff too, but if you begin from where that link takes you and focus on the Gordon's posts, you'll get some of fwhat you're after.

Some notes about the characters you'll find in that stream of that thread - Adstar is an odd fish with rather extreme views. Gordon is an intelligent believer. SetiAlpha, FraggleRocker and I were probing Gordon's viewpoint and suggesting objections (politely, I think ).


I think the best answer to the problem of evil is "God works in mysterious ways." The lesson of the book of Job is that we don't know why God does the things He does. It is a matter of faith that His action or inaction is all for goodness's sake. Personally, I find it dissatisfying, but I can understand people who take that position.

Pete

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

The problem is that you are stuck in the tail end of god's potency and are trying to determine the sequence of things at the front - just because the conditioned living entity operates out of linear time bears no correlation to the living entity liberated from material life - if it was possible to conceive of the nature of liberation by drawing on temporal evidences it wouldn't be described as transcendental

Do you affirm that God could create a square-circle? That is a square which is a circle at the same time and in the same manner?

But there is nothing to sustain us because we are eternal by nature - just like have you ever wondered why toothpaste is constantly marketed as new and improved (after all how much technical advancement can be crammed in to toothpaste?) - obviously it is done because we find new and fresh things invigorating - the material world cannot offer a single thing that can fits this bill, hence it constantly operates out of the medium of illusion - there may appear to be an unlimted scope for variety, but it all amounts to the same thing.

All amounts to the same thing? How so? The varieties are endless and we have fallible memories that not only break down in this life and the next, but also from day to day, hour by hour.

As for our lives they can be progressive - whatever spiritual advancement one makes will remain with one eternally - so if one attains 2% advancement they start next life from 2% - it is never diminished (do you ever get the feeling that we are continuing with a discussion left over from a previous life )

Ha ha. Perhaps, perhaps.

What is the nature of something that exists but bears no consequence?

It's an impotent, triffling thing. Yet it retains its evil and it retains its existence and this is completely against God's goodness.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

“ The problem is that you are stuck in the tail end of god's potency and are trying to determine the sequence of things at the front - just because the conditioned living entity operates out of linear time bears no correlation to the living entity liberated from material life - if it was possible to conceive of the nature of liberation by drawing on temporal evidences it wouldn't be described as transcendental ”

Do you affirm that God could create a square-circle? That is a square which is a circle at the same time and in the same manner?

He could create a square that everyone could look at and say "hey look at that circle"

“ But there is nothing to sustain us because we are eternal by nature - just like have you ever wondered why toothpaste is constantly marketed as new and improved (after all how much technical advancement can be crammed in to toothpaste?) - obviously it is done because we find new and fresh things invigorating - the material world cannot offer a single thing that can fits this bill, hence it constantly operates out of the medium of illusion - there may appear to be an unlimted scope for variety, but it all amounts to the same thing. ”

All amounts to the same thing? How so? The varieties are endless and we have fallible memories that not only break down in this life and the next, but also from day to day, hour by hour.

The variety offerred (in the illusion of eternity) cannot sustain a living entity that is eternal by nature, simply because a finite thing cannot hold out against an infinte thing

“ As for our lives they can be progressive - whatever spiritual advancement one makes will remain with one eternally - so if one attains 2% advancement they start next life from 2% - it is never diminished (do you ever get the feeling that we are continuing with a discussion left over from a previous life ) ”

Ha ha. Perhaps, perhaps.

it certainly does approach the infinite don't you think

“ What is the nature of something that exists but bears no consequence? ”

It's an impotent, triffling thing. Yet it retains its evil and it retains its existence and this is completely against God's goodness.

how can it be described as "evil" if it bears no consequences? Can you describe something as good or evil if it bears no consequences? Like for instance suppose a man is charged with murder, but is later found out to be completely innocent, is he guilty of an evil act?

 

[Kendall]

Why are some people cruel, Evil?

 

[TimeTraveler]

Hi,

I'm new to the group. I am sure this questione may already have been discussed ad nauseam before.

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

I would request only the believers to answer this question. As any answers from the atheists would be irrelevant.

Thanks,
Neela

God likes to suffer, so theres much suffering. Perhaps the more you suffer the closer to God you get.

 

[lightgigantic]

God likes to suffer, so theres much suffering. Perhaps the more you suffer the closer to God you get.

