British comedian on TV show offers his question for God ... after death

Inkfingers said:

Actually, yes it is the same. You cannot have pleasure existing without pain also existing. You can only know A in comparison to not-A.

Furthermore, this being what an orderly universe looks like, and as it contains suffering, it follows that all suffering that occurs had to occur (because there is no true whim in order).

Suffering HAS to exist.

Click to expand...

I still don't see how the conclusion follows, and if it did...how Heaven can exist.

You note that this is an orderly universe, and it has suffering...therefore, an orderly universe HAS to include suffering.

But you're basing that on the only universe you've ever seen, then concluding that it would be true for any universe. It's like me taking a look at a red apple (having never seen a green one) and concluding that in order for something to be an apple, it must be red. Because, look at the red apple!

Suffering would not exist without beings to experience it. God could also have created a universe without life.

God could have created nothing at all, and suffering would not exist. So he willfully created a world of suffering. He's not the one who suffers, but the results of His creation DO.

They had no choice in the matter.

Inkfingers said:

Because it would be better than not doing so at all. Do you really believe that the presence of great suffering invalidates the universe as a whole?

Click to expand...

It's certainly an open question. To someone who is witnessing the suffering of another, they might, in a detached manner...say that life is still worth it. But if we ask the person who is suffering, they might say that life is not.

This is why I brought up the notion of eternal suffering as well. Then, I can honestly say, 'No, it isn't worth it'.

Inkfingers said:

Given the arguments for either annihilationism or universal reconciliation, such concepts as eternal torment are not necessarily accurate. But that is a different thread in its own right (and you will probably find quite a few on this subject).

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is for another thread, but the majority of Christians believe in it, so I brought it up. And if you can't have something without having its opposite, then by that logic...an eternal Heaven cannot exist without an eternal Hell, right?


Btodd

Belk said:

Pretty useless. Did God create Satan and is God omniscient? The still leaves God responsible. You cannot have a an all powerful all knowing deity and then try to absolve him of responsibility for how things exist.

Click to expand...

I suppose one could argue that the ultimate fate that is offered to humans (Heaven) makes up for any and all suffering, and that the free will that brings about suffering is, in fact, necessary in order to fully experience paradise. There are ways to make it make sense, in my opinion, but it requires a lot of experimenter's bias.

Fry is a national treasure- he certainly makes me proud to be British. Yet, in this case, I cannot help but completely disagree with him. If he did come before God, I really doubt he would muster the courage to speak in such a manner to Him.

God sees everything and knows everything and he is the ONLY one that sees, knows, hears and understands the plan for his creation and we DON'T and we never will understand because we are not GOD. For instance take my testimony at 9mins 15sec in

youtube . com / watch?v=T3HuGT6t6fc&t=9m15s

I said "It's been 30 years of heartache in the past" (I suffered so much my sister said if people went through what you went through, they wouldn't last 5 mins and take their own life!)

I contiuned to say: "God now I know why you brought me through all those terrible things/events in the past, and that was to lead me to this point" (This point of being saved by accepting you and your son as my saviour of my own soul)

"... and I would do it again and again and again for you because I know at the end of the day you love me, you saved me and it was worth it all!"

God controls everything and will do everything but his plan is not for us to fully understand. Even now I still do not know God's full plan and why things happen the way they do. Remember Balian and King Baldwin IV discussion from the movie Kingdom of Heaven? "Your soul in your keeping alone.. When you stand before God you cannot say I was told by others to do thus"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCC8tjrXYE8

The devil has a lot to do with EVIL in this world but men are responsible to turn from him and what NOT to do which is wrong in God's eyes but so many forget God and God lifts his protection after so many warnings and messages, visions, dreams, to his people to warn them to stop, change and turn back but many ignore him. SO when Evil grows they blame GOD for not doing anything?!

Cearbhall said:

It's a fairly basic logical fallacy left over from a past era that society, unfortunately, cannot seem to get over. If it's a sin for me to not help an old man after hitting him with my car, then an all-powerful being cannot be blameless for making the same decision.

