Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid

It's true that not all questions have directly accessible answers, but that doesn't mean we should accept any answer without solid evidence. The quest for answers should be guided by reason and evidence, even if some questions remain unsolved. Describing the world as brutal and indifferent doesn't change whether God exists or not. However, the existence of a benevolent and powerful God should, theoretically, change this reality. The persistence of brutality, "red in tooth and claw," and suffering in general in the world can be seen as evidence against the existence of such a God or, at least, against the idea of a God who deeply cares about human suffering. Leibniz's hypothesis that this is the "best of all possible worlds" is difficult to reconcile with the reality of suffering and evil. People argue that an omnipotent God could create a significantly better world, with less suffering and more justice, without violating free will. I think the quest for meaning beyond material existence is valid, but it doesn't justify accepting any religious narrative uncritically. The question "is there more than just this?" is important, but the answer should be based on evidence and solid reasoning, not just hope or desire.

A "reasonably justified" avenue of inquiry should be grounded in evidence and logic. Faith based solely on hope may be comforting, but it's not necessarily true. Personal preference for a narrative isn't enough to establish its truthfulness. Embracing a materialistic view of life doesn't necessarily mean "succumbing to fatalism." Many materialists find meaning, purpose, and hope within natural life. Moreover, accepting a materialistic view doesn't preclude the pursuit of answers and understanding but guides it toward empirical and rational methods. Acknowledging the "apparent implausibility" of the Christian faith should lead to more critical investigation, not acceptance based on hope. If faith seems implausible, it may indicate that its claims don't hold up under rational and rigorous analysis.

I think saying that there are no accessible answers to the questions of evil and suffering raises a significant problem. If religions claim to provide an understanding of the world and morality but fail to satisfactorily explain the extreme and unjust suffering that I mention in my OP, this may undermine confidence in their ability to offer comprehensive and meaningful truths. While I found the idea of having direct access to God for answers appealing, the absence of this access questions the nature of a God who supposedly desires a close relationship with humanity, doesn't it? If God is loving and powerful as many say, why doesn't He provide a clearer and more direct way to answer such fundamental questions about suffering and evil? The suggestion that focusing on hyper-evils is a matter of subjective preference ignores the reality that these evils represent profound moral and existential issues. Events like genocides, horrendous diseases, and child suffering that I mentioned in my OP are not just 'subjective preferences,' but realities that challenge the idea of a good and just God. Ignoring or minimizing these questions can be seen as a way to avoid an honest confrontation with the central questions of theodicy.

The idea that focusing on extreme evils is a 'subjective preference' suggests a pragmatic rather than theological approach to dealing with suffering. However, I believe that a good and robust theology should be able to confront and explain the harshest realities of human life, rather than relegating them to matters of personal preference. A theology that fails to address the harshest realities of human life or adequately deal with the existence of catastrophic evils may be seen as insufficient to provide a solid foundation for belief in a loving and just God.

The concepts of an omnipotent and benevolent God are widely accepted in contemporary Judeo-Christian traditions. Dismissing Epicurus' trilemma based on its cultural origins does not address how these traditions are understood and practiced today. I still believe that modern Christians face the need to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of suffering. Although the concept of omnipotence brings more problems than solutions (e.g., arguments about stones that cannot be lifted, square triangles, and anything of the sort).

Thanks for the kind words, 2PhiloVoid

So, Felix, being that it seems you are a fellow critical thinker who has already become accustomed to more analytic evaluations, may I ask what your background is in education and what your experience with philosophy may be? In your post above, you've condensed many statements into what I'd call the "common skeptical response" in regard to Christianity, and while I don't seek to either debate you or upset you, I do in fact disagree with many points within what you've stated, and I have to say that I do so on epistemological grounds.