Or alternatively the more you suffer the more you realize that you are addicted to the causes of suffering - of course such a realization requires pious credits, so its not uncommon for people to journey merrily down the road to nowhere

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

He could create a square that everyone could look at and say "hey look at that circle"

And actually think it is a circle and view it as such? Or would they be calling the square a circle?

Also, outside of appearances: Can God create a square-circle?

The variety offerred (in the illusion of eternity) cannot sustain a living entity that is eternal by nature, simply because a finite thing cannot hold out against an infinte thing

An infinite variety of infinite objects can most certainly entertain an eternal thing.

how can it be described as "evil" if it bears no consequences? Can you describe something as good or evil if it bears no consequences? Like for instance suppose a man is charged with murder, but is later found out to be completely innocent, is he guilty of an evil act?

Certainly he is not. But ignorance is certainly real - even you admit that, hence why we are in the "world of illusion" - and is certainly in the lives of everyone incarnated into this "delusion". Therefore, evil prevails.

 

[lightgigantic]

PJ

“ He could create a square that everyone could look at and say "hey look at that circle" ”

And actually think it is a circle and view it as such? Or would they be calling the square a circle?

Either - it could be a circle that reveals teh nature of its optical illusion or it could be a circle that would appear non different from any other circle - actually what to speak of god, there are scriptural references of even sages, demigods and rakshasas having this capacity

Also, outside of appearances: Can God create a square-circle?

Outside of appearances how would you determine if something is a circle? - since we approach phenomena through our senses its not clear how we have any other option

“ The variety offerred (in the illusion of eternity) cannot sustain a living entity that is eternal by nature, simply because a finite thing cannot hold out against an infinte thing ”

An infinite variety of infinite objects can most certainly entertain an eternal thing.

the material creation is not infinite in terms of variety nor area but you could describe it as very comprehensive, something like counting the number of grains of sand on the beach (you could say it is relatively infinite to the conditioned soul's scope for inquiry)

“ how can it be described as "evil" if it bears no consequences? Can you describe something as good or evil if it bears no consequences? Like for instance suppose a man is charged with murder, but is later found out to be completely innocent, is he guilty of an evil act? ”

Certainly he is not. But ignorance is certainly real - even you admit that, hence why we are in the "world of illusion" - and is certainly in the lives of everyone incarnated into this "delusion". Therefore, evil prevails.

But then at the conclusion of such encounters (much like the conclusion of a court hearing on an innocent person) it is understood that the whole notion was trumped up and thus its completely bereft of consequences (meaning that after spending countless billions of lifetimes migrating between material heavens and hells and back again by the laws of karma, the pointof liberation is revealed and one understands that they never had, have or will have any connection withthe material world and the laws of karma)- in short the "evil" is destroyed by revealing it had no premise to exist - how else would you propose that evil that has no premise for existence gets destroyed except by revealing it's baseless premise?

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

Either - it could be a circle that reveals teh nature of its optical illusion or it could be a circle that would appear non different from any other circle - actually what to speak of god, there are scriptural references of even sages, demigods and rakshasas having this capacity

Holograms and other tricks of light can do this. This isn't really of great importance.

Outside of appearances how would you determine if something is a circle? - since we approach phenomena through our senses its not clear how we have any other option

My question, in essence, is this: Can God create an actual contradiction? Bypassing questions of tricks of light and other such nonsense.

the material creation is not infinite in terms of variety nor area but you could describe it as very comprehensive, something like counting the number of grains of sand on the beach (you could say it is relatively infinite to the conditioned soul's scope for inquiry)

It is not infinite in area? Impossible: The only alternative would be finitehood but that would necessitate a nothingness which could exist. And indeed, there must be an infinite variety of things as an infinite space cannot have anything but such.

But then at the conclusion of such encounters (much like the conclusion of a court hearing on an innocent person) it is understood that the whole notion was trumped up and thus its completely bereft of consequences (meaning that after spending countless billions of lifetimes migrating between material heavens and hells and back again by the laws of karma, the pointof liberation is revealed and one understands that they never had, have or will have any connection withthe material world and the laws of karma)- in short the "evil" is destroyed by revealing it had no premise to exist - how else would you propose that evil that has no premise for existence gets destroyed except by revealing it's baseless premise?

