how can a good God create a world iwhere there is suffering

[Guest]

Asimov:

Quote: " I would not believe that God would make mistakes either, and again that was not my implication. One can create flaws on purpose. That is why I said flaw, and not accident or mistake".

Rather than using the word "flawed" in describing a character quality imbued in man by his Creator, how about a "limitation"?To say we were created with a flawed character is not the same thing as saying were created with limitations. We are neither God nor will we be 'gods'. The problem of evil entered into our experience from an inordinate desire to become or like God. Here is our major limitation. Here is where moral evil finds its entrance into our experience.. This was a deliberate limitation set upon us by our Creator. Yes, you could say it was 'on purpose', whether we understand His purpose or not. To say we simply should avoid the hard questions and 'nod our heads' is not what I mean. What I mean is sometimes there are no answers that will ultimately satisfiy all of our questions. Job speaks to this issue.

Quote: " My conclusion is that the existence of suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful being who does not wish his creation to suffer"

I make no such conclusions. Evil and suffering have a purpose. God uses it both in a judicial way and a teaching way. He can draw out of the evil intentions of men a good purpose according to His pleasure. The Bible is littered with such cases . If He didn't desire us to 'suffer' in some sense
for the consequenses of our choices, I am sure He could have created a world where suffering doesn't exist. Evidently the world we have now is the best way into the world to come, whether or not we like it or understand it. Christianity is not 'easy believisim'. There will be a time when all suffering will cease. That takes faith in your Creator to believe this will be the ultimate eventuality.

[Guest]

I've been reading this thread with some interest.

I find Asimov's questions reasonable as far as they go.

It seems to me that the tacit assumption being made here, on both sides, is that suffereing is, by definition, automatically bad.

I'm operating on that assumption from the OP that there will be no more suffering after some un-verified amount of time when Christ returns.

Clearly, if God wishes to completely rid this existence of suffering that it is not a good thing, or there would be suffering in heaven. Considering that according to the OP, suffering arose through sin, and sin is bad, the logical conclusion would be that suffering is bad because it is a result of evil.

I don't think we can explain away suffering in a way that we're ever going to find fully satisfying on both an emotional and an intellectual level. The amount of suffering is just too great.

Is it? I don't think you can gauge and compound suffering between each person. I'm sure to Paris Hilton that being out of her favourite coffee is a high level of suffering, until she spent some time in jail and her perception of suffering changed. So I really don't think there is a "great amount of suffering".

You may not find this a very compelling answer, and I accept that, from your perspective, it may sound like a bit of a dodge. But my own opinion is that, even though I can't add up the books in my mind in such a way as to be able to justify the suffering that I observe in the world, I do have faith that, when all is said and done, it will be properly recompenced.

Which causes me to wonder 2 things:

1) Why it exists in the first place.
2) Why it persists to this day.

To use a really bad analogy, when mom cleans the gravel out of my skinned knee, I'm saying "Mom it hurts!", and she says, "I know it hurts, but trust me, it'll be better soon."

It could be argued that a fully omnipotent mom, (like God is omnipotent) would have done better to prevent my knee getting skinned in the first place. My only answer to that is, once again, I must fall back on my trust that, even though I don't fully understand it, I do trust that mom knows what she's doing. If I fully understood it, it really wouldn't be trust.

I think a better question would be "why do knees skin in the first place anyways?"

I admit that such an aswer may seem to be ducking the tough questions in the name of trust.

Which is fine, the basis of your religion is faith and not intellectualism. I certainly don't see a problem with that, and you operate on the premise that suffering is not necessarily bad.

I'm operating on the OP premise that suffering IS bad, IS a result of sin, and must be done away with.

I am curious, though, by what basis, in the absence of a loving God, is it possible to suggest that there's anything wrong with suffering in the first place. It simply is what it is, nature playing out the way nature plays out.

Perry

Suffering is what it is, but that doesn't mean that we ought to suffer because it is a reality that suffering occurs.

It's a reality that pedophiles molest children, but that doesn't mean we ought to let them.

[Guest]

Hi Asimov,

(Incidently, I've always enjoyed the writings of your namesake.)

I'm operating on that assumption from the OP...

That's fine. In that regard, what I posted was perhaps a bit of a non-sequiture. I just wanted to say it.

So I really don't think there is a "great amount of suffering".

That's an interesting take on it. I find it particularly so considering your later statement:

...but that doesn't mean that we ought to suffer because it is a reality that suffering occurs

I'm not saying "wrong" or "inconsistent". Just interesting.

...the basis of your religion is faith and not intellectualism...

I would say that my world view is predicated on belief in a benelovent Creator, and that belief, in the final analysis, is founded on faith. It's not "blind" faith, nor devoid of intellectualism, but it is, I admit, faith. "Religion" doesn't really enter into it.

It's a reality that pedophiles molest children, but that doesn't mean we ought to let them.

Says who?

We know my answer, but I'm curious as to what yours is.

Perry

[Guest]

I would say that my world view is predicated on belief in a benelovent Creator, and that belief, in the final analysis, is founded on faith. It's not "blind" faith, nor devoid of intellectualism, but it is, I admit, faith. "Religion" doesn't really enter into it.

Religion is, however, the appropriate label.

It's a reality that pedophiles molest children, but that doesn't mean we ought to let them.

Says who?

We know my answer, but I'm curious as to what yours is.

Perry

That's not the issue, choosing pedophilia is just one example and I'm not going to discuss ethical systems with you on this thread.

