Why does God allow suffering? Bear in mind, those that don't need a perfect distraction, suffer less

[Moral Orel]

This is exactly how you can misuse various terms and bend various definitions to get yourself into absurd conclusions.

Which term have I misused and what is the proper use for it?


Here's "Free Will" cited:

"Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

 

[trophy33]

Which term have I misused and what is the proper use for it?


Here's "Free Will" cited:

"Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

For example your first sentence:
"What God is capable of choosing is limited"

What capability are you talking about? Because regarding our context, God is not capable to be mistaken or God is not capable to be immoral.
You consider this to be His limitation, I say its not a real limitation, just a language limitation.

Is God limited because He cannot miss a bus? Not really. But because you see the words "cannot", you automatically say - "this means He is limited". Which may be correct regarding the language, but not in reality.

 

[Freodin]

This is exactly how you can misuse various terms and bend various definitions to get yourself into absurd conclusions.

Cake.

You were so close. All you had to do was to say: "This is what I believe. I trust that this is correct. I have faith."

It might not have been an satisfactory answer, especially for skeptics. But it would have been the perfect (pun intended) Christian answer.

But you couldn't bring yourself to do that. You cannot accept that this might just "be your opinion". That is for others, for unbelievers.

And so you fall into the very trap that I mentioned earlier: you destroy the basis of your argument.

You want to give answers. You do give answers. And when these answers are criticized, you revert to "it doesn't mean that. It's a limit of our language, our understanding. It is the answer, but it's not the answer."

So, "free" and "limited" does not mean what it usually means. But "necessary" and "perfect" and "good" does? Or does it not?

You have your opinion. I have mine. And considering the spins and twists you have to go through to justify your opinion, you are closer to "no basis" than mine.

 

[Moral Orel]

You consider this to be His limitation, I say its not a real limitation, just a language limitation.

It isn't a "language" limitation, it is a "real" limitation.

If A is better than B
I can choose either
I have two options to choose from

God is incapable of choosing B
God has one option to choose from
God is incapable of doing whatever B is

One is less than two. I have more options to choose from than God does. Limited.

 

[trophy33]

God is incapable of choosing B

This is the point I was talking about in post #62, so I would basically repeat myself.

You can create various language constructions or paradoxes like "God is not capable not to be perfect, therefore He is limited, therefore He is not perfect" and similar. But it has no substantial meaning, its just a play with words.

Similarly, you can play with "God is not capable to choose wrong, I am, therefore I am less limited than God". Which is absurd, of course.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is the point I was talking about in post #62, so I would basically repeat myself.

You can create various language constructions or paradoxes like "God is not capable not to be perfect, therefore He is limited, therefore He is not perfect" and similar. But it has no substantial meaning, its just a play with words.

I haven't argued that God isn't "perfect". You're telling me what it means for God to be perfect, and if that means that God lacks free will, then okay, free will is an imperfection, and God is perfect because He lacks free will. I'll accept that. Is that what you're saying?

Similarly, you can play with "God is not capable to choose wrong, I am, therefore I am less limited than God". Which is absurd, of course.

It's absurd because you've rephrased what I've said to make a claim that implies that I am less limited overall than God. I never said anything of the sort.

If there are things that can be done by someone
And if God is incapable of doing those things
Then God is limited in that capacity
If God is limited in some capacity, then God is not limitless

The actions aren't logically incoherent. God's other qualities impede Him from doing some things. And that's fine. You claim that being perfect means being incapable of making wrong choices. I'm okay with that.

I would appreciate it if you took a moment and considered your latest response. Twice you made a guess about what you think my conclusion is, and you were wrong, but you argued against that made up conclusion. Please don't make things up. Please only address the things I've said and don't invent claims for me.

 

[trophy33]

You're telling me what it means for God to be perfect, and if that means that God lacks free will, then okay, free will is an imperfection, and God is perfect because He lacks free will. I'll accept that. Is that what you're saying?

