The Problem of Pain

[Neopergoss]

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and kind, why is there suffering in the world? Why is there evil? (http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/MarkTwain2.htm)

This was mentioned in another thread recently, but I thought it deserved its own.

This argument isn't what made me atheist. I think there are stronger arguments against belief in God. Still, this is probably the most emotionally compelling.

[madbird20]

Before I try to answer, I just want to let you know I personally am a Christian, so my answer will be biased.

As to why there is suffering, it's because we chose suffering. I hope you don't mind a story to help me try and prove my point.

God made everything perfect, with no pain, and no evil. But, since he loves us, and wants us to love him back, he gave us a free will. Because for there to be love, true love, there has to be something equally as compelling as love. If you have a girl friend(Or boy friend), and love him/her, you want him/her to love you. If you point a gun at him/her and say "Do you love me?" He/She is probably gonna say yes cause they're afraid of what will happen if they don't. That's forced love. God didn't want us to be forced to love him. God also gave his angels free will, and Lucifer was jealous of God and wanted to have his power, so he resorted to treachery. As a result, God had to make a 'prison' for him and the angels that helped him. That is why he made Hell. See, he didn't make it for us. We choose to go to Hell by the way we act. Sort of like a person who goes and robs a bank. He could have chosen to not rob that bank, and thus avoid prison, but he robbed it anyway. Anyway, I'm getting off track. As we know, God said to Adam and Eve "You can have everything, just don't eat from that tree" Again, God wanted us to choose to love him, so he allowed that tree to be there so that we could choose either him, which was good, or the tree, which was wrong. Satan, of course, hated man because they were made in the image of God, so he took the form of a serpent and I think we all know what happens next. Eve could have chosen to resist, but she didn't, and she ate the apple, thus bringing evil onto humanity.

So, basicly, we were given a free will to decide if we want to do good, or evil. We chose evil, and now we're dealing with the repercussions. As to that story you linked.. (In response to the first chapter about why bad things happen) In Job, God allowed Satan to do anything to Job, but kill him. God doesn't hurt people. He tells Satan that he can hurt them. This (I believe) is done for various reasons. In Job, it was done because Satan said that "If you take away his possesions and blessings, he will curse you" So, God allowed Satan to do that to test Job's faith in him. Wheter or not this is always the case, I'm unsure.

As for the second and third chapter about natures:

Again, God made us with free wills to choose right from wrong. Everything was perfect then, and we knew nothing about evil. God made us pure and perfect, so he isn't responsible for the fact that we chose evil.

[OldTrees]

It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

– Lewis, 18

This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.

Free Will cannot logically exist in the same realm as morality and not as a consequence permit immorality. If omnipotence means 2+2=5 then omnipotence can solve the problem of pain. Otherwise it may not be able to.

[Neopergoss]

It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

– Lewis, 18

This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.

Free Will cannot logically exist in the same realm as morality and not as a consequence permit immorality. If omnipotence means 2+2=5 then omnipotence can solve the problem of pain. Otherwise it may not be able to.

That raises all sorts of other questions. First of all, what makes "free will" such a good thing? How do we know we really have it? If free will means that we somehow make choices independent from all influencing factors, I contend that we don't and it isn't. How do we know that our choices aren't the natural result of many different variables that we have no control over, such as genetics? This to me is as great a leap of faith as belief in God.

Second, are we really supposed to believe that this is the best that an omnipotent deity could do while still preserving free will? Highly dubious. Only someone highly devoted to belief in God would be able to accept that idea.

[siriosirio]

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and kind, why is there suffering in the world? Why is there evil? (http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/MarkTwain2.htm)

This was mentioned in another thread recently, but I thought it deserved its own.

This argument isn't what made me atheist. I think there are stronger arguments against belief in God. Still, this is probably the most emotionally compelling.

i dont know "why?"
maybe because god d'ont exist?
maybe god and satan are the two face of the same piece?
i dont know why, but in this life they are peopole that suffering whit not fault.
one thing i am sure peopel d'ont suffer because someone take a appel from a tree.

[Thalas]

Again, God made us with free wills to choose right from wrong. Everything was perfect then, and we knew nothing about evil. God made us pure and perfect, so he isn't responsible for the fact that we chose evil.

And what about bad things that happen to the christians or good people?

If you answer

God wants to prove their faith

If he's all-knowing he should know if they are proved
Why would god for example blind good people, to give them impediment to overcome? Why didn't he gave them less painful impediment to overcome, but equally difficult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ (

) 2# question,  6# question

[OldTrees]

It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

– Lewis, 18

This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.

Free Will cannot logically exist in the same realm as morality and not as a consequence permit immorality. If omnipotence means 2+2=5 then omnipotence can solve the problem of pain. Otherwise it may not be able to.

That raises all sorts of other questions. First of all, what makes "free will" such a good thing? How do we know we really have it? If free will means that we somehow make choices independent from all influencing factors, I contend that we don't and it isn't. How do we know that our choices aren't the natural result of many different variables that we have no control over, such as genetics? This to me is as great a leap of faith as belief in God.

Second, are we really supposed to believe that this is the best that an omnipotent deity could do while still preserving free will? Highly dubious. Only someone highly devoted to belief in God would be able to accept that idea.

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

[Belthus]

Can we agree that inflicting or allowing unnecessary suffering on others is evil? If God is good, then all pain in the world must be necessary for some greater good. The Holocaust and 9/11 were absolutely necessary, and for them not to have happened would have been bad, according to this perspective. As Voltaire's Pangloss said, we must live in the best of all possible worlds. To believe otherwise is to slur God's goodness.

Suppose you stumble upon an assassin aiming a sniper rifle at your child. To fight him and stop the assassination would interfere with the assassin's free will, would it not? You would be imposing your will over his and deny him the possibility to choose not to pull the trigger. Thus, in our dealings with others, we must always be passive, lest we interfere with others' free will and their ability to choose the good for themselves.

[OldTrees]

Suppose you stumble upon an assassin aiming a sniper rifle at your child. To fight him and stop the assassination would interfere with the assassin's free will, would it not? You would be imposing your will over his and deny him the possibility to choose not to pull the trigger. Thus, in our dealings with others, we must always be passive, lest we interfere with others' free will and their ability to choose the good for themselves.

The options available do not define Free Will, only the ability to choose between the available options.
This does not mean that being passive is not right it just means that it is not necessarily right from the singular premise of Free Will being desirable.

[Neopergoss]

It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

– Lewis, 18

This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.

Free Will cannot logically exist in the same realm as morality and not as a consequence permit immorality. If omnipotence means 2+2=5 then omnipotence can solve the problem of pain. Otherwise it may not be able to.

That raises all sorts of other questions. First of all, what makes "free will" such a good thing? How do we know we really have it? If free will means that we somehow make choices independent from all influencing factors, I contend that we don't and it isn't. How do we know that our choices aren't the natural result of many different variables that we have no control over, such as genetics? This to me is as great a leap of faith as belief in God.

Second, are we really supposed to believe that this is the best that an omnipotent deity could do while still preserving free will? Highly dubious. Only someone highly devoted to belief in God would be able to accept that idea.

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

1) And just because your morality is defined in a framework involving free will doesn't mean it's the only way to think about right and wrong. You can be responsible for something even if your choice was predetermined.
2) I prefer being able to fly, but that doesn't make it true.
4) There are necessary assumptions, but free will isn't one of them.
5) You can call it small, but I don't see it that way. It is an assumption based on wishful thinking that is used to support other irrational assumptions (such as theism). You may think life is devoid of meaning without independent choice, but that's not the only way to look at it.
6) That's not what I was referring to (although it is somewhat dubious). What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best. The very idea boggles the mind. Belthus ninja'ed me quite eloquently here, as usual. And you're trying to have it both ways with that statement. If God wanted the appearance of nonexistence, why would he have performed all those miracles back then and made holy books? Either he didn't really do those things, or he's made his existence very visible.

[OldTrees]

It all depends on what you mean by the string of characters "o-m-n-i-p-o-t-e-n-t".
Ex:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

– Lewis, 18

This is the type of omnipotence typically attributed to deities by believers.
Alternatively there is the type of omnipotence that permits logical contradictions for a deity. This definition is typically used by non believers.

Free Will cannot logically exist in the same realm as morality and not as a consequence permit immorality. If omnipotence means 2+2=5 then omnipotence can solve the problem of pain. Otherwise it may not be able to.

That raises all sorts of other questions. First of all, what makes "free will" such a good thing? How do we know we really have it? If free will means that we somehow make choices independent from all influencing factors, I contend that we don't and it isn't. How do we know that our choices aren't the natural result of many different variables that we have no control over, such as genetics? This to me is as great a leap of faith as belief in God.

Second, are we really supposed to believe that this is the best that an omnipotent deity could do while still preserving free will? Highly dubious. Only someone highly devoted to belief in God would be able to accept that idea.

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

1) I prefer being able to fly, but that doesn't make it true. And just because your morality is defined in a framework involving free will doesn't mean it's the only way to think about right and wrong. You can be responsible for something even if your choice was predetermined.
4) There are necessary assumptions, but free will isn't one of them.
5) You can call it small, but I don't see it that way. It is an assumption based on wishful thinking that is used to support other irrational assumptions (such as theism). You may think life is devoid of meaning without independent choice, but that's not the only way to look at it.
6) That's not what I was referring to (although it is somewhat dubious). What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best. The very idea boggles the mind. And you're trying to have it both ways with that statement. If God wanted the appearance of nonexistence, why would he have performed all those miracles back then and made holy books? Either he didn't really do those things, or he's made his existence very visible.

1) I define a Moral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought to do" and an Immoral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought not do". What definition are you referring to? I use Responsible as a synonym for first cause in a chain of events. A predetermined action like a rock that was moving downward through the air hitting the ground is not such a cause.
4) This seems to be a non sequitur. I never claimed Free Will or Determinism as necessary assumptions.
5) I find the leap of faith to Free Will as small as the opposite leap of Faith to Determinism.
6) I agree that reported miracles in the Bible are soft evidence against the belief that the Christian God wishes to hide. Likewise the scarcity of miracles now is soft evidence against the belief that God does not wish to hide.

[UTAlan]

Can we agree that inflicting or allowing unnecessary suffering on others is evil?

Definitely not.