Theodicy argument failure?

[AskTheFamily]

Suffering exists to put human virtue. Their is to be benefit in the suffering that it put's potential towards special nobleness.

If someone tortured somebody wanting that person to learn patience/virtue/nobility - would anyone say what he was doing was moral?

If somebody could stop a person being tortured by simpling saying something - like ordering the people to stop torturing - but he thought it's good for that person, he learns virtue and patience and others will feel compassion for him...would anyone say that person is moral? Or is he doing something without no moral basis?

Why is God made a special pleading? Everyone else shouldn't do what God does - should want their to be no sufferring, not say it's "good for them, and their is benefits in that it creates virtue"?

Here is the question, should we want a world without sufferring or a world with suffering? What is more virtuous for us to want. If it's more virtuous for us to want that, why isn't more virtuous for God to want that?

 

[Rationalt]

Suffering exists to put human virtue. Their is to be benefit in the suffering that it put's potential towards special nobleness.

...

I see a major flaw in the beginning of your argument.I know people who led nearly trouble free life and yet act nobly.And i also know people who had severe troubles in life turn in to semi-criminals later in their life.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I see a major flaw in the beginning of your argument.I know people who led nearly trouble free life and yet act nobly.And i also know people who had severe troubles in life turn in to semi-criminals later in their life.

It's not my argument - it's theodicy arguments - that sufferring creates nobleness - the fact that we don't need to suffer to be noble is also a problem with the argument.

I was mentioning the argument in beginning and then criticizing it - although I should have been clear "theodicy asserts"...

 

[dlamberth]

I don't see a black and white answer...

It's not my argument - it's theodicy arguments - that sufferring creates nobleness -

For some, suffering is their path.

the fact that we don't need to suffer to be noble is also a problem with the argument.

...and for others it's not.

Is there a middle way?

.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I don't see a black and white answer...

The problem of evil is the best argument against God. And almost gives a morality to atheism.

People been trying to give answers, it creating nobleness is true, but it also creates hardening of hearts and evil, when people don't care enough...so it really is about bringing a shinning few -

There is also issue that people are not given equal potential at soul making - some people can't think about philosophy etc, they barely get bye, or are hungry + will never enjoy arts or literature or philosophy or get to read books of religion...

and it's not simply some evil exists, their is a lot of unneccessary things for human development like diseases, like cancer, like aids....

And so many children have died and didn't get opportunity to develop their soul - so what about them, it's sacrifice of their potential for how other humans react towards that?

Mental illness, what's the purpose of multiple personality disorder, what does it achieve? Another sacrifice of a person for sake of bringing nobility in others?

And what's the nobility that comes of others really?

 

[Montalban]

So the queen must really suffer

 

[elopez]

Suffering exists to put human virtue. Their is to be benefit in the suffering that it put's potential towards special nobleness.

I don't think there is one sole reason why suffering does exist. I wouldn't necessarily say suffering and pain exist to better our human nature but suffering does indeed do just that in some instances. It's not as if suffering exists just to aid our humanity for indeed in other instances it does the exact opposite.

If someone tortured somebody wanting that person to learn patience/virtue/nobility - would anyone say what he was doing was moral?

The torturer? No, that would not be moral in any way.

If somebody could stop a person being tortured by simpling saying something - like ordering the people to stop torturing - but he thought it's good for that person, he learns virtue and patience and others will feel compassion for him...would anyone say that person is moral? Or is he doing something without no moral basis?

I don't think it would matter much if the person acquired nobility or not, but even then it seems as if he wouldn't. The torturer is immoral for doing that. There is no moral basis.

Why is God made a special pleading? Everyone else shouldn't do what God does - should want their to be no sufferring, not say it's "good for them, and their is benefits in that it creates virtue"?

The relevant exception is that God is the moral basis. Whatever He does is necessarily good. I am not sure there is basis to tell that God says suffering exists for our benefit. I'm just not seeing it, even if we do benefit from it.

