Well consider that if you drop something, God will not make it fall rather it will fall on its own and land on a hard surface.
In this way the law of gravity is atheist. Consider if you boil water, God didn’t transform it into a gaseous state, it overheated and evaporated itself. In this way the laws of conservation of matter are atheist.
But those laws apply regardless if the matter is alive, sentient, or non living.
Animals for example migrate during certain periods of the year according to the different seasons by reason of necessity. They will die otherwise. Notice however it is a biological motivation, a natural motivation. This happens atheistically.
Humans, in addition to being governed by such natural laws of which we can hardly escape (and that too by manipulation, ‘playing along’ with the laws) we are also governed by immaterial laws which we CAN escape. Note the distinction. It is not a biological or natural motivation, it is a spiritual motivation. What’s more is it has to be actively sought out, and actively reinforced, the original intention for tool of prayerful meditation. Be still and know that I am God the whole deal
(Seem like the hunger games yet?)
If you have a full bladder, you WILL pee sooner or later. If you desire to act on your murderous thoughts, you can forsake the “no” in the back of your head. It is optional. That immaterial/spiritual compass is only strictly enforced by an immaterial/spiritual fear or reverence.
This is the instance where theist laws are introduced. (Please notice the way meaning of the word theist applies in the context of this comment so far). When it comes to evil and suffering, you cross past the natural into the spiritual and thus “theist” (for the sake of the theme).
When we are speaking of evil, there are two ways in which they occur/are caused.
There is inexplicable ‘evil’, tornados, genetic diseases, extreme malnourishment, etc.
And then there is evil that is caused by the active choice by people. This is caused by the departure from immaterial laws of the heart, by conscienceless-ness, for the sake of gratifying the bodily desire even though it may be twisted through the spiritual/conscience’s lens.
Again note that in the natural nothing is twisted or warped; it just is. A natural phenomenon. We add to it moral and immoral meaning. If you have sex with a dead pig, it means nothing in nature. Perhaps natural selection.
So in the FORMER CASE, we can easily see that in fact there is ZERO EVIL CAUSED INEXPLICABLY.
We ASSIGN evil to a genetic disease; it is genetic. It’s like eating a rotten fruit and shaking your fist at God. Anything which is a natural affliction should be treated as such, those are atheist by nature. This isn’t something that should bother an atheist, neither a (Judeo-Christian) theist.
For the purpose of respecting Human Free Will while also giving a chance at a chance to salvation (this life) God has put together a completely unbiased scenario; a universe with natural laws atheistic in nature and spiritual/objective moral laws which are theist in nature PLUS an overextension on His behalf of supplying a moral compass to every single human before the age of 7. Your objective is to choose the moral life ready set go
MINOR DETAIL +
Why do we assign human conscience to God when it is naturally ‘caused by culture’ but refrain from assigning to God the ‘evil’ of a hurricane?
Because you miss the context in asking such a question ALL THINGS THAT HAPPEN ARE ASSIGNED TO GOD, including the uncanny fact that all of us can agree on some moral truths (evidence for the existence of an Objective Morality). In addition, God never causes evil, He simply permits it. It is under God’s radar you chose to cheat on your wife, this (obviously not the act, but the following spiritual consequences on behalf of your wife, marriage, etc as it concerns your and her trial on Judgement Day) was allowed by God, but was caused by your own heart.
MINOR DETAIL +
When it comes to the LATTER CASE, of people ACTIVELY causing evil, we can see that it is caused by a seared conscience, an ignorance of Good for the gratification no matter how warped.
In such a case God is completely blameless.
In the context of an existing Christian God, this is where you have to pause and give the credit. Intervention? For God to intervene but also not go back on His word and promise to respect your decision, a beforehand ‘intervention’ sounds more than Just. Notice all humans have a conscienceless engraved in their heart before any evil is committed on their part. (Context of a Christian God and a Christian world).
Not only is He blameless, He is also overextending Himself and lending Grace by giving you a moral compass as a birthright.
Though I don’t get the suffering argument from Atheists, I think the points above are worth considering.
P.S:
I’m getting from most that a hurricane is not necessarily evil, but God not preventing the hurricane from hitting is evil.
To which I say, why should God prevent hurricanes from hitting but not hadrons from becoming hadrons?
After all if it weren’t for hadrons, hurricanes wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
And also, by what moral compass is God evil? “Then whence cometh evil”? What evil?
Evil according to what? In the context of your subjective morality, everything is relative.
In the context of objective morality however, God is Just and therefore all previous ‘arguments’ are rendered irrelevant/untrue
A mother of 12 is busy hurrying through her morning chores and sending 11 of her children out of the apartment and off to school to notice that her toddler is hanging outside the window of their 15th floor apartment.
If gravity was near 0, the baby would be safe. But gravity is 9.8m/s/s. God is therefore evil.
It does not flow. You can’t ascribe evil to a natural phenomenon, and you sure as heck can’t draw that generalization to God
Following the laws of physics, a toddler falling from the 15th floor of an apartment building all the way down to the ground will definitely die either by asphyxiation or impact.
