Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is God Really Good?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Chapter 6, “Is God Really Good?” of my new Wipf and Stock book Christianity for Doubters is almost the same as the “Epilogue” of my 2015 Discovery Institute Press book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. What does the problem of pain have to do with intelligent design? A lot, I think, because after 40 years of promoting intelligent design, it is obvious to me that many of the strongest opponents of design, for all their talk about defending science, are completely immune to scientific arguments, they will never look objectively at the scientific evidence until they can find answers to some very legitimate theological questions they have, three of which I try to address in chapters 4,5 and especially in chapter 6 of the new book: if life is designed, why is it so hard?

The publisher’s flyer with preface and chapter 1 are here. See also sections 2.1, Why Evolution is Different, and 2.3, Why Similarities Do Not Prove the Absence of Design. (All used with permission of Wipf and Stock Publishers.)

6.1 Is God Really Good?

Why do bad things happen to good people? This is the question which Rabbi Harold Kushner, in his highly-acclaimed 1981 book When Bad Things Happen to Good People called “the only question which really matters” to his congregation. It is a question which has been asked by philosophers and ordinary human beings throughout the ages; if not the most-asked question, certainly the most passionately-asked. It was certainly the first question that occurred to me in 1987 when I was told that my beloved wife Melissa, 34 years old and the mother of our two small children (Chris and Kevin), had cancer of the nose and sinuses, and in 1990 when we discovered that the cancer had recurred. The suffering she bravely endured during those years was beyond description, from the aggressive chemotherapy treatments, each of which required hospitalization for severe nausea and other side effects, from the radiation therapy, and from three major surgeries. Before the last surgery, during which they would remove her left eye and half of her teeth, she said, well, many people would be happy to have one eye. The cancer recurred two months after this surgery and I was terribly depressed for many years after her death. Since I am a pretty logical person, it never occurred to me to ask “does God really exist?” but I certainly wondered, “is God really good?”

Melissa Wehmann Sewell (1953-1991)
Melissa Wehmann Sewell (1953-1991)

I think most people who claim not to believe in God, say this not because of any shortage of evidence for design in Nature, but because it is sometimes so hard to see evidence that God cares about us, and they prefer not to believe in God at all, than to believe in a God who doesn’t care.

Of course, Christians point to the life and death of Jesus as the ultimate proof that God does care about us, because he came to live and suffer with us. Jesus asked the same question we have all asked at some time in our lives: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” But while it is comforting to think that, despite all evidence to the contrary, God really does care about us, that still does not explain why the world God made is sometimes so cruel.

A wonderful little article in UpReach [Nov-Dec 1984] by Batsell Barrett Baxter, entitled “Is God Really Good?” contains some insights into the “problem of pain,” as C.S. Lewis calls it, which I have found very useful. I will follow Baxter’s outline in presenting my own thoughts on this question, and I would like to begin with his conclusion: “As I have faced the tragedy of evil in our world and have tried to analyze its origin, I have come to the conclusion that it was an inevitable accompaniment of our greatest blessings and benefits.” In his outline, Baxter lists some examples of blessings which have, as inevitable consequences, unhappy side effects. None of these points is likely to make suffering in its severest forms any easier to accept, and we may be left wondering whether these blessings are really worth the high cost. But I believe they do at least point us in the right direction.

6.2 The Regularity of Natural Law

The laws of Nature which God has made work together to create a magnificent world of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls, oceans and forests, animals and plants. The basic laws of physics are cleverly designed to create conditions on Earth suitable for human life and human development. Gravity prevents us and our belongings from floating off into space; water makes our crops grow; the fact that certain materials are combustible makes it possible to cook our food and stay warm in winter. Yet gravity, water and fire are responsible for many tragedies, such as airplane crashes, drownings and chemical plant explosions. Tragedies such as floods and automobile accidents are the results of laws of physics which, viewed as a whole, are magnificently designed and normally work for our benefit. Nearly everything in Nature which is harmful to man has also a benevolent side, or is the result of a good thing gone bad. Even pain and fear themselves sometimes have useful purposes: pain may warn us that something in our body needs attention, and without fear, we would all die young doing foolish and dangerous things, or kill ourselves the first time life disappoints us.

"...a magnificant world, of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls..."
“…a magnificant world, of mountains and rivers, jungles and waterfalls…”

But why won’t God protect us from the bad side effects of Nature? Why doesn’t he overrule the laws of Nature when they work against us? Why is he so “silent” during our most difficult and heart-breaking moments? First of all, if we assume he has complete control over Nature, we are assuming much more than we have a right to assume. It does not necessarily follow that, because something is designed, it can never break down. We design cars, and yet they don’t always function as designed. When our car breaks down, we don’t conclude that the designer planned for it to break down, nor do we conclude that it had no designer; when the human body breaks down, we should not jump to the conclusion that God planned the illness, nor should we conclude that the body had no designer.

That we were designed by a fantastically intelligent super intellect is a conclusion which is easily drawn from the evidence all around us. To jump from this to the conclusion that this creator can control everything is quite a leap. In fact, I find it easy to draw the opposite conclusion from the evidence, that this creator cannot, or at least does not, control everything. Nearly everyone seems to assume that if you attribute anything to God, you have to attribute everything to God. And even if we assume he has complete control over Nature it is hard to see how he could satisfy everyone. Your crops are dry so you pray for rain—but I am planning a picnic. It seems more fair to let Nature take its course and hope we learn to adapt. Controlling the motions of all the atoms in the world so that nothing terrible ever happens to us, so that we always get what we most need, is probably not as easy as it sounds!

In any case, what would life be like if the laws of Nature were not reliable? What if God could and did stand by to intervene on our behalf every time we needed him? We would then be spared all of life’s disappointments and failures, and life would certainly be less dangerous, but let us think about what life would be like in a world where nothing could ever go wrong.