Here is the question, should we want a world without suffering or a world with suffering? What is more virtuous for us to want. If it's more virtuous for us to want that, why isn't more virtuous for God to want that?

I'm not going to lie I would prefer a world without suffering but it's not really about what I want. It's about what I can do to make there as little suffering as possible, now matter how small the extent may be. Now, if God is bigger and better then me, and He is, then that small extent I would have to prevent suffering is noting compared to the huge extent God has.

 

[Arthra]

"The problem of evil is the best argument against God. And almost gives a morality to atheism."

Well "evil"exists in my view because we have choices. We can choose to reject God and His Messengers.

Also the misfortunes of life can be responded to by us or we can choose to ignore them thus compounding our own complicity in "evil".

A God that would deny us free choice is not God but a mere mechanic or puppet master.

Aside from these things, if these people shun and reject such a divine Soul, such holy Breath, to whom, We wonder, could they cling, to whose face besides His Face could they turn? Yea -- "All have a quarter of the Heavens to which they turn."[1] We have shown thee these two ways; walk thou the way thou choosest. This verily is the truth, and after truth there remaineth naught but error.

[1 Qur'án 2:148.]

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 221)



By My Lord, were I given the choice between the glory and opulence, the wealth and dignity, the ease and luxury wherein they are, and the distress and affliction wherein I am, I would certainly choose that wherein I am today, and I would not now exchange one atom of these afflictions for all that hath been created in the kingdom of production!

(Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 81)

Each man has been placed in a post of honour, which he must not desert. A humble workman who commits an injustice is as much to blame as a renowned tyrant. Thus we all have our choice between justice and injustice.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 159)

And thy Lord createth what he will and hath a free choice. But they,
the false gods, have no power to choose. Glory be to God! and high let him be
exalted above those whom they associate with him.

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 28 - The Story)

30. Some He hath guided: others have (by their choice) deserved the loss of their way: in that they took the evil ones, in preference to Allah, for their friends and protectors, and think that they receive guidance.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 7)

 

[Montalban]

The problem of evil is the best argument against God. And almost gives a morality to atheism.

Evil is the rejection of God

 

[AskTheFamily]

Well "evil"exists in my view because we have choices.

The problem of evil refers sufferring not that moral evil exists. For example diseases epidemics, starvation etc...it includes everything bad that happens.

A God that would deny us free choice is not God but a mere mechanic or puppet master.

We can have free-choice in world without suferring. It's not an impossible thing. Our choices just wouldn't necessarily be about alleviating suffering.

The issue is the problem of evil also applies to the extent of sufferring exits. There is a lot in design that could have allowed for some sufferring (sufferring afflicted by humans for example) but not all sufferring (sufferring by diseases, bacteria, etc)

There is a lot of bad in the world that is not necessary for soul development. Why does AIDS have to exist? Would the world be a better place with or without aids?

Therefore even if a world with some sufferring is needed - how can you justify the extent of sufferring this world has - this much sufferring is better for soul development then less sufferring?

If we didn't have diseases but their still was poverty, oppression, what would be lost in human potential development?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Evil is the rejection of God

Most Atheists don't reject God but some do, based on problem of evil...this comes from their notion that Ultimately Good being would not a want a world with this extent of sufferring to exist, and would create a world with no sufferring or less sufferring. It's in fact very intuitive - because we think their can be a better more perfect world. Theodicy arguments argues this is the best possible world - in other words a world with aids and diseases is better world then without. It gives almost a moral basis to their Atheism.

Evil can't be defined to be simply rejection of God even if rejection of God was an evil thing.

I don't think disbelieving in God on the basis of problem of evil, is an evil thing. I think it's quite natural. And many Theists feel lost and confused about the issue and don't have good explanations themselves.

 

[Arthra]

The problem of evil refers sufferring not that moral evil exists. For example diseases epidemics, starvation etc...it includes everything bad that happens.