Never initiating it at all. A moment of evil is still against a perfect God.

 

[lightgigantic]

PJ

“ Outside of appearances how would you determine if something is a circle? - since we approach phenomena through our senses its not clear how we have any other option ”

My question, in essence, is this: Can God create an actual contradiction? Bypassing questions of tricks of light and other such nonsense.

Gods potency is such that he can bend the physical laws (gravity, speed of light - any scientific axiom you care to mention) just as we can do things with holograms - I guess the question is "who is on the other side to perceice the contradiction?" It wouldn't be a contradiction for god, but it would appear to be a contradiction to anyone else

SB 1.1.1: O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

“ the material creation is not infinite in terms of variety nor area but you could describe it as very comprehensive, something like counting the number of grains of sand on the beach (you could say it is relatively infinite to the conditioned soul's scope for inquiry) ”

It is not infinite in area? Impossible: The only alternative would be finitehood but that would necessitate a nothingness which could exist. And indeed, there must be an infinite variety of things as an infinite space cannot have anything but such.

This doesn't come through as a clear statement, particularly the part in bold - maybe you could rephrase it

“ But then at the conclusion of such encounters (much like the conclusion of a court hearing on an innocent person) it is understood that the whole notion was trumped up and thus its completely bereft of consequences (meaning that after spending countless billions of lifetimes migrating between material heavens and hells and back again by the laws of karma, the pointof liberation is revealed and one understands that they never had, have or will have any connection withthe material world and the laws of karma)- in short the "evil" is destroyed by revealing it had no premise to exist - how else would you propose that evil that has no premise for existence gets destroyed except by revealing it's baseless premise? ”

Never initiating it at all. A moment of evil is still against a perfect God.

Which moment was the innocent person guilty of murder?

 

[Pete]

Do you affirm that God could create a square-circle? That is a square which is a circle at the same time and in the same manner?

What lightgigantic seems to be is indicating is that omnipotence doesn't mean able to defy strict logic, ie that God can't make a true square that is also a true circle and that this is not a problem.

This seems reasonable to me. There are two ways to interpret what "omnipotence" means:
1) Able to do anything that is logically consistent.
2) Able to do absolutely anything, logically consistent or not.

If God exists and is omnipotent in the first sense, then god can't do logically inconsistent things... for example, God can't make a stone he cannot lift - but so what?
If God exists and is omnipotent in the second sense, then God can do things that are logically inconsistent... for example, make a stone he cannot lift, and still be able to lift that stone. This defies logic - but so what?

 

[Huwy]

there was a chap on this forum called "USP8RIOT" who (not too surprisingly) when I asked the question "why does god let innocent children get terminal illness and die horrible slow painful deaths"

the best answer he could give me was along the line of "they are paying for the sins of mankind"

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

Gods potency is such that he can bend the physical laws (gravity, speed of light - any scientific axiom you care to mention) just as we can do things with holograms - I guess the question is "who is on the other side to perceice the contradiction?" It wouldn't be a contradiction for god, but it would appear to be a contradiction to anyone else

Let's disregard physical laws entirely. I am speaking about logical ones. That God can theoretically and without contradiction cease any natural law is certainly acceptable, but can he do the same to a logical law?

Okay, here's a question that will get to the heart of it all: Can God both exist and not-exist, in the same manner and at the same time?

This doesn't come through as a clear statement, particularly the part in bold - maybe you could rephrase it

In infinite space, there is necessarily an infinite amount of things, in the infinite combination those things can be put together, and in the infinite varieties they can find themselves as. In essence, infinite space is the essence of complete and utter variety. Anything which is not impossible could occur and does occur in this situation.

Which moment was the innocent person guilty of murder?

No point. But what point is an ignorant person ignorant? Every point he is ignorant. If ignorance is evil, then God tolerates evil, as you claim that we all are ignorant.

Pete:

What lightgigantic seems to be is indicating is that omnipotence doesn't mean able to defy strict logic, ie that God can't make a true square that is also a true circle and that this is not a problem.

I would hope he affirms such, otherwise we have a problem. But yes, I support this notion of omnipotence and am not trying to trap him with the stupid "so then God cannot create a rock that not even he can lift?" argument. That argument is invalid on many, many levels.