Where there may be misunderstanding, I realize that the failure in my interlocution here is likely mine since, not only am I asserting a stance and outlook that is not aligned with the typical, all too often expected engagement with Christianity, there is so much that has gone into the accumulation of my own outlook, and being that I'm sometimes at a loss to structure my syntax in such a way that I am discernibly clear about it all, it may appear to others that I'm somehow offering a theodicy when in fact, I'm doing anything but that, let alone reflecting anything Leibniz averred for.

The unfortunate thing, too, is that the nature of public forums isn't conducive to a very long, elaborate, detailed dive into the deeper aspects of the issues at hand, and being that I do begin from an Existentialist, Academically, Secularly laden ground, I have a very different outlook and appraisal of the way in which Christianity can be approached. I in no way offer what should be seen at "the praxis" of approach to Christianity. Instead, I offer an alternative mode of inquiry, one that I think in the final evaluation can become readily seen as "reasonable" if given a fair shake. It may very well not be "satisfying" to many people because it is, as I've said, partly existential in nature and will not assume overt positions (or all to easily allocated presuppositions) on the nature of evidence [or any other philosophical category] nor give those positions an easy cognitive place in which to settle in axiomatic ways.

More often than not, it's not me who is dismissive of the various philosophical issues that we all ultimately have a stake in where a God or no God is of importance, one way or another, but usually it's the other people I encounter and engage who show themselves to be dismissive because, unlike them, I actually do engage, ponder and evaluate the spectrum of viewpoints available. I rarely get that consideration in return.

Whatever the case may be though, I realize that you may very well have strong feelings for your outlook and, being compelled by it, do not wish to carry on in discussion with me, especially as doing such can all too often become tedious, disjointed and frustrating. And being that I know you're really wanting to work through the trauma of having lost a good friend, I'm not the one who is going to try to talk you down or poke at you in order to prompt you further.

With that, I wish you peace. And if by chance you do want to discuss anything further, my "beginning points" for my view are those presented on my personal CF page.

 

[Bobber]

Why did God allow death to enter the Universe and degrade life and all of His good creation? Couldn't He have prevented it?

His wisdom however says as painful as it is to him the end result of his not allowing it to play out unstopped could create bigger problems. That would be the on going accusations questioning God's fairness of not giving something a chance to see what beings could do with being independent from God. Seeing mankind chose sin the issue had to be settled. But don't go saying God ordained sin. That's totally opposite to the character and nature of the loving, gracious God.

.

There are Christians who disagree with you and claim that God is mysterious and that we cannot understand divine actions and mysteries.

Deut 29:29 says the following, " The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever,..................

On the subject we're talking about I believe Go has revealed the answers to the why of sin.

I think things related to human and animal suffering are of vital importance, but God has never revealed the reason behind this.

I doesn't even have to mean that God has a reason for it. It can just be we're facing the problems that sin has created.

However, God has never revealed His plans regarding the issue of pain and suffering.

Who said he had a plan for it? What makes you think that he did?

If God does indeed care for us, why does He allow humans to continue to suffer?

I'll answer this later.

 

[Felix.manuel]

You wanted and answer as to why bad, evil, wickedness, suffering, etc, and I told you, etc. It is up to you to be either satisfied or not satisfied with the answer.

And I thank you for taking the time and trying to respond to my post, but your answer was not satisfactory (from a skeptical point of view) in addressing the questions of the OP. But again, I thank you.

 

[Felix.manuel]

Btw where does your morality come from to say God is unjust? Are you going to judge God?

My morality is based on ethical principles that can be derived from various sources, such as reason, human experience, and understanding the consequences of actions. Many moral systems, such as humanism, value well-being, justice, and empathy, and do not necessarily depend on a divine authority. As for judging God, the issue is not about judging in the traditional sense, but about questioning and understanding. If God is presented as an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, it is logical to ask how these attributes reconcile with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This line of questioning is not a condemnation, but a search for coherence and understanding.

In regards to science, who do you think created and gave man knowledge of it?

The term "creation" is a religious term and not a scientific one. Science says that humans and all life species on our planet emerged through Darwinian processes. For the sake of argument, I say that science says we were "created" by natural processes.