My reply:

With knowledge comes responsibility and therefore choice to act.. With knowledge of disease Pasteur developed Pasteurization. With knowledge of starvation comes responsibility so the rest of the world can choose to respond and deliver supplies.. Bad things happen. If we know about it we have responsibility to respond... If we don't do anything about it evil exists and we're complicit.

We can have free-choice in world without suferring. It's not an impossible thing. Our choices just wouldn't necessarily be about alleviating suffering.

My reply:
A world without suffering is a goal...It can be achieved in some measure by striving and taking responsibility..which is good or it can be ignored which is evil.

The issue is the problem of evil also applies to the extent of sufferring exits. There is a lot in design that could have allowed for some sufferring (sufferring afflicted by humans for example) but not all sufferring (sufferring by diseases, bacteria, etc)

My reply:

See my response above. Some suffering .. it seems is part of our existence and if it were not so we would not seek to alleviate it. If a patient feels no pain at all that's not a good sign.. it could be his nerve endings are dead.

There is a lot of bad in the world that is not necessary for soul development. Why does AIDS have to exist? Would the world be a better place with or without aids?

My reply:

Since we know about AIDS we can find ways to avoid it .. When AIDS was unknown people received blood transfusions with the virus and died.. So with knowledge comes responsibility and choice to alleviate suffering.

Therefore even if a world with some sufferring is needed - how can you justify the extent of sufferring this world has - this much sufferring is better for soul development then less sufferring?

My reply:

Again suffering can occur due to our own actions and much suffering can be avoided.. We can know more about suffering and reduce it or we can ignore it and allow more suffering to exist.. It comes down to choice and our response to reduce it.

If we didn't have diseases but their still was poverty, oppression, what would be lost in human potential development?

My reply:

We do have wide extremes of wealth and poverty and there are ways to reduce the extremes through fair taxation of the extremely wealthy and better management of resources. Oppression once identified can be eliminated ..through courts of law and if need be by the use of force under law. If we know about the loss of human potential we can provide education and opportunity to the extent possible. But it all hinges on choice and willingness to take action and this has been provided us in this existence.

If we had no choice or responsibility there would be no good or evil.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Suffering exists to put human virtue. Their is to be benefit in the suffering that it put's potential towards special nobleness.

There; they're; their: these three are not synonymous, and it pains me to see them constantly confused.
(I'm sorry to point that out, but it REALLY irks me.)

Here is the question, should we want a world without sufferring or a world with suffering? What is more virtuous for us to want. If it's more virtuous for us to want that, why isn't more virtuous for God to want that?

There are many ways of dodging and rationalizing this rather obvious point, the most popular being, of course: "God's ways are not our ways", or "our limited grasp cannot perceive God's wisdom".

Somebody once painted a parable of non-interfering policemen to gather all the diverse attempts at answering the theodicy dilemma. Let's see whether I can remember most of it.

A husband is called to a crime scene, where he must identify the mangled corpse of his wife. It turns out that the group of policemen assembled there has witnessed the whole crime from beginning to end, yet did nothing to prevent it from happening. Enraged, the husband confronts each and every one of the cops, asking them how they could possibly allow such a thing to happen. Here's what they answered.

Cop 1: "It was the rapist's decision, and I could not possibly interfere with his freedom to choose. Why, do you want us to be robots instead?"
Cop 2: "Well, the culprit is fully accountable for his actions. I arrested him as soon as he was done, and his punishment will put everything to rights again. Correct?"
Cop 3: "Who are you to question our procedures? Were you there when the police manual was written? What part did you play in writing the statutes?"
Cop 4: "There is a higher purpose behind it. Being raped and killed was really the best that could happen to your wife, only you can't see it. I won't explain it to you, though."
Cop 5: "Rest assured that I've watched every moment of your wife's plight, and will testify to it when it's time to determine the culprit's punishment."
Cop 6: "It's because of sin. Without it, none of this would have happened."
Cop 7: "If we hadn't allowed this evil to happen, how would you know what's good?"
Cop 8: "It's the culprit's fault, really. We didn't force him to murder your wife, so we cannot be held accountable."