I enjoy climbing mountains—small ones. I recently climbed an 8,700 foot peak in the Guadalupe Mountains National Park and was hot and exhausted, but elated, when I finished the climb. Later I heard a rumor that the Park Service was considering building a cable car line to the top, and I was horrified. Why was I horrified—that would make it much easier for me to reach the peak? Because, of course, the pleasure I derived from climbing that peak did not come simply from reaching the top—it came from knowing that I had faced a challenge and overcome it. Since riding in a cable car requires no effort, it is impossible to fail to reach the top, and thus taking a cable car to the peak brings no sense of accomplishment. Even if I went up the hard way again, just knowing that I could have ridden the cable car would cheapen my accomplishment.

When we think about it, we see in other situations that achieving a goal brings satisfaction only if effort is required, and only if the danger of failure is real. And if the danger of failure is real, sometimes we will fail.

When we prepare for an athletic contest, we know what the rules are and we plan our strategy accordingly. We work hard, physically and mentally, to get ready for the game. If we win, we are happy knowing that we played fairly, followed the rules, and achieved our goal. Of course we may lose, but what satisfaction would we derive from winning a game whose rules are constantly being modified to make sure we win? It is impossible to experience the thrill of victory without risking the agony of defeat. How many fans would attend a football game whose participants are just actors, acting out a script which calls for the home team to win? We would all rather go to a real game and risk defeat.

Life is a real game, not a rigged one. We know what the rules are, and we plan accordingly. We know that the laws of Nature and of life do not bend at our every wish, and it is precisely this knowledge which makes our achievements meaningful. If the rules of Nature were constantly modified to make sure we achieved our goals—whether they involve proving Fermat’s Last Theorem, getting a book published, finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, earning a college degree, or making a small business work—we would derive no satisfaction from reaching those goals. If the rules were even occasionally bent, we would soon realize that the game was rigged, and just knowing that the rules were flexible would cheapen all our accomplishments. Perhaps I should say, “if we were aware that the rules were being bent,” because I do believe that God has intervened in human and natural history at times in the past, and I would like to believe he still intervenes in human affairs, and even answers prayers, on occasions, but the rules at least appear to us to be inflexible.

If great works of art, music, literature, or science could be realized without great effort, and if success in such endeavors were guaranteed, the works of Michelangelo, Mozart, Shakespeare and Newton would not earn much admiration. If it were possible to realize great engineering projects without careful study, clever planning and hard work, or without running any risk of failure, mankind would feel no satisfaction in having built the Panama Canal or having sent a man to the moon. And if the dangers Columbus faced in sailing into uncharted waters were not real, we would not honor him as a brave explorer. Scientific and technological progress are only made through great effort and careful study, and not every scientist or inventor is fortunate enough to leave his mark, but anyone who thinks God would be doing us a favor by dropping a book from the sky with all the answers in it does not understand human nature very well—that would take all the fun out of discovery. If the laws of Nature were more easily circumvented, life would certainly be less frustrating and less dangerous, but also less challenging and less interesting.

Many of the tragedies, failures and disappointments which afflict mankind are inevitable consequences of laws of Nature and of life which, viewed as a whole, are magnificently designed and normally work for our benefit. And it is because we know these laws are reliable, and do not bend to satisfy our needs, that our greatest achievements have meaning.

6.3 The Freedom of Man’s Will

I believe, however, that the unhappiness in this world attributable to “acts of God” (more properly called “acts of Nature”) is small compared to the unhappiness which we inflict on each other. Reform the human spirit and you have solved the problems of drug addiction, drunk driving, war, broken marriages, child abuse, neglect of the elderly, crime, corruption and racial hatred. I suspect that many (not all, of course) of the problems which we generally blame on circumstances beyond our control are really caused by, or aggravated by, man—or at least could be prevented if we spent as much time trying to solve the world’s problems as we spend in hedonistic pursuits.

God has given us, on this Earth, the tools and resources necessary to construct, not a paradise, but something not too far from it. I am convinced that the majority of the things which make us most unhappy are the direct or indirect result of the sins and errors of people. Often, unfortunately, it is not the guilty person who suffers.

But our evil actions are also the inevitable result of one of our highest blessings—our free will. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, says,

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having…. Someone once asked me, ‘Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?’ The better stuff a creature is made of—the cleverer and stronger and freer it is—then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong.

Why do a husband and wife decide to have a child? A toy doll requires much less work, and does not throw a temper tantrum every time you make him take a bath or go to bed. A stuffed animal would be much less likely to mark on the walls with a crayon, or gripe about a meal which took hours to prepare. But most parents feel that the bad experiences in raising a real child are a price worth paying for the rewards—the hand-made valentine he brings home from school, and the “I love you” she whispers as she gives her mother and father a good night kiss. They recognize that the same free will which makes a child more difficult to take care of than a stuffed animal also makes him more interesting. This must be the way our Creator feels about us. The freedom which God has given to us results, as an inevitable consequence, in many headaches for him and for ourselves, but it is precisely this freedom which makes us more interesting than the other animals. God must feel that the headaches are a price worth paying: he has not taken back our free will, despite all the evil we have done. Why are there concentration camps in the world that God created? How could the Christian church sponsor the Crusades and the Inquisition? These terribly hard questions have a simple answer: because God gave us all a free will.

Jesus told a parable about “wheat and tares,” (Matthew 13) which seems to teach that the weeds of sin and sorrow cannot be eliminated from the Earth without destroying the soil of human freedom from which the wheat of joy and goodness also springs. It is impossible to rid the world of the sorrow caused by pride, selfishness and hatred without eliminating the free will which is also the source of all the unselfishness and love that there is in the world.