 

[Felix.manuel]

may I ask what your background is in education and what your experience with philosophy may be?

@2PhiloVoid I have no academic background, but after I lost my friend, after contemplating the Epicurean trilemma, and having suffered through a deep depression that almost killed me, I became familiar with these questions about evil and suffering. I don't have much experience with philosophy; in fact, I have very little experience with philosophy. When I was in high school (the education in my country is not great), I received some very basic notions of philosophy and the basic and central thoughts of many philosophers, but I barely know the basics of philosophy.

More often than not, it's not me who is dismissive of the various philosophical issues that we all ultimately have a stake in where a God or no God is of importance, one way or another, but usually it's the other people I encounter and engage who show themselves to be dismissive because, unlike them, I actually do engage, ponder and evaluate the spectrum of viewpoints available. I rarely get that consideration in return.

Whatever the case may be though, I realize that you may very well have strong feelings for your outlook and, being compelled by it, do not wish to carry on in discussion with me, especially as doing such can all too often become tedious, disjointed and frustrating. And being that I know you're really wanting to work through the trauma of having lost a good friend, I'm not the one who is going to try to talk you down or poke at you in order to prompt you further.

I understand your frustration at feeling that your reflective and thoughtful approach is not always reciprocated in discussions. It is challenging when others do not recognize the effort and depth of thought you bring to the dialogue.

While it can be disheartening to encounter resistance or lack of consideration from others, it is important to remember that constructive dialogue involves a mutual exchange of ideas and perspectives. We cannot always control how others respond, but we can continue to offer our contributions in a respectful and informed manner. It is true that some discussions can become tedious or frustrating, especially when there are deep differences of opinion. However, even in these situations, maintaining an open and receptive attitude can help foster an environment of mutual respect and understanding.

Regarding your comment about my desire to overcome a personal trauma, I appreciate your consideration and thank you once again for your kind words. While it is true that we all bring our experiences and emotions to discussions, I believe we can separate these personal aspects from intellectual debate. I remain committed to constructive dialogue and hope that we can continue exchanging ideas in a respectful manner.

 

[Bobber]

If God does indeed care for us, why does He allow humans to continue to suffer?

I don't know absolutely everything but we do know some basic principles. The Bible reveals to us that when Adam and Eve sin Satan became the god of this world. You'll notice with all the healing Jesus did we read in Acts 10:38 how God anointed and empowered Jesus who went about doing good healing all which were oppressed of the devil.

You also see many afflictions he'd cast our spirits of infirmities. Modern man laughs at this. I don't. I take it seriously. God has created covenants for men to believe and through FAITH in his words healing is released. See how many times Jesus said, According to your faith, so be it unto you....that is according to your faith in God's word in what he says he'll do. Much more can be said that this post wouldn't give time to allow.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Felix.manuel

I think you think you are much more better, or are more righteous than God, and that you, and those who think like you, should be God, and that "that" is what's really going on or is happening here, etc.

That being said, without the negative, you cannot know/feel/experience the positive, and all feelings/experiences become neutral, with no good or else bad (or feeling or emotion) to them at all, etc.

Much has been written about this, and I suspect you know some of it, etc. There can be no love without hate, pleasure without pain, joy without sorrow or suffering, and the list goes on, and on, and on, etc, and also like I said, I suspect you already know some of it, etc.

I'm very, very sorry about your friend, but don't try to lie to us and say that hasn't made you at all biased in this that we are right now talking about, or are right now discussing right now, etc.

No one could have made/done it any better (life, existence, etc) and no human beings soul is more righteous than God's, etc.

Your "humanism" will never trump God.

And your "humanism" is also way, way disproven in bad times, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

My morality is based on ethical principles that can be derived from various sources, such as reason, human experience, and understanding the consequences of actions. Many moral systems, such as humanism, value well-being, justice, and empathy, and do not necessarily depend on a divine authority. As for judging God, the issue is not about judging in the traditional sense, but about questioning and understanding. If God is presented as an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, it is logical to ask how these attributes reconcile with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. This line of questioning is not a condemnation, but a search for coherence and understanding.