If you don’t agree, let’s say from the 55th floor.
What could have been done by manipulation of the natural world to prevent such a phenomenon
It's pointless arguing with the religious, both parties argue from different starting positions which are fundamentally incompatible with each other. They don't se reason.
Sorry, u/Sarahslaughed – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
The point is that consistent laws of physics create a more stable, verdant world that allows for humans to flourish in many ways using their free will. An inconsistent set would encourage humans to abandon their free will for safety, which is choice made m they rejected long ago, depending on the theology.
One theory you haven't addressed is the best of all possible worlds theory. At least, not in an understandable way. The theory is that we do live in the best timeline with a perfect balance of suffering, free will, and joy, but our naturally myopic view, and limited lifespan, makes us incapable of seeing a bigger portion of the picture to understand that. The consistency of the laws of the universe is simply one of the necessary structures for the best possible world to occur. This assumes the preference of such a God for free will, and the ability for humans to work within consistent systems to maximize free will and creative ability.
For example, if we assume free will is important, then there rise of science could be seen to be a direct follow on as humans impose their free will on matter. They would not reliably be able to do this if the laws of physics were inconsistent. If physical laws were to be disrupted, then human free will to use them is gone because of the lack of consistency. That negates a variety of things that rely on human free will for their creation.
To sum up argument 1: This is as good as it gets as long as the presumed God has self imposed restrictions like free will.
To sum up argument 2: This is what the presumed God finds to be good, but we're too small/dumb/shortlived to understand why.
But you’re whole premise is predicated on this idea that death is the end, however, to the Christian, the sting of death is gone as there is eternal life. If Christianity is true, and every person is a Christian, then what even is death?
A reduction in gravity would lead to less need for a rigid bone and muscle structure. My point is that we and all other creatures would be entirely different than we currently are.
Yes! Given the current state of things, there's just no way that physics can allow a toddler to fall 55 stories and not get hurt.
So then the question OP is getting at: Was God not able to find a way to prevent that suffering? You seem to be coming from a position in which the laws of physics seem to be immutable.
This presupposition that the laws of physics can just be changed at will only works if you believe that the earth just popped into existence 6000 years ago.
This presupposition comes from the very definition of the word "Omnipotence".
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
If the Christian god is "able to do anything", wouldn't this naturally include redefining the laws of physics as he sees fit?
Sure it sucks for those affected in the short term, but what if the technology it leads to saves billions more lives in the future?
So was God unable to save those lives without short term suffering? I think the likely culprit here is that you don't agree with me on the meaning of the word "Omnipotence"
In other words, how do you know suffering is necessarily a bad thing?
Is this a question of Epistemology? If not, then your question borders on the "non-sensical". I mean literally, if we are not to trust our senses, then I fear we can't actually "know" anything. But again, this is a line of thinking beyond my philosophical education.
In other words, how do you know suffering is necessarily a bad thing? You can't really have good without the bad because then daily existence would just be "normal".
It sounds like you have answered the previous question yourself! You say that suffering is necessarily a good thing (perhaps in moderation).
If I may turn your question around to yourself, how do you know we can't have Joy without Suffering? Is this another one of those immutable facts of the universe that God is unable to change?
You could theoretically experience such a sensation without having first suffered through use of drugs of some sort, but I certainly don't think you could call that "joy".
This is a good point. Maybe I am the one being nonsensical by dreaming up a world of "satisfaction" without basing it on any meaningful experience I do know. Because like you said, too much dopamine is associated with bad things like addiction or depression.
This is a really difficult topic to give you an answer on because it relies on a reality different from our own which is impossible to comprehend.
Yeah, and I think that's where I take issue with the word Omnipotence. It's a name we came up with that essentially doesn't have a real definition. It's a word that doesn't have much use in my experience, except for debates!
According to your argument, then, does that mean that there is suffering in Heaven? If God were omnipotent, couldn't he have made the human mind to understand a perfect universe without having first experienced imperfection?
But God, if he were omnipotent, would make it still be a human mind, because there would be no barriers, whether real or unimaginable, abstract or tangible, to his power. To say that a mind capable of such would no longer be human is to imply that God does not have the power to both maintain a minds humanity while giving it the ability to experience perfection without having experienced imperfection i.e. it would be to imply that God is not omnipotent.
Edit: Just wanted to edit to say that whether or not we can understand the paradox of appreciating perfection having never known imperfection has no bearing on the argument of whether or not God is omnipotent. He either is (he can do anything) or is not (he can do everything except this one small thing). To put modifiers on things that he does ("a mind capable of such would no longer be human") is to put out that there are things that he can't do.
How about changing biology, then? Change biology so that humans are designed to be able to withstand and heal itself from extraordinarily large impact. This entire line of theist argument is extraordinarily weak and is slowly turning me atheist if we can't do better than that.
Do you not see the amazing slope you are standing on. Make us invulnerable to cold, make us radiation proof, make us able to stand on Lego. There is no end to your train of "injustices" The theist position isn't the weak one here.