If we base our view of mankind on what we see on the television news, we may feel that good and evil are greatly out of balance today; that there is much more pain than joy in the world, and much more evil than goodness. It is true that the amount of pain which exists in our world is overwhelming, but so is the amount of happiness. And if we look more closely at the lives of those around us, we will see that the soil of human freedom still produces wheat as well as weeds. The dark night of Nazi Germany gave birth to the heroism of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Corrie ten Boom and many others. The well-known play “The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds” is about two sisters raised by a bitter mother who suffocates ambition and discourages education. One sister ends up following the path to destruction taken by her mother; the other refuses to be trapped by her environment, and rises above it. It may seem at times that our world is choking on the weeds of pain and evil, but if we look closely we will see that wheat is still growing here.

Again we conclude that evil and unhappiness are the inevitable by-products of one of our most priceless blessings: our human free will.

6.4 The Interdependence of Human Lives

Since it is our human free will which makes our relationships with others meaningful, his third point is closely related to the second, but Baxter nevertheless considers this point to be important enough to merit separate consideration.

Much of an individual’s suffering is the direct or indirect result of the actions or misfortunes of others. Much of our deepest pain is the result of loneliness caused by the loss of the love or the life of a loved one, or of the strain of a bad relationship. How much suffering could be avoided if only we were “islands, apart to ourselves.” Then at least we would suffer only for our own actions, and feel only our own misfortunes. The interdependence of human life is certainly the cause of much unhappiness.

Yet here again, this sorrow is the inevitable result of one of our greatest blessings. The pain which comes from separation is in proportion to the joy which the relationship provided. Friction between friends is a source of grief, but friendship is the source of much joy. Bad marriages and strained parent-child relationships are responsible for much of the unhappiness in the modern world, but none of the other joys of life compare to those which can be experienced in a happy home. Although real love is terribly hard to find, anyone who has experienced it—as I did for a few short years—will agree that the male-female relationship is truly a masterpiece of design, when it works as it was intended to work.

As Baxter writes, “I am convinced that our greatest blessings come from the love which we give to others and the love which we receive from others. Without this interconnectedness, life would be barren and largely meaningless. The avoidance of all contact with other human beings might save us some suffering, but it would cost us the greatest joys and pleasures of life.”

6.5 The Value of Imperfect Conditions

We have thus far looked at suffering as a by-product of our blessings and not a blessing in itself. And certainly it is difficult to see anything good in suffering in its severest forms.

Nevertheless, we cannot help but notice that some suffering is necessary to enable us to experience life in its fullest, and to bring us to a closer relationship with God. Often it is through suffering that we experience the love of God, and discover the love of family and friends, in deepest measure. The man who has never experienced any setbacks or disappointments invariably is a shallow person, while one who has suffered is usually better able to empathize with others. Some of the closest and most beautiful relationships occur between people who have suffered similar sorrows.

It has been argued that most of the great works of literature, art and music were the products of suffering. One whose life has led him to expect continued comfort and ease is not likely to make the sacrifices necessary to produce anything of great and lasting value.

Of course, beyond a certain point pain and suffering lose their positive value. Even so, the human spirit is amazing for its resilience, and many people have found cause to thank God even in seemingly unbearable situations. While serving time in a Nazi concentration camp for giving sanctuary to Jews, Betsie ten Boom told her sister, “We must tell people what we have learned here. We must tell them that there is no pit so deep that God is not deeper still. They will listen to us, Corrie, because we have been here.”

In a letter to our children composed after she realized she had lost her battle with cancer, Melissa wrote:

While I no longer feel physically normal…in an odd sort of way, I feel even more human. I have seen and felt more suffering by myself and others around me in the last few years than I probably ever would have. I have seen children still in strollers hooked up to IV chemotherapy and young children, my own children’s ages, with monstrous tumors bulging from their necks. In the face of this unjust tragedy, they still had a sweet innocent smile on their faces. I have talked with young women and men my own age who are struggling with the reality of leaving their young children and spouses long before their responsibilities of parenthood are completed.

I have also discovered a deepness in relationships with others that I probably never would have otherwise cultivated…. I have seen the compassion and love of others towards me. I have witnessed how good and true and caring the human spirit can be. I have learned much about love from others during these times.

We might add that not only the person who suffers, but also those who minister to his needs, are provided with opportunities for growth and development.

C.S. Lewis concludes his essay on The Problem of Pain by saying “Pain provides an opportunity for heroism; the opportunity is seized with surprising frequency.” As Baxter put it: “The problems, imperfections and challenges which our world contains give us opportunities for growth and development which would otherwise be impossible.”

6.6 Conclusions

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley paints a picture of a futuristic Utopian society which has succeeded, through totalitarian controls on human behavior and drugs designed to stimulate pleasant emotions and to repress undesirable ones, in banishing all traces of pain and unpleasantness. There remains one “savage” who has not adapted to the new civilization, however, and his refusal to take his pills results in the following interchange between “Savage” and his “civilized” interrogators:

“We prefer to do things comfortably,” said the Controller.

“But I don’t want comfort, I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.”

“In fact,” said Mustopha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“Alright then,” said the Savage defiantly, “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

If God designed this world as a tourist resort where man could rest in comfort and ease, it is certainly a dismal failure. But I believe, with Savage, that man was created for greater things. That is why, I believe, this world presents us with such an inexhaustible array of puzzles in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology and philosophy to challenge and entertain us, and provides us with so many opportunities for creativity and achievement in music, literature, art, athletics, business, technology and other pursuits; and why there are always new worlds to discover, from the mountains and jungles of South America and the flora and fauna of Africa, to the era of dinosaurs and the surface of Mars, and the astonishing world of microbiology.

