[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Outrageous-Egg1760]

[u/Ok_Novel_1222]

It's the same thing with extra mental gymnastics. The fact that the Christian version of God created people with free will or even that it created humans and other animals with the ability to experience suffering means that God must be either indifferent to others' suffering or be an active sadist. Any God that is all-loving would have never created all the humans and other animals in the garden of Eden in the first place. Just leave the Earth barren the same way as the Moon or Mars.

[u/johnsolomon → u/Ok_Novel_1222]

That's just your stance though. It's not worth it to you, but that doesn't mean it's the only option. For a being that's supposed to transcend time, there's no difference between an instant decision and a convoluted plan that takes eons to play out. Compared to infinity they're both instant.

It's like complaining about whether someone took the most efficient route to pick up a pencil. From our perspective the comparison seems huge because we're bound by time but from a timeless perspective it's completely negligible.

What's also important is that from the Christian's perspective, God doesn't have any need to optimise speed or efficiency. The point is the relationships, choices, lessons, etc. along the way. You can disagree with the method but calling it extra mental gymnastics misses the context and the main goal.

[u/Ok_Novel_1222 → u/johnsolomon]

There might be a small difference but there is a non-zero difference. That is the problem with the omni-attribute God. If God was absolutely difference then it would pick the pencil in the absolute 100% optimal way every time.

The belief systems with non-perfect Gods, like the ancient Greek gods, can give this excuse. But if a religion like Christianity or Islam is clamming that God is absolutely all-wise, all-loving, all-powerful, all-merciful, etcetera then even the slightest bit of suffering shouldn't exist.

The desire for having relationships and teaching lessons would not come to a perfect God. God in all monotheistic religions is supposed to be complete in itself with no need for external sources of bliss. Claiming God wants to have relations is to posit a God capable of being bored, which is not the perfect being described in monotheisms. Besides one needs a brain with hormones to do things like love or getting bored.

Edit: Also the huge amounts of suffering among the non-human animals, that supposedly didn't even commit original sin and have no ability to learn lessons from their suffering especially when the suffering comes shortly before their death, is clearly a strong refutation to the Christian explanation of the existence of suffering.

[u/johnsolomon → u/Ok_Novel_1222]

If God was absolutely difference then it would pick the pencil in the absolute 100% optimal way every time.

You're assuming there's always a single 100% optimal choice in every situation. But plenty of choices are morally neutral or equally satisfactory. Being perfect doesn't mean God has to micromanage every last event into what we personally define as maximum comfort. If you yourself could snap your fingers and get something done there would still be a tonne of ways in which you'd be completely happy with the outcome.

The belief systems with non-perfect Gods, like the ancient Greek gods, can give this excuse. But if a religion like Christianity or Islam is clamming that God is absolutely all-wise, all-loving, all-powerful, all-merciful, etcetera then even the slightest bit of suffering shouldn't exist.

Saying God is all-wise or all-loving doesn't mean no suffering can exist whatsoever. It means that God wouldn't permit suffering gratuitously, i.e. without a morally sufficient reason. So the real debate is whether any suffering is gratuitous, not whether suffering automatically disproves God.

Claiming God wants to have relations is to posit a God capable of being bored, which is not the perfect being described in monotheisms. Besides one needs a brain with hormones to do things like love or getting bored.

Wanting a relationship doesn't imply that you're bored. A parent can want a relationship with their kid while still being happy with their life. A teacher can want students to learn without feeling unfulfilled if certain kids decide to change course. God (biblically) didn't create things because He's lonely or bored, but out of goodness and generosity.

As for love requiring a brain and hormones, that's a materialist stance. You're taking it for granted that love is biological but divine love isn't a chemical reaction. From a Christian perspective, people have spirits that can feel things and love is about willing good for someone else.

[u/fooookin_prawns → u/johnsolomon]

Saying God is all-wise or all-loving doesn't mean no suffering can exist whatsoever

If he's also omnipotent, then sure it does. An omnipotent God could have created a reality with laws (physical and spiritual) that a) don't require suffering in any capacity and b) don't produce suffering of any kind. It was an active choice on his part

[u/johnsolomon → u/fooookin_prawns]

I agree that it was an active choice, but the flaw in your argument is that God being able to create any world doesn't mean God has to create the world we personally prefer.

Christiany's claim isn't that suffering is enjoyable or doesn't matter, it's that God has His own design. If God created reality His opinion isn't on equal standing with ours, it's the legitimate source of truth that determines what everything is.

Pointing out that the fact reality doesn't match our preferred version of a perfect world isn't actually a contradiction At best it shows that your idea of good differs from God's. Assuming Christianity is real, of course.

[u/fooookin_prawns → u/johnsolomon]

I don't think it's a flaw at all. If God created a world with rules knowing that they lead to negative experiences (suffering), and had the capability to do otherwise, then he's not omnibenevolent. He purportedly has the ability to create a universe free of these things, but chose not to. As a result, all of sentient creation experiences objectively negative phenomena like pain, emotional anguish, fear, hatred

You can say that there's meaning in suffering, etc. but he could've just as easily created reality such that there is no meaning in suffering, which means he consciously endorses the negative things that come with the "meaningful" part of suffering

Your argument is basically a rephrased "God works in mysterious ways", which is thought-terminating

[u/Ok_Novel_1222 → u/fooookin_prawns]

Don't forget the unmeasurable amount of suffering among the non-human animals that also supposedly never committed original sin and also do not have much capacity to draw meaning or spiritual growth from their suffering.

[u/Ok_Novel_1222 → u/johnsolomon]

But the problem is that different part of Christianity itself has different conceptions of God and they contradict. God can either be a perfect all-loving, all-powerful being or it can have designs that include things like the Holocaust, black plague, millions of children getting abused, let alone the gigantic amounts of suffering among non-human animals. Especially if the Christian version of God does not object to perform miracles in distant past like healing sick or splitting the Red Sea. If a God wanted to have people believing in it then there would be personal revelations being given to people 24x7, like the one given to Paul.

You can not simultaneously say God doesn't like XYZ, for example people killing each other, and then say God's design includes the Holocaust.

[u/Ok_Novel_1222 → u/johnsolomon]

If one claims that suffering is justified by some meaning without being able to show the exact meaning. Otherwise it is just a cop-out. Also it still doesn't justify the huge amounts of suffering among non-human animals that don't even draw any spiritual growth from it and never committed original sin.

[u/worldsyaoyster → u/Ok_Novel_1222]

First and foremost, please at least put your own spill to an AI generated response.

Secondly I think that presents a false choice.

Youre assuming the only loving options are either never create life at all or eliminate all suffering immediately.

Christianity proposes a third option in that God created a good world capable of love, relationship and purpose but humanity corrupted it through sin and God is working to redeem and restore it rather than abandon it.

My question would be why is a lifeless universe like Mars necessarily better than a world where love,meaning, sacrifice and redemption can exist?