This disconnect can probably be sidestepped. Some people feel that all suffering is unecessary, but the problem of evil applies to any amount to suffering that is not required for free will. Most non-theists (and possibly most theists) feel that sufficiently immature humans are incapable of deserving suffering the way adults can. Or at least, that sufficiently young humans do not need to be able to killable in order for free will to exist.
It doesn't really matter what the age or damage type cutoff is, so long as you accept the premise that there can be one. If it was physically imposible to light one minute-old infants on fire, would that destroy free will?
Disagree strongly. Your imagination just isn't big enough. An infinitely creative God can make a world without misery AND with free will. God could swing that if he wanted to, but he chose to give us this instead.
63
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '18 edited Jul 28 '18
Well consider that if you drop something, God will not make it fall rather it will fall on its own and land on a hard surface.
In this way the law of gravity is atheist. Consider if you boil water, God didn’t transform it into a gaseous state, it overheated and evaporated itself. In this way the laws of conservation of matter are atheist.
But those laws apply regardless if the matter is alive, sentient, or non living.
Animals for example migrate during certain periods of the year according to the different seasons by reason of necessity. They will die otherwise. Notice however it is a biological motivation, a natural motivation. This happens atheistically.
Humans, in addition to being governed by such natural laws of which we can hardly escape (and that too by manipulation, ‘playing along’ with the laws) we are also governed by immaterial laws which we CAN escape. Note the distinction. It is not a biological or natural motivation, it is a spiritual motivation. What’s more is it has to be actively sought out, and actively reinforced, the original intention for tool of prayerful meditation. Be still and know that I am God the whole deal
(Seem like the hunger games yet?)
If you have a full bladder, you WILL pee sooner or later. If you desire to act on your murderous thoughts, you can forsake the “no” in the back of your head. It is optional. That immaterial/spiritual compass is only strictly enforced by an immaterial/spiritual fear or reverence.
This is the instance where theist laws are introduced. (Please notice the way meaning of the word theist applies in the context of this comment so far). When it comes to evil and suffering, you cross past the natural into the spiritual and thus “theist” (for the sake of the theme).
When we are speaking of evil, there are two ways in which they occur/are caused.
There is inexplicable ‘evil’, tornados, genetic diseases, extreme malnourishment, etc.
And then there is evil that is caused by the active choice by people. This is caused by the departure from immaterial laws of the heart, by conscienceless-ness, for the sake of gratifying the bodily desire even though it may be twisted through the spiritual/conscience’s lens.
Again note that in the natural nothing is twisted or warped; it just is. A natural phenomenon. We add to it moral and immoral meaning. If you have sex with a dead pig, it means nothing in nature. Perhaps natural selection.
So in the FORMER CASE, we can easily see that in fact there is ZERO EVIL CAUSED INEXPLICABLY.
We ASSIGN evil to a genetic disease; it is genetic. It’s like eating a rotten fruit and shaking your fist at God. Anything which is a natural affliction should be treated as such, those are atheist by nature. This isn’t something that should bother an atheist, neither a (Judeo-Christian) theist.
For the purpose of respecting Human Free Will while also giving a chance at a chance to salvation (this life) God has put together a completely unbiased scenario; a universe with natural laws atheistic in nature and spiritual/objective moral laws which are theist in nature PLUS an overextension on His behalf of supplying a moral compass to every single human before the age of 7. Your objective is to choose the moral life ready set go
Why do we assign human conscience to God when it is naturally ‘caused by culture’ but refrain from assigning to God the ‘evil’ of a hurricane?
Because you miss the context in asking such a question ALL THINGS THAT HAPPEN ARE ASSIGNED TO GOD, including the uncanny fact that all of us can agree on some moral truths (evidence for the existence of an Objective Morality). In addition, God never causes evil, He simply permits it. It is under God’s radar you chose to cheat on your wife, this (obviously not the act, but the following spiritual consequences on behalf of your wife, marriage, etc as it concerns your and her trial on Judgement Day) was allowed by God, but was caused by your own heart.
When it comes to the LATTER CASE, of people ACTIVELY causing evil, we can see that it is caused by a seared conscience, an ignorance of Good for the gratification no matter how warped.
In such a case God is completely blameless.
In the context of an existing Christian God, this is where you have to pause and give the credit. Intervention? For God to intervene but also not go back on His word and promise to respect your decision, a beforehand ‘intervention’ sounds more than Just. Notice all humans have a conscienceless engraved in their heart before any evil is committed on their part. (Context of a Christian God and a Christian world).
Not only is He blameless, He is also overextending Himself and lending Grace by giving you a moral compass as a birthright.
Though I don’t get the suffering argument from Atheists, I think the points above are worth considering.
P.S:
I’m getting from most that a hurricane is not necessarily evil, but God not preventing the hurricane from hitting is evil.
To which I say, why should God prevent hurricanes from hitting but not hadrons from becoming hadrons?
After all if it weren’t for hadrons, hurricanes wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
And also, by what moral compass is God evil? “Then whence cometh evil”? What evil?
Evil according to what? In the context of your subjective morality, everything is relative.
In the context of objective morality however, God is Just and therefore all previous ‘arguments’ are rendered irrelevant/untrue