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

[Larniavc]

I have repeatedly said why but you ignore it because you disagree with it, sigh.

I think that what you said was inadequate.

 

[Larniavc]

My human nature and a mobile phone are not the same things.

In what way are they an appropriate analogy?.

 

[trophy33]

In what way are they an appropriate analogy?.

In the way that someone's nature and someone's creation/product is not the same thing.

 

[ruthiesea]

G-d does not want us to understand the suffering of the innocent but to fight for a world in which the innocent no longer suffer.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thus the free will of HIS creation is an absolute necessity to fulfill HIS plan of the heavenly marriage with us.

This is probably the most common answer from Christians to the Problem of Suffering. But for it to be true, then there has to be another premise that is true and no one ever states that premise.

"Free will necessarily leads to choosing evil at least some of the time"

If that isn't true, then claiming there is suffering because of free will doesn't work.

 

[Moral Orel]

This universe is the best possible universe because it was chosen by perfect God who cannot err.

I'm pretty sure the problem with this statement is just with the phrasing. The universe isn't the best because God chose it. You believe this universe is the best because God chose it.

I don't think you're really saying that the cause of the universe's goodness is God's choosing of it. That would mean God could choose any kind of universe and it would be the best simply because it was chosen. The goodness doesn't come from the choosing.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your question does not make any sense. God did not "add" suffering. God "saw" all possible universes and chose the best one.

Its not cooking.

God doesn't design things He creates? That seems weird.

 

[Moral Orel]

The thread is "why does God allow suffering". If you want to talk about the existence of God or whether He is perfect, this is not the place. Its a presupposition, here.

The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibus mind is presupposed.
The "goodness" of that mind is not presupposed.

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course its not the same thing.

My human nature and a mobile phone are not the same things.

That's a poor analogy.

Would you agree that God's will is part of God's nature?

Would you also agree that what God wills to be, will be?

Thus if what is, is the same as what God wills, and what God wills is the same as His nature, then what is, and God's nature must be the same.

I would also argue that if God's nature encompasses all that ever can or will be, then what is, must also include all that ever can or will be.

 

[zippy2006]

A couple of points: I don't think we should distract ourselves with Euthyphro. 2) But, since we're here, it doesn't matter what our conceptions of good are; theists routinely say that everything that God does is good. AND, God has freewill.

So to the question of free will, there are beings that exist that have free will and have never done evil. These include God and some angels. Those that go to heaven will always choose good and most would assert that there is free will in heaven.

So, I conclude that God wanted free will and had to allow suffering to get it doesn't seem to hold up.

The common theistic answer is that free will does not necessitate suffering, but it does give rise to the possibility of suffering (via evil acts freely chosen). Thus when God created free will he did not create suffering, but he did create something that had the possibility of resulting in suffering.

On such an account the theist can point to free will as the sufficient cause of suffering without committing themselves to the position that suffering is a necessary consequence of free will.

 

[partinobodycular]

It is interesting that in the kingdom it is said the evils, pain, suffering etc. here will be forgotten. Forgotten is a reversal of the knowledge gained in the Garden.

You want to go back to ignorance?

But, I don't recall the Bible saying about reversal of knowledge gained.

I too have considered this idea, that for heaven to truly be lacking in evil and suffering implies that humanity has lost its knowledge of good and evil and gone back to how they were in the garden. In which case I can understand a third of the angels choosing not to consent to such an arrangement, but choosing instead to suffer the ultimate consequences, whatever they may be. I dare say that I would make the same choice. Given the choice between ignorance and the knowledge of good and evil, I choose the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[TedT]

"Free will necessarily leads to choosing evil at least some of the time"

Wrong...the possibility of choosing either evil or faith had to be equal in every person therefore there was always a possibility that no one would choose evil, negating the world necessarily.

 

[partinobodycular]

The common theistic answer is that free will does not necessitate suffering, but it does give rise to the possibility of suffering (via evil acts freely chosen). Thus when God created free will he did not create suffering, but he did create something that had the possibility of resulting in suffering.

On such an account the theist can point to free will as the sufficient cause of suffering without committing themselves to the position that suffering is a necessary consequence of free will.

I like this explanation, but it just seems a tad insufficient, because true free will would seem to necessitate the knowledge of good and evil, and then the question becomes, did the gaining of the knowledge of good and evil cause us to choose evil, or did it simply cause us to become aware of the evil that already existed? Did it simply cause us to recognize the evil already inherent in our actions?

Is it simply that in gaining the knowledge of good and evil we gained free will, but lost the innocence that had blinded us to the suffering? If so then wasn't that God's intention all along? After all, the argument among Christians has always been that to truly love God we must have free will, and isn't our love what God wanted all along? If so then God created us with the specific intention of our acquiring free will, and the loss of innocence, and the recognition of the evil and suffering that inevitably came with it.

In which case it was God's intention that we suffer, but do I fault Him for it...NO. The knowledge of good and evil was worth the sacrifice.

 

[timothyu]

did the gaining of the knowledge of good and evil cause us to choose evil, or did it simply cause us to become aware of the evil that already existed? Did it simply cause us to recognize the evil already inherent in our actions?

It boiled down to 'choosing' rather than following the will of God. First sin was to choose to do other than what God told us. Once done, the second was to self determine and choose whether we would use good or evil to suit our purposes.

 

[zippy2006]

If so then God created us with the specific intention of our acquiring free will, and the loss of innocence, and the recognition of the evil suffering that inevitably came with it.

Well, I don't follow the argumentation for this claim. The word "inevitably" is precisely what I was trying to address in my response to Tinker's objection. Further, it is not clear how these new concepts such as "knowledge of good and evil" and "loss of innocence" relate to free will. It would seem that free will in itself could be had without possessing either of these new properties.

 

[Moral Orel]

Orel: "Free will necessarily leads to choosing evil at least some of the time"

Wrong

If that is wrong, then God was capable of creating a world with free will that no one chooses evil. And if that's the case then the free will defense to the Problem of Suffering fails.

 

[RileyG]

God can bring good out of suffering.

 

[trophy33]

That's a poor analogy.

Would you agree that God's will is part of God's nature?.

Define nature, because I have a suspicion you use it in some vague, broad sense.

 

[trophy33]

The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibus mind is presupposed.
The "goodness" of that mind is not presupposed.

Christian definition of God, of course, includes His "goodness".

What does it mean that God is good? | GotQuestions.org

 

[trophy33]

God doesn't design things He creates? That seems weird.

Designing presupposes that one does not know everything from the beginning.

God has all the knowledge eternally, therefore He sees all ideas and their combinations, without any time needed for designing.