How can there be a God when life isn't fair?

[edward237]

It's pretty much fact that life isn't fair. People get all kinds of advantages such as good looks, birth into a wealthy family, and an inherent clever and/or charming personality. While others are born with disabilities, ugly facial features, and an awkward and boring personality. People like to try to ignore this by saying that people with advantages "don't always have it easy" by having increased pressure or low chances of getting into heaven (because of wealth) but in all honesty, some people just have it better. Not everybody can live a good life and some live their entire lives in poverty, despair, and loneliness while others are "living it up". I'm not here to complain but rather ask a question, how could there be a God when life can be so unfair? Obviously life can't be perfect but sometimes the degree at which life is uncontrollably bad for people makes it seem like there can't be a just God. Why would a God make one woman completely beautiful and filled with an outgoing personality but another guy borderline hideous and filled with an awkward and unpleasant personality? Or why would God have one born in a land of opportunity while the other is born in a third world community where people live in huts and go days on end in starvation? It seems like the concept of a God is unrealistic in certain lives or settings with strong hereditary disadvantages.

 

[Hentenza]

Thread moved to Exploring Christianity from Philosophy.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Its not like God does it to be mean. If you actual take a moment to look at your life, you will notice many blessings from God. So what you are not the most attractive man? At least you are not blind. So what you are blind? At least you are alive! You have to look at the pros in life and ignore the negatives and doing so will reveal all the blessings that you have.

God Bless

 

[graceandpeace]

Who says God has anything to do with any of those circumstances?

Life is indeed unfair, & the Christian hope is that one day all things will be set right.

 

[ALoveDivine]

It's pretty much fact that life isn't fair.

Fair? What is "fair"? How do you know? If there is no purpose or meaning whatsoever in the universe, why do you refer to this thing "fair" as if it is refers to something objective? Are you implying some universal standard by which you measure circumstances? What is that standard and what basis is there for it?

By even asking this question you are, unknowingly, presupposing the existence of some kind of objective moral standard. To acknowledge only a physical universe, and simultaneously propose an objectively real non-physical thing (moral standard), is a contradiction. If you are going to admit the existence of an objective moral standard you cannot reasonably hold to a physicalist view of nature, and you must now consider other philosophical options, such as, the existence of God.

If you will then turn around and say your idea of "fair" is just your own opinion, then your question becomes utterly meaningless.

Obviously life can't be perfect but sometimes the degree at which life is uncontrollably bad for people makes it seem like there can't be a just God

Here you go again measuring things by an unacknowledged and yet presupposed objective standard. Your very objections to the existence of God are actually evidence for the existence of God.

 

[edward237]

Its not like God does it to be mean. If you actual take a moment to look at your life, you will notice many blessings from God. So what you are not the most attractive man? At least you are not blind. So what you are blind? At least you are alive! You have to look at the pros in life and ignore the negatives and doing so will reveal all the blessings that you have.

God Bless

I don't see any blessings though, as I am where I am because of my parents and myself. I'm also a realist, I see both the positives and the negatives. So when I see more negative than positive for some, it draws up the question why would God let it be that way?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I don't see any blessings though,

Is your argument that you are not blessed in any, way, shape or form?

 

[ALoveDivine]

o when I see more negative than positive for some, it draws up the question why would God let it be that way?

From a theological standpoint a disadvantaged person may actually be in a better position than an advantaged person. Why? Because a disadvantaged person is less likely to be consumed by personal pride and self-reliance and is more likely to seek God and come to repentance.

The goal of us being here is not to live cushy, comfortable lives. We are here to glorify God, and ultimately to be saved by the grace of God through repentance and faith. All that occurs in human life is oriented toward that end. Tragedies and maladies happen to reveal to our stubborn pride that our lives are not in our own hands, that death can come at any moment, and that we are not in charge of things. God graciously works all things together to bring us to repentance, and thereby salvation, not to give us worldly pleasure.

He also promises to work all things together for good to those who love him, and he does, as myself and all of his people can testify to. He does not however work all things together for good to those who reject him. Unless you repent and trust in Christ alone for your salvation, God's wrath abides on you. Every moment you live is a gracious gift of God wherein you are allowed yet more time to cry out to God in repentance and so be saved.

 

[edward237]

Fair? What is "fair"? How do you know? If there is no purpose or meaning whatsoever in the universe, why do you refer to this thing "fair" as if it is refers to something objective? Are you implying some universal standard by which you measure circumstances? What is that standard and what basis is there for it?

By even asking this question you are, unknowingly, presupposing the existence of some kind of objective moral standard. To acknowledge only a physical universe, and simultaneously propose an objectively real non-physical thing (moral standard), is a contradiction. If you are going to admit the existence of an objective moral standard you cannot reasonably hold to a physicalist view of nature, and you must now consider other philosophical options, such as, the existence of God.

If you will then turn around and say your idea of "fair" is just your own opinion, then your question becomes utterly meaningless.


Here you go again measuring things by an unacknowledged and yet presupposed objective standard. Your very objections to the existence of God are actually evidence for the existence of God.

When I say fair, I mean just. I'm referring to the fact that if there is a God, why would he bring us into an unjust world where some have great advantages and some have unfavorable disadvantages. It seems unjust to have some live great lives, not as tempted by sin, and then go to heaven. While others others are born in bad families, where they have to steal to make a living, and then go to hell. Additionally it seems unjust to have some born with unattractive features (internal and external), to live a life of loneliness and solitude. While others are born with great looks and a great personality, where they live sociable and marital lives. I'm not saying there is a God, but if there was, he would be unjust for those reasons.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

When I say fair, I mean just. I'm referring to the fact that if there is a God, why would he bring us into an unjust world where some have great advantages and some have unfavorable disadvantages. It seems unjust to have some live great lives, not as tempted by sin, and then go to heaven. While others others are born in bad families, where they have to steal to make a living, and then go to hell. Additionally it seems unjust to have some born with unattractive features (internal and external), to live a life of loneliness and solitude. While others are born with great looks and a great personality, where they live sociable and marital lives. I'm not saying there is a God, but if there was, he would be unjust for those reasons.

Where other world would God bring us into?

And there is NO ONE AND I MEAN NO HUMAN who is not tempted by sin.

 

[ALoveDivine]

When I say fair, I mean just.

As an atheist, from where do you get your notion of justice by which you judge God?

It seems unjust to have some live great lives, not as tempted by sin, and then go to heaven. While others others are born in bad families, where they have to steal to make a living, and then go to hell.

Nothing about your performance gets you to heaven. Every human being on the face of this planet is guilty before God and under his just wrath, we are wicked by nature and by choice. The only way anyone goes to heaven is by the grace of God through faith in substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on their behalf. How "good" you are has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Additionally it seems unjust to have some born with unattractive features (internal and external), to live a life of loneliness and solitude. While others are born with great looks and a great personality, where they live sociable and marital lives.

This presupposes that God put us here to have lots of friends and good marriages. That is an unfounded assumption based on what YOU think God should have created us for. You need to check your presuppositions at the door if you want to have a serious discussion about the existence of God.

I'm not saying there is a God, but if there was, he would be unjust for those reasons.

Again, as an atheist, from where do you get your notion of justice by which you yourself judge God? Your subconsciously presupposing the objective reality of justice, even being an atheist, just lends credence to the claim that God exists as the source of justice as an objective reality.

 

[edward237]

From a theological standpoint a disadvantaged person may actually be in a better position than an advantaged person. Why? Because a disadvantaged person is less likely to be consumed by personal pride and self-reliance and is more likely to seek God and come to repentance.

The goal of us being here is not to live cushy, comfortable lives. We are here to glorify God, and ultimately to be saved by the grace of God through repentance and faith. All that occurs in human life is oriented toward that end. Tragedies and maladies happen to reveal to our stubborn pride that our lives are not in our own hands, that death can come at any moment, and that we are not in charge of things. God graciously works all things together to bring us to repentance, and thereby salvation, not to give us worldly pleasure.

He also promises to work all things together for good to those who love him, and he does, as myself and all of his people can testify to. He does not however work all things together for good to those who reject him. Unless you repent and trust in Christ alone for your salvation, God's wrath abides on you. Every moment you live is a gracious gift of God wherein you are allowed yet more time to cry out to God in repentance and so be saved.

The idea of living life looking forward to death is a foreign concept to me. I feel like we should enjoy the life we have been given (by either God or nature) and then enjoy the afterlife. Otherwise why were we born? As a test to see if we are good or bad? God already knows who will be good and who will be bad, and if the end goal is to go to Heaven, why not just bring us all there automatically?

 

[ALoveDivine]

The idea of living life looking forward to death is a foreign concept to me.

We don't live that way. Theologically speaking again, Christians don't look forward to death in and of itself, we look forward to the new creation, when God will literally create a whole new universe where evil is vanquished and God and people are united together in an everlasting unity of joy.

More than that, as Christians we do enjoy life. We no longer enjoy sin, as we have new affections. We love to serve, to help others, to spend time with God, to love our families, to appreciate nature, etc. Christians live with a deep love for God and people and a deep feeling of gratitude. All quite imperfectly, of course.

The way I see it is this. God created this universe imperfect, permitted evil to come into being, and allowed it to reach a culmination, for the ultimate purpose of permanently vanquishing it, all to demonstrate his justice, his patience, and his power. Likewise, in the midst of this, God decreed to redeem a people for himself, to demonstrate his love, and grace, and mercy. The whole drama of existence is essentially God enacting, reflecting, and demonstrating his eternal attributes.

 

[edward237]

As an atheist, from where do you get your notion of justice by which you judge God?


Nothing about your performance gets you to heaven. Every human being on the face of this planet is guilty before God and under his just wrath, we are wicked by nature and by choice. The only way anyone goes to heaven is by the grace of God through faith in substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on their behalf. How "good" you are has nothing whatsoever to do with it.


This presupposes that God put us here to have lots of friends and good marriages. That is an unfounded assumption based on what YOU think God should have created us for. You need to check your presuppositions at the door if you want to have a serious discussion about the existence of God.


Again, as an atheist, from where do you get your notion of justice by which you yourself judge God? Your subconsciously presupposing the objective reality of justice, even being an atheist, just lends credence to the claim that God exists as the source of justice as an objective reality.

I see justice as a moral standard according to what is right and unright. I don't need to believe in a God to believe in moral standards. And I don't believe that if there is a God, he could have moral standards. He has us in different circumstances where some have a quality of life that makes believing in God easier. How? Because living a life with great internal and external features makes it easier to appreciate life and God. I guess we do have different stances on why we should have been created though, as I believe life is meant to be enjoyed instead of looking forward to the next one. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be a point in life if this is just a test, because God already knows whether or not we will pass and fail, and as I already said, the circumstances for the "test" aren't balanced.

 

[edward237]

Where other world would God bring us into?

And there is NO ONE AND I MEAN NO HUMAN who is not tempted by sin.

A fair and just world I guess. I realize everyone is tempted by sin, but some more than others due to their environments/circumstance they were born in.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I don't need to believe in a God to believe in moral standards.

Then what is your objective reference by which you judge whether a given action is "right" or "wrong"? It seems to me that without a reference point beyond mere human subjectivity, there is no objective reference by which you can judge one person's action as "right" and another's as "wrong"?

What makes rape objectively wrong in your view? Indeed rape, in a purely mechanical Darwinian sense, confers an evolutionary advantage to an individual by spreading his genes further. And yet I'm assuming you consider rape wrong? Why? On what grounds can you judge this action as wrong?

Maybe you say it is wrong because you "feel" that it is wrong. What about someone who "feels" that rape is right? By what measure do you determine which one of these individuals is correct and which one is mistaken about the rightness or wrongness of rape?

as I believe life is meant to be enjoyed instead of looking forward to the next one.

And here you presuppose that life has meaning. Why? From where does this meaning come? On a purely naturalistic worldview it doesn't seem that "meaning" has any coherency as a concept, therefore your "meaning" is your own concocted and arbitrary value preference.

You see that you are implicitly presupposing non-physical absolutes?

 

[edward237]

Then what is your objective reference by which you judge whether a given action is "right" or "wrong"? It seems to me that without a reference point beyond mere human subjectivity, there is no objective reference by which you can judge one person's action as "right" and another's as "wrong"?

What makes rape objectively wrong in your view? Indeed rape, in a purely mechanical Darwinian sense, confers an evolutionary advantage to an individual by spreading his genes further. And yet I'm assuming you consider rape wrong? Why? On what grounds can you judge this action as wrong?

Maybe you say it is wrong because you "feel" that it is wrong. What about someone who "feels" that rape is right? By what measure do you determine which one of these individuals is correct and which one is mistaken about the rightness or wrongness of rape?


And here you presuppose that life has meaning. Why? From where does this meaning come? On a purely naturalistic worldview it doesn't seem that "meaning" has any coherency as a concept, therefore your "meaning" is your own concocted and arbitrary value preference.

You see that you are implicitly presupposing non-physical absolutes?

As people, we have a relative sense of what is right or wrong, while there may not be an absolute truth to what is moral, we can constitute things as right or wrong based on the effect they have on people. For instance, rape is deemed as wrong because it brings harm upon another. In fact, the bible even tells us "do to others as you would want them to do to you" (NOT A DIRECT QUOTE BTW). So a God bringing misery and a lower quality of life to certain people while giving happiness and a greater quality of life to others would constitute as immoral. This isn't a fact nor is it objective, but I'd say it's a collective perspective on the mortality of God (if he exists).

 

[ALoveDivine]

we can constitute things as right or wrong based on the effect they have on people. For instance, rape is deemed as wrong because it brings harm upon another.

So you have just proposed harm or lack therof as an objective moral standard. Yet you have denied the idea of any moral absolute. So what makes this standard of yours more objective than the standard of what Stan the sociopath says is right?

Stan the sociopath says rape women and drink babies blood, because I said so. This is the objective moral standard on Stan's island. Your objective standard is don't harm people. What makes your standard more morally true than Stan's standard?

If there is no objective reference by which to justify your standard over Stan's, as you've confirmed in your denial of moral absolutes, than how can you condemn Stan's standard as immoral?

My point is this; any moral discussion presupposes the reality of moral absolutes. Without this fundamental presupposition any moral discussion is incoherent. Therefore, unless you acknowledge the reality of this necessary presupposition, your moral objections to the existence of God are incoherent and unfounded. If you confirm this presupposition to be true, you thereby posit a powerful case for God's existence as the objective moral reference.

Any absolute/objective moral reference must by nature be nonphysical, as "morals" are not a physical phenomena. So to confirm the necessary presupposition of any moral argument is further to presuppose the existence of nonphysical phenomena. This brings you to a point where you are but a single step away from having, of necessity, to confirm the existence of God just to morally argue against his existence.

The only way to get around all of this is to say that morals are subjective and just a matter of opinion, and in making this claim all your arguments you've presented in this thread about injustice fall to pieces in a mess of incoherence.

At least Nietzsche, for example, was intellectually rigorous enough to accept this point as part of his naturalistic philosophy, and he was well aware of the implications. Modern secular philosophers seem to miss this point entirely and just try to fancifully weave some tail of a moral absolute without providing any philosophical or rational justification for it.

 

[dcalling]

God's fair is rather different from our eyes. Jesus said that God loves everyone because sun shine and aire/water are given to both the good and bad.

The situation in the world is only temporary. God bless us according to his plan. The true blessing is on the heart. I used to study Buddhism, and one of the saying in Buddhism is that the world is your reflection. So if you view the world as bad, it is actually you that is bad. It is not totally true, but there are truth in that.

Christians are not all blessed with rich and powers, but a true Christian are blessed with love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, even in extreme conditions. I heard testimonials of persecuted Christians in other countries, how God blessed them in their hardship. My personal experience is, before I became a Christian, I constantly worry about how much I make, how big a house I should get, now I don't care about them much, they just seems not as related any more.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

duplicate