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

[Larniavc]

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

If we were built properly we would choose not to mess up.

 

[timothyu]

If we were built properly we would choose not to mess up.

Yes, rocks would agree. But more animate and creative lifeforms might not. Look at people who don't want anything that may offend them. They live life in a bubble where no change is possible. Progress can only be made through conflict and the universe is built upon just that. In that way all sorts can find a place they may fit in. Chaos is essential to create balance but God wanted us to realize that our tampering with it is not.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, rocks would agree. But more animate and creative lifeforms might not. Look at people who don't want anything that may offend them. They live life in a bubble where no change is possible. Progress can only be made through conflict and the universe is built upon just that. In that way all sorts can find a place they may fit in. Chaos is essential but God wanted us to realize that our tampering with it is not.

See, that is part of the problem I was trying to bring up... and there just isn't an answer from the religious side.

We are in a certain way. We can agree to that. But your side insists that, for some vaguely defined or completely unspecified reason, we MUST be that certain way. While at the same time pointing to an existing alternative that is the complete opposite.

"Progress can only be made through conflict". Well, I would disagree that "the universe" is build on that... but it can be used as one potential basis for human society.

So, yes, that is the way it is. But is that the way it MUST BE? Is "progress" good? Is it good in itself?

Does God "progress"? Does God get better? I dare say you would deny that.
Does Heaven "progress"? Does it get better? All the time, for eternity? And if it does... what for? "Progress" in the here and now is a way to deal with problems. Are there problems in heaven?

That's the problem. You are trying to conclude from an existing state to an imperative state... without good reasoning behind it.

 

[timothyu]

Have you considered the world was originally made fallen by a fallen entity and there was a reason man was originally kept separate from it before choosing to also follow the path of the previously fallen entities?

 

[Freodin]

Have you considered the world was originally made fallen by a fallen entity and there was a reason man was originally kept separate from it before choosing to also follow the path of the previously fallen entities?

Only moves the problem a step further back. And it doesn't even try to answer the question of "why all that?"

For example: an alternative to consider: So, "the world" was "made fallen" by a "fallen entity". Why does this "fallen entity" exist? Why did it have the option to "fall"... when this option is not required for either the initial or desired state?
But, ok, it happened.
So why use this "fallen world" to continue? Why have "man" be a part of this "fallen world" at all? Why not start over?

There is no reason. No necessity. All you can do is argue from: "it is, so it must be". And that isn't only not a very compelling reasoning, it directly contradicts the foundational system of claims.

 

[timothyu]

Why did it have the option to "fall"...

Perhaps because nothing exists without an opposite.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps because nothing exists without an opposite.

What is the opposite of God?

 

[timothyu]

What is the opposite of God?

God. Same as what is the opposite of you. You.

 

[dougangel]

Only moves the problem a step further back. And it doesn't even try to answer the question of "why all that?"

For example: an alternative to consider: So, "the world" was "made fallen" by a "fallen entity". Why does this "fallen entity" exist? Why did it have the option to "fall"... when this option is not required for either the initial or desired state?
But, ok, it happened.
So why use this "fallen world" to continue? Why have "man" be a part of this "fallen world" at all? Why not start over?

There is no reason. No necessity. All you can do is argue from: "it is, so it must be". And that isn't only not a very compelling reasoning, it directly contradicts the foundational system of claims.

Free will. If you don't have a choice between Good and evil then you are a robot.

 

[Freodin]

Perhaps because nothing exists without an opposite.

Hm... God?

God. Same as what is the opposite of you. You.

Oh, come on. You're not even trying anymore.

 

[Freodin]

Free will. If you don't have a choice between Good and evil then you are a robot.

Which, as we have already discussed in this thread, God does not have. So... God is a robot.

But regardless that doesn't answer the question: why is that necessary?

The chain of argumentation from your side is always the same:
This is so, so there must be a good reason for it. And the reason is XYZ... (which is contradicted by other arguments used in the system).

 

[timothyu]

Oh, come on. You're not even trying anymore.

Not so. God is all.
We (as extensions of God) are capable of either direction and often combine the two to suit our wants, regardless of how it affects others especially when that connection to God has been purposely switched off in favour of our own will.

 

[Moral Orel]

God. Same as what is the opposite of you. You.

That would make "opposite" and "same" synonyms. They're antonyms. Your answer is incorrect.

Not so. God is all.

God is just as evil as He is good?

 

[Freodin]

Not so. God is all.
We (as extensions of God) are capable of either direction and often combine the two to suit our wants, regardless of how it affects others especially when that connection to God has been purposely switched off in favour of our own will.

All of that would be part of "all"... and thus would have to apply to "God" as well.

I've said earlier in this thread: you already have a perfect Christian answer: faith. Keep it to that. When you try to explain it, you run into contradictions.

That may not be a problem for you, because of faith. But you have to be aware that this doesn't explain anything, much less convince anyone.

 

[timothyu]

God is just as evil as He is good?

God is all. There is nothing outside of God.

 

[timothyu]

. But you have to be aware that this doesn't explain anything, much less convince anyone.

Not interested in convincing anyone.

 

[Freodin]

God is all. There is nothing outside of God.

"...that connection to God has been purposely switched off in favour of our own will."

Then it is impossible for "our own will" to be outside of God.

 

[dougangel]

Which, as we have already discussed in this thread, God does not have. So... God is a robot.

But regardless that doesn't answer the question: why is that necessary?

The chain of argumentation from your side is always the same:
This is so, so there must be a good reason for it. And the reason is XYZ... (which is contradicted by other arguments used in the system).

No God is not a robot. He allowed evil or the devil to exist.

 

[Larniavc]

Progress can only be made through conflict and the universe is built upon just that. In that way all sorts can find a place they may fit in. Chaos is essential to create balance but God wanted us to realize that our tampering with it is not.

So you claim. But there is no good reason for it to be so. Why does God need us to realise something through the language of suffering?

Why not just make suffering not an option?

 

[Freodin]

No God is not a robot. He allowed evil or the devil to exist.

That's not quite the same, is it?

Does "free will" require you to just have a choice or to explicitly chose?

If the first... then "free will" is not the reason for the existence of evil or suffering, and your previous answer is incorrect. If the later, God does not have free will... and thus is a robot according to your statement.