Click to expand...

The world is sin and misery because people make it that way. God could have a world with less suffering, but then he would also have a world full of puppets. If the world has free will, and they chose not to have a peaceful world, God has only two options, let them see the error of their ways or kill everything and have nothing to suffer in the world.

Btodd said:

Suffering is part of the universe, because God created just such a universe.

This IS a limit on God's power (or else a limit on his benevolence). The universe did not exist until He created it (according to the Bible), therefore a non-existing universe cannot put limitations on God. Fry's point is, 'Why create such a scenario, then?'.

And that's a very fair question, given God's supposed attributes. Keep in mind, the interviewer is the one who put the question in such a context. Fry doesn't believe this God exists at all; he's pointing out the absurdity and callousness of the scenario the interviewer wants him to accept.


Btodd

Click to expand...

Much like the Primary objective in Star trek, if you accept free will, then God must allow what humans reap to be sown.

I believe much like the anti's on the first book of the bible. If God is all knowing and powerful, if Adam and Eve were perfectly innocent having lived only in Eden, (Was Eve even told by God not to eat from the living tree? Or did Adam tell her?) Satan is the ultimate salesman, con artist, liar, how can Adam and Eve be at fault for listening to Satan? God let Satan in, God did not educate them on lying or mistrust, Adam and Eve were easy marks for Satan, thus the ultimate failure is Gods.
Also, where is the wisdom at throwing the pig out in the muddy yard, telling it, it can only come back in, if it remains clean? The pig will play in the mud by its very nature. (as humans will sin)
I plan on asking God where my mistake in thinking is in this verse, I do not plan on being rude or attacking God for this. I have a relationship with Jesus, I am a student of Christ, not one to mock him.

Btodd said:

You note that this is an orderly universe, and it has suffering...therefore, an orderly universe HAS to include suffering.

But you're basing that on the only universe you've ever seen, then concluding that it would be true for any universe. It's like me taking a look at a red apple (having never seen a green one) and concluding that in order for something to be an apple, it must be red. Because, look at the red apple!

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm not communicating it clearly.

Suffering has to exist because without it there is no happiness. You cannot know X without comparing it to not-X. So suffering is the price of happiness.

Suffering is also what all sentient beings do, because they by definition have desires that are sometimes thwarted. Suffering is the feedback in a sentient mind that records that.

Finally, suffering has to exist in an orderly universe because this is an orderly universe and there is suffering here. If it were not necessary, an orderly universe would not have generated it.

Taken together it is fair to judge from this that God had no choice but to make a universe in which suffering occurs. Not because God's power is limited in any real sense but simply because this is what a real universe looks like. We can imagine a universe without suffering but it will always remain precisely that - an imaginary thing, not a real thing.

All the evidence that we have (the universe) says suffering is part of reality.

If you wish to present evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so.

God could also have created a universe without life.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Obviously, you can't. You can imagine it, but you cannot prove it. So we have to work on what is here.

God could have created nothing at all, and suffering would not exist. So he willfully created a world of suffering. He's not the one who suffers, but the results of His creation DO.

Click to expand...

Again, prove that God had the option of not creating anything.

Don't fall back on nonsense about the lack of option is a limitation of God's power, because it isn't (anymore than the fact he cannot make 1+1 equal 4 is a limitation on his power). The simple fact is that REAL means a universe, and so a God who did not create a universe would not be God at all (because it would mean something foundational to realness itself would not come to pass).

It's certainly an open question. To someone who is witnessing the suffering of another, they might, in a detached manner...say that life is still worth it. But if we ask the person who is suffering, they might say that life is not.

Click to expand...

Does the universe hang on anyone's opinion?

if you can't have something without having its opposite, then by that logic...an eternal Heaven cannot exist without an eternal Hell, right?

Click to expand...

No.

Heaven IS eternity.

Hell is the absence of eternity (suffering is desire, and desire is temporal not eternal).

Oh Brother...

People on both "sides" trying to argue that the story of God should make sense.

Give me one good reason why any of these ultimate questions MUST make sense.

durangodawood said:

Oh Brother...

People on both "sides" trying to argue that the story of God should make sense.

Give me one good reason why any of these ultimate questions MUST make sense.

Click to expand...

It must only make sense in order for me to believe it.


Btodd

Inkfingers said:

Perhaps I'm not communicating it clearly.

Suffering has to exist because without it there is no happiness. You cannot know X without comparing it to not-X. So suffering is the price of happiness.

Suffering is also what all sentient beings do, because they by definition have desires that are sometimes thwarted. Suffering is the feedback in a sentient mind that records that.

Click to expand...

Then why doesn't this apply in Heaven? Are souls in Heaven 'happy' or not? Do they suffer so they can also be happy?

Inkfingers said:

Finally, suffering has to exist in an orderly universe because this is an orderly universe and there is suffering here. If it were not necessary, an orderly universe would not have generated it.

Click to expand...

That first sentence is a classic example of Begging the Question. The conclusion simply re-states the premise.

"Grass has to be green because this is grass, and it is green."

Inkfingers said:

Taken together it is fair to judge from this that God had no choice but to make a universe in which suffering occurs. Not because God's power is limited in any real sense but simply because this is what a real universe looks like. We can imagine a universe without suffering but it will always remain precisely that - an imaginary thing, not a real thing.

All the evidence that we have (the universe) says suffering is part of reality.

If you wish to present evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so.

Click to expand...

All you are doing is simply re-stating the conclusion over and over. You don't make any argument as to why it HAS to be that way, you just note that it IS that way. I agree with you on that point, this universe involves suffering.

All I have to do is note that it's logically possible to have a universe without suffering. And that's easy; a universe without life (or sentient life, if you wish), for starters. There is nothing that dictates a universe MUST have life. You can claim that it must, but if you do, it is your duty to prove it, not ask me to prove a negative.

Inkfingers said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

I have to prove that an all-powerful God could not have created a universe just like this one, minus life? You think it's logically impossible for the universe to be full of stars, planets, all of the matter that we see...and no life?

I don't have to prove that at all. You have to show that it's logically impossible, or self-contradictory. Otherwise, an all-powerful God can do that...or else He's not all-powerful. This is nothing like the 'stone so heavy' example, which you and I would agree is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless.

Inkfingers said:

Obviously, you can't. You can imagine it, but you cannot prove it. So we have to work on what is here.

Again, prove that God had the option of not creating anything.

Click to expand...

Again, is He all-powerful or not? Are you saying He had no choice in the creation of the Universe? What bound him to do it?

Inkfingers said:

Don't fall back on nonsense about the lack of option is a limitation of God's power, because it isn't (anymore than the fact he cannot make 1+1 equal 4 is a limitation on his power). The simple fact is that REAL means a universe, and so a God who did not create a universe would not be God at all (because it would mean something foundational to realness itself would not come to pass).

Click to expand...

So He wasn't God until He created the universe?

Inkfingers said:

Heaven IS eternity.

Hell is the absence of eternity (suffering is desire, and desire is temporal not eternal).

Click to expand...

I'll leave you to discuss that with your fellow Christians. You're in the vast minority here, if you believe that Hell is not eternal.


Btodd

I'd answer the question differently. I'm a Calvinist atheist. If there is a God, who is totally sovereign, then it's already been decided who believes and who doesn't. If I die an atheist, it's because that was part of God's grand plan for the universe. And if I'm going to be judged, it should be on how I've lived my life and how I've treated others. In which case I'm no worse off, or better than a lot of believers I know.

I believe when it comes to what is happening on this planet we are judged as if the whole planet were one tribe depending on each other for survival. As long as there are people rich and hoarding food and clothing and things of luxury, there will be people who are without food and clothes and basic necessities.

God is Love. If you die with love in your heart, you will die with God and you will be with God. If you show someone love, you show someone God. When we finally let go of greed and all embrace love, we will have brought God to Earth and the whole world will be with God.

Animals can not give love. They can give affection and what feels like love but they have an animal brain and don't comprehend love. We also are born animals or a part of the animal kingdom. We have been given a soul so we can comprehend love. The more we give and receive love the more we transcend our animal nature and the closer we move toward God as an individual first, then as a species. The reason there is still suffering is because some have transcended there animal nature as individuals but we haven.t done it as a species. When our species becomes one with God through love then his work will be done. His animal children will have transcended their animal state on their own and become like him (without the all mighty thing)

Btodd said:

Then why doesn't this apply in Heaven? Are souls in Heaven 'happy' or not? Do they suffer so they can also be happy?

Click to expand...

Heaven isn't a place. Places are physical things, but heaven is spirit.

That first sentence is a classic example of Begging the Question. The conclusion simply re-states the premise.

Click to expand...

Not so.

I am simply drawing the conclusion that as suffering is here, and that this universe is what "real" means in practice, it follows that suffering is an unavoidable part of the universe.

All you are doing is simply re-stating the conclusion over and over. You don't make any argument as to why it HAS to be that way, you just note that it IS that way. I agree with you on that point, this universe involves suffering.

Click to expand...

I already told you;
* a universe has to contain suffering because without not-X you cannot know X.
* suffering is inherent to sentient beings (because it is thwarted desire)

All I have to do is note that it's logically possible to have a universe without suffering. And that's easy; a universe without life (or sentient life, if you wish), for starters. There is nothing that dictates a universe MUST have life. You can claim that it must, but if you do, it is your duty to prove it, not ask me to prove a negative.

Click to expand...

Can you prove that it is literally possible for a universe to exist that can never produce life?

I have to prove that an all-powerful God could not have created a universe just like this one, minus life? You think it's logically impossible for the universe to be full of stars, planets, all of the matter that we see...and no life?

Click to expand...

The universe has life in it.

Given that this universe is what real means in practice, we have to presume that life is inevitable.

I don't have to prove that at all. You have to show that it's logically impossible, or self-contradictory. Otherwise, an all-powerful God can do that...or else He's not all-powerful. This is nothing like the 'stone so heavy' example, which you and I would agree is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless.

Click to expand...

A universe full of evidence shows that life is part of the universe.

If you wish to posit a lifeless universe, offer evidence of such existing.

Again, is He all-powerful or not? Are you saying He had no choice in the creation of the Universe? What bound him to do it?

Click to expand...

Nothing bound him to it. It is simple a matter of real actually means in practice.

So He wasn't God until He created the universe?

Click to expand...

He would not be God if he never created the universe.

I'll leave you to discuss that with your fellow Christians. You're in the vast minority here, if you believe that Hell is not eternal.

Click to expand...

Truth is not a democracy...

does it make sense for a baby to try to tell its parents what is right and wrong?

does it make sense for people to try to tell God what is right and wrong?

can a deaf person teach advanced ear training at Berklee?

Everyone's been there-believed God either didn't exist or was evil, or irrelevant.

Where you're from matters less than where you're going.

Btodd said:

It must only make sense in order for me to believe it.


Btodd

Click to expand...

Why MUST true/real things make sense?

NightHawkeye said:

God is truth in all things?

Click to expand...

I guess I should ask you too: Why MUST true/real things make sense?

durangodawood said:

Why MUST true/real things make sense?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they must make sense in order to be true or real (there may be things we cannot comprehend, obviously). But in order for me to believe something, it must make sense to me.

If not logical coherence, then what is the standard? Flip a coin?


Btodd

Billnew said:

The world is sin and misery because people make it that way. God could have a world with less suffering, but then he would also have a world full of puppets. If the world has free will, and they chose not to have a peaceful world, God has only two options, let them see the error of their ways or kill everything and have nothing to suffer in the world.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the thought process, yes. I just don't agree that there's any reason to think this is so. It seems very much like taking an ancient belief and then working backwards to create a mythology that meets the criteria of modern logic.