My point is that if we experience suffering, then it's a fact that we experience suffering. That fact doesn't translate into an ought. So, the fact that I suffer does not mean that I should accept my suffering and not try to improve my quality of life. Why? Because there is no logical method to derive an ought from an is.

[Guest]

Asimov

Quote: " My point is that if we experience suffering, then it's a fact that we experience suffering. That fact doesn't translate into an ought. So, the fact that I suffer does not mean that I should accept my suffering and not try to improve my quality of life. Why? Because there is no logical method to derive an ought from an is".

I agree. But we are not talking as you said, about ethics. We could say that evil is a lack of something that "ought" to be there (good) with suffering the result. Whether you accept your suffering or not is irrelevant. Try as you may, you will not succeed in eliminating suffering. It may be a 'fact' that we suffer. But 'facts' do not supply the 'why'. Religion attempts to. So the issue becomes 'which religion' (if any) has the best explaination of evil and suffering that corresponds to reality.

[Guest]

It's a reality that pedophiles molest children, but that doesn't mean we ought to let them.

My point is that if we experience suffering, then it's a fact that we experience suffering. That fact doesn't translate into an ought. So, the fact that I suffer does not mean that I should accept my suffering and not try to improve my quality of life. Why? Because there is no logical method to derive an ought from an is.

In your first statement above, are you not saying that we "ought" to prevent children from being molested?


The fact is, the problem of evil/suffering is not a philisophical problem for Christians. For we can make sense of the fact that suffering is bad. If evil doesn't exist, (which it cannot given atheism), then there is no argument. According to atheism, suffering cannot be "good" or "bad" or anything. It is simply a fact of life in a "blind, pitiless" existence, and has no moral quality one way or the other. If an atheist says that suffering is good or bad, (which they usually do, showing that they are made in God's image), then they are borrowing our worldview to make that statement (and thus prove the position they are arguing against).

Of course evil and suffering are bad. God is going to end all suffering and evil. However, He has chosen to allow it in His world, for His own purposes. (His own loving and holy purposes). Christians are (or at least should be) fine with the fact that God can and does use evil for good.

This doesn't mean that we can understand or explain all of God's motives and purposes behind allowing suffering. But we don't have to do that to answer the "problem of evil" argument. The bible teaches us that God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil in the world.

The answer to "why" He allows suffering, is "Because He has a morally sufficient reason to do so".

The bible does give some specifics, For instance, He chastens those He loves, so that they may be "partakers of His holiness". But there is not nearly enough biblical data to answer the overarching question of "why does He allow it at all?" in a specific fashion.

God bless,

[Guest]

Hiya Asimov,

Religion is, however, the appropriate label.

It may make for more comfortable pigeonholing I suppose.

So, the fact that I suffer does not mean that I should accept my suffering and not try to improve my quality of life.

Has someone suggested the contrary?

Perry

[Guest]

So the issue becomes 'which religion' (if any) has the best explaination of evil and suffering that corresponds to reality.

Why do you need an explanation?

[Guest]

In your first statement above, are you not saying that we "ought" to prevent children from being molested?

No, I'm saying that because they exist, it doesn't necessarily mean we should allow them to do what they want. The concepts found in ethics are why we shouldn't let people do such things.

The fact is, the problem of evil/suffering is not a philisophical problem for Christians. For we can make sense of the fact that suffering is bad. If evil doesn't exist, (which it cannot given atheism), then there is no argument.

Of course it is a problem, this whole thread is about it being problematic that evil/suffering exists.

According to atheism, suffering cannot be "good" or "bad" or anything. It is simply a fact of life in a "blind, pitiless" existence, and has no moral quality one way or the other. If an atheist says that suffering is good or bad, (which they usually do, showing that they are made in God's image), then they are borrowing our worldview to make that statement (and thus prove the position they are arguing against).

Completely baseless assertion. Atheism doesn't make any prescriptive statements about reality, atheism doesn't offer philosophical concepts. It is the mere lack of a concept. Trying to equate it solipsism or nihilism is fallacious.

If anyone says that suffering is good or bad, it means their concepts arise from the culture around them, the environment they live in, and the knowledge they accrue as they move throughout life. I could easily say that if a Christian says that suffering is bad, that they are borrowing the worldview of Aristotle to make that statement. I'm not borrowing your worldview, don't think yours is completely original and the only one to compare against.

Of course evil and suffering are bad. God is going to end all suffering and evil. However, He has chosen to allow it in His world, for His own purposes. (His own loving and holy purposes). Christians are (or at least should be) fine with the fact that God can and does use evil for good.

That makes no sense. If you use evil for good, it is no longer evil. That's like saying murdering someone is bad, but then saying "well I murdered a criminal, so that was a good thing". If murder is wrong, it's wrong.

Of course he's chosen to allow it in his world...it wouldn't have ever existed if he didn't want it to exist. That's the whole problem.

Allowing evil to exist, when you abhor it and don't want it to exist is problematic.

The answer to "why" He allows suffering, is "Because He has a morally sufficient reason to do so".

No, the answer is because he wants it to exist.

[Guest]

Hiya Asimov,

Religion is, however, the appropriate label.

It may make for more comfortable pigeonholing I suppose.

It has nothing to do with pigeonholing. Denying that you're a human doesn't make you not a human, and stating that you are a human isn't pigeonholing.

Believing in God, and believing in a doctrine prescribed by said deity is a religion.