Why does God remain backstage, hidden from view, working behind the scenes while we act out our parts in the human drama? This question has lurked just below the surface throughout much of this book, and now perhaps we finally have an answer. If he were to walk out onto the stage, and take on a more direct and visible role, I suppose he could clean up our act, and rid the world of pain and evil—and doubt. But our human drama would be turned into a divine puppet show, and it would cost us some of our greatest blessings: the regularity of natural law which makes our achievements meaningful; the free will which makes us more interesting than robots; the love which we can receive from and give to others; and even the opportunity to grow and develop through suffering. I must confess that I still often wonder if the blessings are worth the terrible price, but God has chosen to create a world where both good and evil can flourish, rather than one where neither can exist. He has chosen to create a world of greatness and infamy, of love and hatred, and of joy and pain, rather than one of mindless robots or unfeeling puppets.

Batsell Barrett Baxter, who was dying of cancer as he wrote these words, concludes: “When one sees all of life and understands the reasons behind life’s suffering, I believe he will agree with the judgment which God himself declared in the Genesis story of creation: ‘And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.'”

Comments
You're welcome. And I meant to write their instead of there in (b). I hate it when I do that. ;-) -QQuerius
September 4, 2016
September
09
Sep
4
04
2016
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Querius @83, Thank you for pointing that out. I never made the connection. This is an eye opener.Origenes
September 4, 2016
September
09
Sep
4
04
2016
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Origenes @79, Good observations. There must indeed be some sort of mechanism that suppresses what we know to be true. Contrast this with
But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. Luke 23:34 (NASB)
This is a prayer from Jesus that expresses three things: (a) his compassion for those who were murdering him, (b) his acknowledging there ignorance for their actions, and (c) his absolving them of this particular action. This somewhat supports your point, I think. -QQuerius
September 4, 2016
September
09
Sep
4
04
2016
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Oh yay, I found the quote, the hard way . . . from an actual book! :-)
All qualities, good and bad, are intensified and accentuated in the life of the wilderness. The man who in civilization is merely sullen and bad-tempered becomes a murderous, treacherous ruffian when transplanted to the wilds; while, on the other hand, his cheery, quiet neighbor develops into a hero, ready uncomplainingly to lay down his life for his friend. One who in an Eastern city is merely a backbiter and slanderer, in the Western woods lies in wait for his foe with a rifle; a sharp practice in the East becomes highway robbery in the West; but at the same time negative good-nature becomes active self-sacrifice, and a general belief in virtue is translated into a prompt and determined war upon vice. The Winning of the West, Vol. I by Theodore Roosevelt, 1889
-QQuerius
September 3, 2016
September
09
Sep
3
03
2016
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
Sorry. I'll see whether I can find the exact quote. It's much better than my attempt. The gist was that the good in good people and the bad in bad people were greatly magnified when they moved to the Wild West. It was about the results of attitudes in less constrained environments. -QQuerius
September 3, 2016
September
09
Sep
3
03
2016
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Querius @75
Teddy Roosevelt once observed that the West had a magnifying influence on people. Merely selfish people became evil monsters; polite people became saints.
What does 'evil' mean in the given context and in general? What's the origin of that term? Isn't 'selfishness' an evil attribute? What does 'saints' mean in the given context and in general? What's the origin of that term? Can one become 'saint' just by being 'polite'? Thank you.Dionisio
September 3, 2016
September
09
Sep
3
03
2016
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Querius @78
Were your talks successful?
Unfortunately they were not.
In my experience, the young man was aware of the risks but suppressed thinking about them. It wasn’t like, “Oh, I never thought that her husband would get out of jail, find out about me, and want to kill me. That possibility never entered my mind.” I’m proposing that people go into denial when engaging in risky, immoral, or illegal behavior despite their knowledge.
An interesting observation, which, if correct, is in need of an explanation.
This is true also in scientific fields. Take medicine for example. This is an interesting article about the history of hand washing: http://www.methodquarterly.com/2014/11/handwashing/ Do you think that doctors today are missing any information about germ theory, and that they would indeed wash their hands if only they knew about bacterial transmission?
Baffling information. However, my simple point, wrt awareness, is that doctors today, who choose not to wash their hands, actually do make the choice to put their patients at risk. Unlike the doctors in the pre-Louis Pasteur days, who were unaware of their “choice”. IOWs the doctors today can be held accountable, not the doctors in the days before Pasteur. Similarly, there are people today who “choose” atheism, because, due to circumstances, they cannot see matters clearly. Like the doctors in the pre-Louis Pasteur days they don’t know what they are doing and are not actually making a choice.Origenes
September 3, 2016
September
09
Sep
3
03
2016
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Were your talks successful? In my experience, the young man was aware of the risks but suppressed thinking about them. It wasn't like, "Oh, I never thought that her husband would get out of jail, find out about me, and want to kill me. That possibility never entered my mind." I'm proposing that people go into denial when engaging in risky, immoral, or illegal behavior despite their knowledge. This is true also in scientific fields. Take medicine for example. This is an interesting article about the history of hand washing: http://www.methodquarterly.com/2014/11/handwashing/ Do you think that doctors today are missing any information about germ theory, and that they would indeed wash their hands if only they knew about bacterial transmission? -QQuerius
September 3, 2016
September
09
Sep
3
03
2016
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
Querius @76,
Consider the young man in my story above. Do you think greater awareness would result in him making a different choice?
I can come up with scenarios, featuring greater awareness, where a different choice is likely. For instance, if it is the case that, as a consequence of his choice, harm will come to the young man's family, he may very well make a different choice, if he is aware of that fact.
Have you ever tried to talk someone out of such a dangerous situation?
Yes, I have. And such talks typically involve attempts to expand awareness — pointing at things someone may have overlooked.Origenes
September 3, 2016
September
09
Sep
3
03
2016
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
Origenes asserted that
A choice has worth relative to the amount of awareness that is involved.
Consider the young man in my story above. Do you think greater awareness would result in him making a different choice? Have you ever tried to talk someone out of such a dangerous situation? -QQuerius
September 2, 2016
September
09
Sep
2
02
2016