You do realize don't you, that humanity has only gotten to where it is just now recently at, with ethics and morality and "whatever" (humanism, etc) only due to how it has suffered so greatly in the past, don't you? But that will ultimately go away, or be destroyed, or be reset way, way back in the very, very hard, and very difficult times that are ahead, or that are about to come upon the world, don't you? So that we will be able to ultimately see with our own eyes that we were all wrong, and that we were never more righteous than God, don't you?

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

We don't like being accused of evil, which is why we like to come up with things like humanism, and say that morality is relative, etc, but what we are actually saying is that we don't like actually saying that we are ever guilty of any kind of evil, or wrongdoing, etc, when we're guilty as "you-know-what", etc, but we don't like saying that of ourselves, or anybody else, etc, but most especially ourselves first, etc, we really, really don't like that, etc, which is part of why Christianity and any kind of belief in the true God is rejected by some, etc, rejected by those of us who want to think; most especially our own selves first, as being more righteous than God, etc.

The truth is that the true God has a standard, and that standard is an absolute, and it does condemn us all as no one can live up to it perfectly, but it is also the very beginning of the Christian gospel message that ends with Jesus being crucified, but also his being resurrected, and ascending afterwards, etc, which is proof of forgiveness, etc, but I don't expect you to know anything about that, etc, after all, the gospel is foolishness to the rest of the world, so I don't expect those who are belonging to the world to be able to comprehend it, or believe in it, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Fervent]

If God is unable to prevent evil, then He is not all-powerful.

If God is not willing to prevent evil, then He is not all-good.

If God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

The problem with this trilemma is it presumes that there isn't a necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of evil moving us towards an end. We observe the suffering, and some of it certainly seems to be without purpose, but that may only be because we are limited in our understanding of what is in play. If we only witnessed a man with a sharp object slicing open a man and removing one of his organs, we might think he was evil.

There's also the difficulty of the fact that we could not exist without evil, at least not in a way that we would be appreciably human. We learn things like empathy and consideration of others through suffering, and we connect to each other in the act of mutual care involved in providing comfort for suffering.

For these reasons, the second premise is questionable. An all-good God is entirely consistent with the existence of evil if that evil serves a sufficiently good end that could be accomplished in no other way and the minimum evil necessary was allowed. Now, this answer is difficult to swallow especially in the face of suffering that we cannot even begin to imagine what purpose it could serve.

It is only when we get to the cross that we truly get the Christian answer to the problem of suffering, because we don't have a God who is unacquainted with that aspect of the human experience but came and took the full brunt of it. And rather than being conquered by what is possibly the greatest suffering that a person could possibly go through, took that suffering and used it to begin the work of restoring creation to its intended end in His resurrection. God doesn't sit idly by watching the world suffer, but actually took action to defeat suffering through His death and resurrection. But it's a process rather than an immediate effect. So with Christ we have reason to question the first premise, because God taking meaningful action regarding the evil in the world doesn't necessarily involve preventing it. Instead of fighting evil with evil, Christ endured the suffering that entered into creation from the existence of beings with authentic agency of their own such that they could do things that are not within God's will for them which can only result in evil in order to overcome evil with good.

So from our reason alone, we have reason to question the second premise since an all-good God may very well allow for evil if it is the only means of accomplishing a given end and the damage done by such evil is not beyond repair. And from the gospel story we have reason to question the 1st premise, because God did act to overcome evil just not in a way that involves completely violating the autonomy of His creatures which itself would be an act of evil.

 

[Neogaia777]

And if you think you can come on here and prove yourself more righteous than God, by coming on here and proving that you are much more moral/right/just/righteous than a lot of these christians, then you've got another thing coming, because God is not at all like his people, but his people all understand that they are all evil, unworthy, definitely not righteous, "sinners" all saved by the same God's grace as the other, etc. And we all understand that, many times on purpose, God only chooses the worst of us all, etc.

So, yeah, you might be able to come on here and prove yourself more righteous than a lot of these christians, etc, but that doesn't make you more better/righteous than God.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

And as @Fervent just pointed out, another issue is that you can't solve/resolve the free will/free moral agency problem/issue without having evil for a time, etc. I don't think even a/the most absolute highest and most powerful God can do that, etc. But where that highest most powerful God would be good, or all-good, etc, is at/in keeping that evil at the most absolute minimum but still in order to, for one, completely eliminate the problem of evil once and for all completely in or by the end, but then nextly, also giving all of the people/beings He made, all complete and total free moral agency in or by the end, etc. But that also would not ever freely choose evil ever again, etc.

Or maybe like I told you before @Felix.manuel, making or having beings exactly like Him in or by the end.

God Bless.

 

[trophy33]

And as @Fervent just pointed out, another issue is that you can't solve/resolve the free will/free moral agency problem/issue without having evil for a time, etc. I don't think even a/the most absolute highest and most powerful God can do that, etc. But where that highest most powerful God would be good, or all-good, etc, is at/in keeping that evil at the most absolute minimum but still in order to, for one, completely eliminate the problem of evil once and for all completely in or by the end, but then nextly, also giving all of the people/beings He made, all complete and total free moral agency in or by the end, etc. But that also would not ever freely choose evil ever again, etc.

Or maybe like I told you before @Felix.manuel, making or having beings exactly like Him in or by the end.

God Bless.

We are not "totally free", we have inclinations and limitations and always will have.

Whether evil will be eliminated depends on our definition of evil. If we define some kind of evil as just being limited in our knowledge (and therefore making sub-optimal choices), then it will never be eliminated.

Evil can be defined as physical (pain, diseases, injuries...), moral (sin) and metaphysical (limitations).

 

[Neogaia777]

We are not "totally free", we have inclinations and limitations and always will have.

Whether evil will be eliminated depends on our definition of evil. If we define some kind of evil as just being limited in our knowledge (and therefore making sub-optimal choices), then it will never be eliminated.

Evil can be defined as physical (suffering), moral (sin) and metaphysical (limitations).

I don't know that we ever were necessarily ever been completely or even partially free at all yet, etc, but I do think that is where God is heading with us someday, etc.

Until then we have to deal with some "discomfort" in the meantime, but I don't think that "discomfort" will necessarily last, absolutely forever, etc.

I think it's a small price to pay for what we will eventually get out of it or for it in the end.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

We are not "totally free", we have inclinations and limitations and always will have.

Whether evil will be eliminated depends on our definition of evil. If we define some kind of evil as just being limited in our knowledge (and therefore making sub-optimal choices), then it will never be eliminated.

Evil can be defined as physical (pain, diseases, injuries...), moral (sin) and metaphysical (limitations).

If you are one of those who believes in a very, very high God, then we also believe He can clear up all of these problems for us someday, etc, and put us in a new reality where these things will be very, very easy, etc. Where we all have the same definitions, knowledge, those kinds of things, etc. And where physical suffering has come to an end, etc. And where our inclination issues have been now set or made right now also, etc.

But going through some evil first might have been a necessary part of being able to change some of it then, or at that time, etc.

God Bless.

 

[trophy33]

If you are one of those who believes in a very, very high God, then we also believe He can clear up all of these problems for us someday, etc, and put us in a new reality where these things will be very, very easy, etc.

God Bless.

Metaphysically, you will still have limited creatures in unlimited God. Therefore, the creation will still be fallible - unless you would make any living creature to be God, which is not a Christian view.

 

[Neogaia777]

Metaphysically, you will still have limited creatures in unlimited God. Therefore, the creation will still be fallible - unless you would make any living creature to be God, which is not a Christian view.

God will always have to provide our reality or environment until or unless it is one day His will for those beings to one day be raised to the same exact level as Him, etc.

Which might be His will one day, but, yeah, we are getting into matters now of man or created beings who will still be in some ways limited, becoming completely unlimited, or quite literally not just "like", but quite literally the highest God one day, etc. Which is way, way above my current level of knowledge, and way, way above/beyond my pay grade, etc, and anyone's pay grade, etc.

God Bless.

 

[trophy33]

God will always have to provide our reality or environment...

Yes, our whole reality and existence is in Him:

For in Him we live and move and are.
Acts 17:28

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

My morality is based on ethical principles that can be derived from various sources, such as reason, human experience, and understanding the consequences of actions. Many moral systems, such as humanism, value well-being, justice, and empathy, and do not necessarily depend on a divine authority

Let's look at objective morality. When you are old enough to know what murder is, you know that murder is wrong. Our minds are structured in such a way that we know murder is wrong. Sure, one can be taught out of it by bad education, propaganda etc, but murder is wrong. If there is no God, then why is murder wrong, then it's just your opinion. If your morality is not based on the source, God, then your morality is just your opinion. Then what stops a Nazi killing you because it will make his life better. So without God there is no purpose, there is no good or bad, things just happen. So then do not base your morality on the world, who thinks that murdering of unborn children is ok, who says that homosexuality is love, that it is ok for adults and children to 'change' genders, the world no longer knows good from right...but base your morality on God who is good and who knows good from evil and follow Him.

If God is presented as an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being

He is. And because He is, He knows things that we do not know. He knows everything, He knows the future because He is outside of time. And because He is all these things and we are not, why don't we jus leave things to God, because He knows better than us. If you have an hour to spare, and if you want, I am going to post a video below, watch it at your convenience.

Look I understand you don't want evil to be there. I can see you want justice in this world, no evil, no pain, no suffering, and God wants that too. One day He will make an end to all evil, but He is suffering patiently, because if He had ended it already, many would go to hell and He desires all to come to Him and be saved.

Then the question begs why He allowed us to sin. Because He did not create robots, but human beings capable
of their own choices, or would you prefer if God forced us to do His will and we had no choice.

The term "creation" is a religious term and not a scientific one. Science says that humans and all life species on our planet emerged through Darwinian processes. For the sake of argument, I say that science says we were "created" by natural processes.

Scientists are wrong all the times. So the life is just coincidence, no one designed it, it just came to be, and nothing really matters...yeah right. If you really believe that and that life is just a coincidence, why do you care about good and evil, pain and suffering, it is all subjective anyway, maybe you are just imagining it.

Mentioned video

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid I have no academic background, but after I lost my friend, after contemplating the Epicurean trilemma, and having suffered through a deep depression that almost killed me, I became familiar with these questions about evil and suffering. I don't have much experience with philosophy; in fact, I have very little experience with philosophy. When I was in high school (the education in my country is not great), I received some very basic notions of philosophy and the basic and central thoughts of many philosophers, but I barely know the basics of philosophy.


I understand your frustration at feeling that your reflective and thoughtful approach is not always reciprocated in discussions. It is challenging when others do not recognize the effort and depth of thought you bring to the dialogue.

While it can be disheartening to encounter resistance or lack of consideration from others, it is important to remember that constructive dialogue involves a mutual exchange of ideas and perspectives. We cannot always control how others respond, but we can continue to offer our contributions in a respectful and informed manner. It is true that some discussions can become tedious or frustrating, especially when there are deep differences of opinion. However, even in these situations, maintaining an open and receptive attitude can help foster an environment of mutual respect and understanding.

Regarding your comment about my desire to overcome a personal trauma, I appreciate your consideration and thank you once again for your kind words. While it is true that we all bring our experiences and emotions to discussions, I believe we can separate these personal aspects from intellectual debate. I remain committed to constructive dialogue and hope that we can continue exchanging ideas in a respectful manner.

Be blessed as you move forward!