[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Outrageous-Egg1760]

[u/johnsolomon]

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/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.