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
11. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that information is the most fundamental reality of existence, and that there's a good chance that we're living in a simulation. If that's true, then a simulation has a purpose, an outcome, and a judgment. Would it make sense for a simulation to allow injustices and its victims to clearly manifest themselves out of attitudes such as lust, greed, jealousy? What if it's all on tape? Is it a reasonable possibility that God's purpose is to expose and purge spiritual corruption by allowing it to continue and grow for purposes of demonstrating its outcomes beyond any reasonable doubt? Teddy Roosevelt once observed that the West had a magnifying influence on people. Merely selfish people became evil monsters; polite people became saints. -QQuerius
September 2, 2016
September
09
Sep
2
02
2016
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
Would anyone object to a definition of a fool that included the following components: - Doing something anyway despite knowing better - Allowing base passions to override better judgment - Ignoring risks, consequences, obvious facts - Finding ways to justify behaviors and attitudes So imagine an young fellow getting romantically and financially involved with an older woman whose husband is currently in prison for violent armed robbery. The young man justifies his behavior to his friends "She's lonely and abused. She needs love, companionship, and encouragement. I met her in a bar and I'm helping by keeping her off the streets." Will this turn out well? Is the young man a fool? -QQuerius
September 2, 2016
September
09
Sep
2
02
2016
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
Querius #71 error correction: Misspelled "Querius" (apparently the editor adjusted it incorrectly). Sorry for that.Dionisio
September 2, 2016
September
09
Sep
2
02
2016
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
Querius @69
Your observations are reasonable if people made their most important life decisions based on knowledge. But is this the case?
Obviously not. But that fact underscores my point. A choice has worth relative to the amount of awareness that is involved.Origenes
September 2, 2016
September
09
Sep
2
02
2016
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Queries:
What makes people fools?
That's an excellent question, but I don't think I can answer it accurately. I understand a fool is someone who is not interested in acquiring wisdom nor finding truth. It's a miserable creature, but many times unaware of his/her hopeless condition. For many years I was a fool myself. Still behave like one sometimes. As little children we have a strong sense of wonder that makes us search for answers to many questions in our young minds. Unfortunately that sense of wonder fades away as we grow older. At some point in our adult lives we all are fools. All without exceptions. I believe that it takes a supernatural event to pull us out of that oblivious 'fool' state. The wise person tests everything and holds onto what is good. It's a good listener, is aware of his/her lack of knowledge. Back to your question, our natural human condition makes us fools. God makes us wise if we submit to His authority. I don't know how much of that is our free will and how much is God's absolute sovereignty. My mind is incapable of understanding how those two categories can be interwoven. I remember years ago I was having lunch with a group of engineers at work. One told us about an interesting experience he had at a university cafeteria, where the cashier was blind. He said the cashier asked him to tell what was on his tray. When he paid cash, he told the cashier the value of the banknote (paper money) he gave to the cashier to pay. At that point another colleague joked: "did you really tell the cashier what was on your tray and the value of the banknote?" Some people -including myself- laughed at the joke. But the guy who had told the anecdote did not understand the joke and asked: "of course! what else could I say?" The same guy who had asked the first question responded: "well, if there were not other people besides the cashier, you could have told him just one cheap food item that was available in that cafeteria, even if it was not on your tray. Then you would have given a dollar bill to the cashier telling him it was a $20. Thus you could have eaten free lunch and still made some profit." Now the laughing got really loud. The storyteller jumped and said he couldn't do that. At that point I was really shocked. I didn't understand why he could not have done the suggested trick? I knew that was a very smart engineer, but this time he looked really stupid. The guy who asked the initial question asked: "why not? No one would have seen it!" The storyteller responded: yes, God was seeing it. I was totally shocked. Say what? Did I hear that right? I haven't forgotten that moment. Back then it didn't make any sense to me. Now I know why he could not understand the suggestive joke. Wisdom is directly associated with respect toward God. We want to do only things that please Him and bring glory to Him. That's wisdom. Anything else is foolishness.Dionisio
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
That's quite an impressive list, Dionisio. So here's my question. What makes people fools? -QQuerius
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Origenes @ 67, Your observations are reasonable if people made their most important life decisions based on knowledge. But is this the case? Perhaps a good example of a life decision is choosing a mate. So here's what most people do before making their final commitment: - Ask for a doctor's report on general health - Request a financial report provided by a credit agency for assets, outstanding debt, spending habits, and net worth - Order a background check and request letters of recommendation - Have a frank discussion with the potential mate on personal aspirations and goals - Take a battery of personality tests for evaluation of mental health and compatibility - Interview family, friends, and past and present employers - Hire a private investigator to check whether they're messy or neat, and what kind of internet presence they've created - Sign prenuptual agreements Isn't that right? Did I miss anything? Some people are complicit in the lies that they choose to believe. Even scientists and scholars have trouble not filtering their information by what they desire to be true. Some things to think about. -QQuerius
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Querius @66
And this is the sorrowful end for those people who think they can justify themselves by accusing God.
Yes, sad. Pray for them. There's hope some might still be rescued before it's too late --as we were rescued by God's grace, through saving faith in the redeeming power of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. They're created in "Imago Dei" as we were too. That's the source of dignity all humans share. God loves us all. One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings. But then it'll be too late for those who did not accept His graceful offer of reconciliation and eternal life in His glorious presence. The time is now. Later it might be too late. Now, regarding the ongoing discussions here, we may want to meditate on this:
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 14:7-8 Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge. The wisdom of the prudent is to discern his way, but the folly of fools is deceiving. Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. Proverbs 15:14 The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly Proverbs 16:22 Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly. Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. Proverbs 17:12 Let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his folly. Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18:6 A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating. Proverbs 20:3 It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling. Proverbs 23:9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words. Proverbs 24:7 Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the gate he does not open his mouth. Proverbs 26:1 Like snow in summer or rain in harvest, so honor is not fitting for a fool. Proverbs 26:4-10 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools. Like one who binds the stone in the sling is one who gives honor to a fool. Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools. Like an archer who wounds everyone is one who hires a passing fool or drunkard. Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly. Proverbs 26:12 Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. Proverbs 27:3 A stone is heavy, and sand is weighty, but a fool's provocation is heavier than both. Proverbs 27:22 Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him. Proverbs 28:26 Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. Proverbs 29:9 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. Proverbs 29:11 A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back. Proverbs 29:20 Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him. Proverbs 30:32 If you have been foolish, exalting yourself, or if you have been devising evil, put your hand on your mouth. Ecclesiastes 5:1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. Ecclesiastes 7:5 It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:9 Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the heart of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:25 I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. Ecclesiastes 9:17 The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. Ecclesiastes 10:2,3 A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left. Even when the fool walks on the road, he lacks sense, and he says to everyone that he is a fool. Ecclesiastes 10:12,13 The words of a wise man's mouth win him favor, but the lips of a fool consume him. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness, and the end of his talk is evil madness. Ecclesiastes 10:15 The toil of a fool wearies him, for he does not know the way to the city. Isaiah 32:5 The fool will no more be called noble, nor the scoundrel said to be honorable. Isaiah 32:6 For the fool speaks folly, and his heart is busy with iniquity, to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the Lord, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink. Ezekiel 13:3 Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
More suggestions:
Psalm 14:1 Psalm 53:1 Psalm 74:18,22 Psalm 92:5-7 Psalm 94:7-9 Proverbs 8:5 Proverbs 10:14, 18, 21, 23 Proverbs 12:15, 16, 23 Proverbs 14:16 Proverbs 15:7 Proverbs 17:24 Proverbs 18:7 Proverbs 19:1
Dionisio
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Querius: So there’s sorting going on now to determine who wants to belong to the doomed god of this world, and who wants to belong to YHVH, the true and eternal God.
I don't have any problems with this, as long as the 'decision' made by a person, within the context of this earthly existence, is not final. Life on Earth is obviously confusing for many people. For one thing, as you point out, people are being lied to. In order to make a fully informed decision one needs a different setting and (much) more clarity.Origenes
September 1, 2016
September
09
Sep
1
01
2016
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
Dionisio @ 64, Yes, sadly true. It reminds me of Matthew 25:24-29 (NASB)
And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours." But his master answered and said to him, "You wicked, lazy slave, [so] you "knew" that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank . . ." "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
And this is the sorrowful end for those people who think they can justify themselves by accusing God. God is incredibly creative, loving, and aware. But He retains his sovereignty and warns us not to try to understand His thoughts, but rather just to trust Him that he has our ultimate and eternal salvation in mind. Lucifer, the failed "god of this world," and his angels have been exposed and judged and the "Lake of Fire" was created to consume them (FWIW, the sun is a globular lake of fire). Naturally, they want to destroy as many humans as possible by getting us to believe their lies, accusations, and slander. So there's sorting going on now to determine who wants to belong to the doomed god of this world, and who wants to belong to YHVH, the true and eternal God. -QQuerius
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
When it is the unjustified, non-accidental infliction of a harm.
A few comments That would cover a lot of very slight transgressions. For example, would it cover things meant to hurt someone socially or psychologically. Are the put downs you use in your comments examples of evil acts? Suppose the physical act or put down did not harm the person physically, socially or psychologically, but the intent was to harm. Is that evil? No harm, No Foul? In terms of physical acts it would essentially do away with a lot of sporting events such as American football where rough actions are the norm. I would tend to cut back on some of the football practices but certainly not the very rough play that people both expect and enjoy as player and as spectators. This also brings up what is the definition of "harm?" But the biggest problem with this definition is that completely ignores the main issue, the suffering due to natural processes. You may not be aware of the theodicy discussion but it centers on suffering from natural processes. There is a whole separate literature on moral evil and the issue of free will.
Since God would be capable of interfering in willful human acts, God’s failure to do so (assuming God exists) renders God complicit in those acts
You cannot be serious on this. You want God to be the cop on the beat, inside the household, the school room, the place of work, on the highway etc monitoring every action by humans. What an absurd world that would be. This is what I meant by a meaningless world where free will would essentially be non existent. Suppose God came down every Friday and punished those who committed an evil act by your definition. Maybe the first Friday only 50 people were punished severely as a warning. The next Friday 500 were equally punished to emphasize what was to be the desired behavior. My guess is that in about 4-5 weeks behavior would be so sterile that no one would be doing anything except what was a few proscribed actions. I also believe there would be no one who would not believe in God, or at least believe in a very powerful dude who knew what bad things everyone was doing and was taking action on these actions. There would be no virtue or noble acts since how could there be such when all you are allowed to do is a few things. Even these things that were initially allowed could be ranked by what was better or not and the low end would eventually be eliminated till only a few actions would be sanctioned. What would be the purpose of such an existence? No God, has to remain a mystery for life to be meaningful. We have to willing choose to do what is right.
without saying what that “greater good” is.
But I do several times, free will where virtue and belief and how we freely choose to lead our lives mean something.
If baseless belief is optimal