If you think that the "free will" definition includes ability to make errors or to be evil, then I would agree that God does not have this kind of free will. And I would add that such definition of free will is wrong.

But it seems to me you are saying something different, something about another ability, ability of choosing wrong options? Why would any will (human or not) choose a wrong option, knowing its a wrong option? God knows that the option A is wrong and chooses the right option, B. How is this a real limitation?

 

[trophy33]

It's absurd because you've rephrased what I've said to make a claim that implies that I am less limited overall than God. I never said anything of the sort.

And you rephrased what I said, because I did not say "overall". We all read things in some personal context.

 

[trophy33]

I would appreciate it if you took a moment and considered your latest response. Twice you made a guess about what you think my conclusion is, and you were wrong, but you argued against that made up conclusion. Please don't make things up. Please only address the things I've said and don't invent claims for me.

You are mistaken. I did not guess what you think, I gave examples how playing with words without any context and proper definitions leads to various absurdities. You do not have to take it personally. If you agree with it, you can simply say you agree and we can move on.
When I say "you can also say something like..." I am talking in general sense about what I think is based on the same principle to better explain what I mean.

 

[Freodin]

If you think that the "free will" definition includes ability to make errors or to be evil, then I would agree that God does not have this kind of free will. And I would add that such definition of free will is wrong.

But it seems to me you are saying something different, something about another ability, ability of choosing wrong options? Why would any will (human or not) choose a wrong option, knowing its a wrong option? God knows that the option A is wrong and chooses the right option, B. How is this a real limitation?

Well... it is a "real" limitation... it does limit something that is real.

But you are just getting yourself into another knot.

In order to have any sort of relevant "free will", there has to be choice. "Real" choice, without limitations. A choice between equal options.

According to your position, God doesn't have that choice at all. There are no "equal options"... there's only "right" and "wrong"... and "wrong" is not an option for God,

That doesn't only make any idea of God having choice at all meaningless... it also opens the question - relating back to the initial one - "Why is there a wrong option at all?"

In order to keep your cake and eat it too, you destroy what it means to be cake.
You insist that God is perfect, that he does right... but there's no meaning to that anymore. It's just an empty circle.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think that the "free will" definition includes ability to make errors or to be evil, then I would agree that God does not have this kind of free will. And I would add that such definition of free will is wrong.

No, that's what people mean when they talk about "free will", that isn't wrong. I just cited the meaning of "free will". Whatever meaning you have for the term is not the norm. Let's stick to the normal usage of the term so that everyone understands the conversation.

God doesn't have free will
God is perfect
If God was different, He wouldn't be perfect
If God had free will, then He would be different
If God had free will then God would be imperfect
Having free will is an imperfection

Anything wrong with any of that?

 

[Larniavc]

Therefore, the breaking of bones must be good and necessary, because else God would not have made it that way.

Does not make sense. If you say that anything God does is good you must also maintain that suffering is good and that people suffering is good.

I disagree. Putting the cart before the horse and special pleading is a logical fallacy.

 

[Larniavc]

And the necessary property of the best possible world is that it contains some suffering.

Apart from when you are in Heaven of course. My understanding is that that place is perfect and without suffering.

Surely that means perfection can exist without suffering.

 

[Larniavc]

God is breaking us apart and rebuilding us to be a better person.

Why not build us properly in the first place?

 

[partinobodycular]

The general answer is quite simple - because the suffering is needed for the best of the creation as a whole.
If God took some of it away, the creation as a whole would not be the best.

So, there is suffering in the world because a world with suffering in it is better than a world without suffering in it. Oddly enough, this means that a world without God would look pretty much the same as a world with God.

So what need is there of God?

 

[Freodin]

Does not make sense. If you say that anything God does is good you must also maintain that suffering is good and that people suffering is good.

I disagree. Putting the cart before the horse and special pleading is a logical fallacy.