 

[Montalban]

Most Atheists don't reject God but some do, based on problem of evil...this comes from their notion that Ultimately Good being would not a want a world with this extent of sufferring to exist, and would create a world with no sufferring or less sufferring. It's in fact very intuitive - because we think their can be a better more perfect world. Theodicy arguments argues this is the best possible world - in other words a world with aids and diseases is better world then without. It gives almost a moral basis to their Atheism.

Evil can't be defined to be simply rejection of God even if rejection of God was an evil thing.

I don't think disbelieving in God on the basis of problem of evil, is an evil thing. I think it's quite natural. And many Theists feel lost and confused about the issue and don't have good explanations themselves.

Nothing is good except that which is from God therefore to reject God is 'evil'

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Nothing is good except that which is from God therefore to reject God is 'evil'

You believe that the entire universe and everything within it owes its existence to your God. Therefore, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that's not from God.
Unless, of course, you want to introduce the dualist heresy of the Gnostics, and argue that there's an evil creation which does not owe its existence to the One God.

 

[Montalban]

You believe that the entire universe and everything within it owes its existence to your God. Therefore, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that's not from God.
Unless, of course, you want to introduce the dualist heresy of the Gnostics, and argue that there's an evil creation which does not owe its existence to the One God.

Why would I want to include them? They're not even very nice people. Never pay their share of the grog.

 

[AskTheFamily]

There are many ways of dodging and rationalizing this rather obvious point, the most popular being, of course: "God's ways are not our ways", or "our limited grasp cannot perceive God's wisdom".

Than why have an explanation in the first place?

A husband is called to a crime scene, where he must identify the mangled corpse of his wife. It turns out that the group of policemen assembled there has witnessed the whole crime from beginning to end, yet did nothing to prevent it from happening. Enraged, the husband confronts each and every one of the cops, asking them how they could possibly allow such a thing to happen. Here's what they answered.

Cop 1: "It was the rapist's decision, and I could not possibly interfere with his freedom to choose. Why, do you want us to be robots instead?"
Cop 2: "Well, the culprit is fully accountable for his actions. I arrested him as soon as he was done, and his punishment will put everything to rights again. Correct?"
Cop 3: "Who are you to question our procedures? Were you there when the police manual was written? What part did you play in writing the statutes?"
Cop 4: "There is a higher purpose behind it. Being raped and killed was really the best that could happen to your wife, only you can't see it. I won't explain it to you, though."
Cop 5: "Rest assured that I've watched every moment of your wife's plight, and will testify to it when it's time to determine the culprit's punishment."
Cop 6: "It's because of sin. Without it, none of this would have happened."
Cop 7: "If we hadn't allowed this evil to happen, how would you know what's good?"
Cop 8: "It's the culprit's fault, really. We didn't force him to murder your wife, so we cannot be held accountable."

[/QUOTE]

As I said the problem of evil is the best argument against God. I don't blame people whom are not convinced by theodicy.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think if a revelation would be revealed by God, he would go into a very detailed explanation of why he made a world with so much suffering.

 

[dlamberth]

I think if a revelation would be revealed by God, he would go into a very detailed explanation of why he made a world with so much suffering.

Everyday revelations happen to people all over the earth...and with no detailed explanation given.

This strikes me as your putting human attributes on God, which seems to be your tendency.

.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Everyday revelations happen to people all over the earth...and with no detailed explanation given.

I meant it revelation for all humanity - like Quran/Torah/Bible.

This strikes me as your putting human attributes on God, which seems to be your tendency.

Love is a human attribute, is it wrong to give God that attribute?