Who said anything about baseless belief. I said there couldn't be certainty. That is not the same thing. I happen to think the evidence for a creator is pretty substantial and overwhelming. Such belief is far from baseless. How one gets to the Christian God is another matter and happens pretty much through revelation and reason. They are separate issues and neither is baseless.
a world where people do the right; are those not desirable to God? Are they not the GOAL?
What is desired is doing the right thing freely chosen otherwise it is not meaningful. You seems to want a world where there would be no free choice because it would be so obvious what one had to do. It seems like you are envisioning something like a world of Stepford Wives. Unless you have some more coherent objections, I will not answer any more. Thank you for your comments. It always helps to see what people object to and whether these objections have any merit or not.jerry
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Querius This was posted in another thread, but it seems applicable to this one too:
Talking to a wall would be much more productive than replying to some of your interlocutors in this thread. :) But I assume you’re doing it for the anonymous onlookers/lurkers visiting this thread without commenting. Perhaps that’s a persuasive argument for using your interlocutors as a reminder for writing your interesting comments for the other visitors. In any case, thank you. BTW, some of your interlocutors might like to know that Norwegian Airlines is offering heavily discounted fares for trips to their beautiful fjords. Returning to their natural habitats seems very affordable these days. :) Banning doesn’t seem very polite, does it? It would be nicer if they voluntarily decide to get back to where they once belonged. :) However, in either case it would be a good riddance, because the hogwash they write shouldn’t be missed, except as motivational tools for writing for the serious readers. :)
Dionisio
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Sean,
Maybe God is just an evil bastard; maybe our suffering is just God’s entertainment.
a. But you're making an absolute judgment based on incomplete information and what *you* think is evil. b. If you think something is evil that must mean that you're comparing it to something that's good. Where did your awareness of good and evil come from? Animals aren't concerned with good and evil. c. If God decided for some reason really be evil, would it make any sense to piss him off? Have you ever addressed a judge in a courtroom?
I’m not saying these are true, but there’s no way to disprove them objectively so that puts them on the same logical plain as your 10 possibilities.
Plane. Ok. But if you built a house with your labor and your materials, but didn't like how it turned out, would it be evil for you to tear it down?
Possibilities that can never be disproved objectively are worthless.
That would include your objection as well. Statistics and big data are based on responding to possibilities that may or may not happen or be true. Odds are that God really does exist. If not, nothing matters anyway. Have you ever tried to ask God what he desires for you? Just asking. -QQuerius
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Jerry; (re. #61)
At what point does the event become “evil?”
When it is the unjustified, non-accidental infliction of a harm.
In ranking undesirable events one would certainly rank the Holocaust as very undesirable. But that and your example of the war in Syria is what is called a “moral evil” due to the willful acts of human beings.
Since God would be capable of interfering in willful human acts, God’s failure to do so (assuming God exists) renders God complicit in those acts; just as when a human is in a position to prevent a moral evil and chooses not to.
If you don’t like my use of the term [undesirable event], I hope you understand why I use it. I am using it to clarify things not conflate irrelevant things. As soon as one uses the term “evil” they are conflating things.
I understand your explanation for the term.
But what is the reason to have doubt? If there is a greater good by having doubt then there is for certainty, then that is a justification for what I call undesirable events. By the way, all the undesirable events are trivial in nature compared to the positive outcomes offered by the Christian God. So there is no reason to make the distinction you do between explanations and justifications because they could be essentially the same thing.
No. You have not provided a justification. You merely offer a possibility of a justification (If there is a greater good by having doubt then there is for certainty, then that is a justification...) without saying what that “greater good” is.
I maintain that life must appear random enough to appear that there is no God, otherwise believing in God, is meaningless. If it was so certain that there is a God, then our actions would be very constrained and essentially not due to free will. ...
Your assertion is quite strange. If knowing that God exists makes belief in God meaningless, what is the “meaning” created by baseless belief in God? If baseless belief is optimal, why does any scriptural account of God exist? If God hides from us, then are we obligated to believe in God? Isn’t the point of moral codes to constrain our actions over and against our will. Does not the prayer go something like “Thy will and not mine...”?
... We would live in a very different world.
And that would be a bad thing why? A world without evil; a world where people do the right; are those not desirable to God? Are they not the GOAL? I think I know where you are going with this; that evil serves some purpose; that evil is instrumental. The BIG flaw in that argument is that it means God is INCAPABLE of achieving some goal (and is not even approximately all-powerful) or that the Evil IS the Goal. I am responding to your arguments: they are muddled; filled with bald assertions. But reading between the lines, your arguments imply that God is nowhere even near to all-powerful, or that God is just evil. I doubt you accept either implication, but then your arguments are confused. I also understand that you don’t like the word “evil” but I think it’s just the right word. Our world is full of “evil” (unjustified, non-accidental acts resulting in harms) and if there is a deity, they seem to be complicit in that evil. sean s.sean samis
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
First, Thank you for your kind and charitable comments. It is such a great way to learn when one is so considerate and seeks out answers to their questions.
Undesirable events? Was the holocaust merely an “undesireable event”? Is the current warfare in Syria merely an “undesirable event”?
I use the term "undesirable event" because people use the term "evil" in many different and inconsistent ways. So I prefer to use the term "undesirable event" to emphasize the relativeness of what people like to use the term "evil" for. Stubbing your toe is undesirable. What happened to Dr. Sewell's wife is undesirable. There are a lot of undesirable events in between that one would say are more or less undesirable. There are events that might be ranked as much worse too. At what point does the event become "evil?" Stubbing your toe is certainly not one of them. There is no good answer so I prefer the term "undesirable event" knowing that includes someone who dies of an agonizing condition. It is not mean to reduce the significance of the suffering one has but to show the relativeness of it. In ranking undesirable events one would certainly rank the Holocaust as very undesirable. But that and your example of the war in Syria is what is called a "moral evil" due to the willful acts of human beings. This is opposed to "natural evil" or acts of nature not due to any willful acts of humans. These are thngs such as earthquakes, tornados, floods, disease etc. These later types of events are what is usually attributed to the uncaring God. It is this latter type of undesirable event that has caused problems with the the supposably caring nature of a an All-Good God since He is in control of the forces that cause these events. The actual event that triggered this debate was the Lisbon earthquake on All Saints Day in 1755. Before that it was not much of an issue. If you don't like my use of the term, I hope you understand why I use it. I am using it to clarify things not conflate irrelevant things. As soon as one uses the term "evil" they are conflating things.