No, you agree. I should have made it clearer this kind of reasoning is not valid.

Why not build us properly in the first place?

Backward reasoning, again. (Not yours. Theirs!)
We (or the world, or whatever object of the argument) is the way it is. Thus, to keep the premise of perfect intention in place... it must be perfect and intended.

It's another of these internal contradictions of modern theistic arguments that theists just "don't see" and that are just "our opinions": God is a necessary existence. God is the only necessary existence.

But that also means that everything else is not necessary. NOTHING else is. We - his (alleged, just in case you think I am supporting these claims) creation - could as well not exist. Or we could exist in a totally different from.

To make the argument that our existence, or our form of existence is necessary, because of God's existence or any of God's perfect attributes... that is a contradiction.

But to accept that, in the slightest way... that would bring down their view of "God"... and thus is forbidden to consider. And so they have to twist themselves into these knots where, yes, suffering is good, because it fulfils a purpose that cannot be reached in any other way... by the omnipotent deity.

 

[TedT]

Why? What's so honourable about being made to suffer?

The honour is that they are suffering as martyrs for GOD and Truth, not for sin.

 

[Larniavc]

The honour is that they are suffering as martyrs for GOD and Truth, not for sin.

But they don’t need to. Why good does their suffering bring to anything that does not feed on tears?

 

[eleos1954]

Hello,

There are so many ways to answer that God does everything He can to avoid or abate suffering, that it can seem like no one has a definitive answer. However, we can start to understand that God is in the midst of suffering. For example, that God is able to distract us from suffering. The point is not that God distracts all suffering, where-ever it occurs. But that God shares the burden of suffering, with those that have faith in Him.

This bearing our burdens, as Christ did (watching the Father), is something you can fight or go with. There is wisdom in this, as suffering teaches us to develop character. If we didn't ever suffer, there would be no difference between Heaven and Hell. What we know, is that we can be distracted in degrees. Less suffering, is partly a choice. Partly a commitment, but partly a choice. If we have the opportunity to learn this, our suffering will always be less. This is the promise of God.

What we need to learn, in the process of (mentally) processing this, is that the burden we place on God, directly affects our ability to deal with the suffering that is inevitable. Even if we stayed our entire lives in Heaven, simply leaving Heaven, would be Hell. God's promise is not that we will stay for ever in Heaven, but that we will be able to endure what we suffer because of Hell, whether by someone else's actions or our own. And this is the kicker, we can even avoid suffering while we are suffering.

Avoiding suffering while we are suffering, allows us to be distracted from our suffering, especially suffering we can do nothing about. This is the principle:It is in effect, being forgiving of what God can do in this life, for the sake of the next. If God suffers, surely suffering has come to an end - for those that have faith in God's suffering. It might be hard to have faith that suffering will come to an end - that is the price of innocence, in one sense - but if we have simpler standards, as to what we will expect from God - in the face of that suffering - we will be going a great long way to ending the suffering that is needless (that is, if you can understand it: an ignorance of God).

God will be there with you in the suffering, but don't wait for your expectations of God, to define your response to His love - whether you are suffering a little or a lot, humility (that God continues to have a plan, for your life) will go a long way to preventing you from adding to that suffering needlessly: that is, asking for a more perfect solution to your suffering than He is able, all His efforts not withstanding, to give you. God wants to give you an end to suffering, but that doesn't mean He can immediately get it to you - be humble about what He can give you, and you will suffer less.

I hope we can understand this, in a bond of fellowship.
I am not trying to diminish anyone's suffering (that is up to God, ultimately).

God bless.

Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21). Suffering is in our lives because we are living in a broken world. Some suffering is due to our sinful and wrong choices, but some is due simply to the world being fallen.

Can't wait until He returns and ends all the pain and suffering for eternity!!! AMEN

 

[Campos]

Why not build us properly in the first place?

We mess up ourselves, we start this change, we change paths, we ruin ourselves.