And no, like most, you give explanations, not justifications.
Yes, I have provided an explanation for why God allows them to exist. My explanation is that they are necessary in order to create doubt, so that it appears as if the world is not under His control or His creation or that He is allowing undesirable things to happen without a cause. Your response indicate that this explanation is accurate. It seems to be creating doubt on your part. But what is the reason to have doubt? If there is a greater good by having doubt then there is for certainty, then that is a justification for what I call undesirable events. By the way, all the undesirable events are trivial in nature compared to the positive outcomes offered by the Christian God. So there is no reason to make the distinction you do between explanations and justifications because they could be essentially the same thing. If you want to disagree on that, so be it but I maintain that life must appear random enough to appear that there is no God, otherwise believing in God, is meaningless. If it was so certain that there is a God, then our actions would be very constrained and essentially not due to free will. We would live in a very different world.
Many believers seem to miss the import of the Problem of Evil; you included.
Well, I have been reading and studying this issue for over 25 years after I was introduced to the theodicy issue in a lecture. I have read several people's ideas on this topic and the various way the term is used is one of the reasons I prefer not to use the term "evil." It is always possible, however, to learn something new. But, you are not providing anything new and you are not responding to my arguments. They could certainly be wrong but you are not providing any reason why they are wrong. You are just making assertions.jerry
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Jerry (re. #59)
I give lots of justification for why undesirable events exist.
Undesirable events? Was the holocaust merely an “undesireable event”? Is the current warfare in Syria merely an “undesirable event”? And no, like most, you give explanations, not justifications. There is a difference. Someone who robs a bank has an explanation: they wanted the money. But that’s not a justification. Explaining evil and suffering is trivial; providing a justification for a benevolent God’s complicity or acquiescence is impossible. You and others might be able to explain the why of suffering, but you cannot justify it. It is beyond justification. Just because things could be worse does not justify suffering or evil. Someone who keeps their children chained to a wall in the basement could claim that they at least fed them, it could have been worse. So what? It is bad enough of itself. You seem to imply that humans are whiney, that we’d never be satisfied, so it’s OK that God allows all manner of horror. That would be simply bizarre. Many believers seem to miss the import of the Problem of Evil; you included. The POE does NOT disprove the existence of any deity. It does raise serious questions about the Character of any Deity. And it discredits the claims of believers who trivialize evil and horror in their blithe attempt to exonerate their deity. sean s.sean samis
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
I think I could fairly summarize your point as “it could be worse.” The flip-side of that is that It Could Be A Lot Better. If my summary is in error, please do correct me.
No, I am saying that what we consider undesirable is relative and trivial and will constantly change so what is "better" will be constantly changing. And we always want what is better. There will thus, always be undesirable events no matter what world we live in and we will complain about the unnecessary things that make our lives less pleasant and use them to criticize the God that allowed them.
What is decisive is the apparent lack of justification or purpose to suffering. If God is both all-powerful and benevolent, our suffering appears to be both unjustified and pointless.
I give the justification for why undesirable events exist. They must exist for a meaningful life and thus are definitely not pointless. Also they are all trivial in the Christian scheme of things.jerry
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Jerry (re. #57) I think I could fairly summarize your point as “it could be worse.” The flip-side of that is that It Could Be A Lot Better. If my summary is in error, please do correct me. The relativity of suffering (or pleasure) is not decisive; and the finiteness of suffering is not decisive either. What is decisive is the apparent lack of justification or purpose to suffering. If God is both all-powerful and benevolent, our suffering appears to be both unjustified and pointless. sean s.sean samis
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
For each of these possibilities, there’s no way to disprove any of them objectively.
Maybe there in another interpretation. All activities affect us in different ways. Some we call suffering and we do not like them. But all these events are both finite and relative. Eliminate all the unpleasant things that you can think of that happen to people (what happened to Dr. Sewell's wife would certainly be one of these.) What is left can be ranked on which is more desirable or pleasing to the person. Granted a lot of this will be subjective but there would be wide agreement on the least desirable and what is more desirable. Remember all are currently thought of as desirable. Science and technology have eliminated a lot of undesirable outcomes and promise to continue doing so. With only desirable outcomes available, the least desirable of these desirable outcomes would be viewed as suffering since there are much more desirable outcomes and to settle for the bottom of this list would be abhorrent to the person especially if other people were enjoying the more desirable activities. Now a God that allowed a world that had only these outcomes would be considered a "bad" entity for allowing all these sub-optimal outcomes. My point being is that all outcomes are relative and and all are finite. So what is called evil or suffering in this world is a very relative thing. They are also extremely finite. Some are just smaller or larger than others but all are extremely small. And relevant to my point made above, doubt is necessary to lead a meaningful life and the events we call suffering are just one class of the things necessary for this doubt to exist and for life to be meaningful. And if you are a Christian or have a similar view of an after life, then what happens here on this earth is trivial unless it interferes with attaining the desired after life.jerry
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Querius (re 55); Maybe God is just an evil bastard; maybe our suffering is just God’s entertainment. I’m not saying these are true, but there’s no way to disprove them objectively so that puts them on the same logical plain as your 10 possibilities. Possibilities that can never be disproved objectively are worthless. sean s.sean samis
August 31, 2016
August
08
Aug
31
31
2016
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply