Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[Beanybag]

Neo-x, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your patient and respectful reply to Mag. :]

[MAGSolo]

Yep, every individual does it all the time. Even Christians ignore God because we are not perfect either.

How can you possibly claim to know what every individual on earth does all the time?

I am not going to get bogged down in if, but's and maybes. Maybe you should accept that it is not God doing this but rather through OUR inaction this happens.

I didnt say God does it, I asked why he doesnt do something about it. So why doesnt he?

We are all sinful, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Suffering might not be because of something I did, it may be because of someone's bad choices, if God stopped that person's choice to ease my suffering then he would be interfering with that persons freewill. God is just and justice will be done, maybe not here on Earth but in the next life.

I see no evidence that God is just. If its all about the next life than why should we not all just kill ourselves and hurry and get to heaven. Why bother with this life at all?

So who is good? what standard are you saying people are good?

Plenty of people are good. Anyone who does not harm or take from other people is good. Anybody who treats others well is good.

I said complex maths, this is not a simple issue please don't over simplify it.

I quoted what you said so obviously you didnt say complex maths.

God is self evident through nature, you can see the work of his hand in nature.
Even the stars declare the glory of God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGeSRyzN ... re=related
The truth claims of the Bible prove it was inspired by God, no other religion makes the claims that Christianity makes.

Perhaps it is the work of a different God other than the Christian God. How do you know the biblical God is the one responsible?

God was with us in the garden, but once we sinned he could no longer be with us as his perfect nature cannot look upon sin. He came and paid the price for sin which is death so that once again we can stand in his presence.

God was not with us he was with adam and eve. Also God cannot be perfect because he creates imperfect things? How can a perfect being create things that are not perfect?

I was asking a question, I didn't say you said it.
So are you saying because we are mortals we are excused from rape,murder, genocide, etc... etc... and because God is God he is accountable?

I never said that

Why are you so hung up on some fruit, the fact is they disobeyed God, the fruit is not the issue here.
They wanted to be God instead of trusting him.

God never told them not to try to be like him. He told them not to eat the fruit. He didnt say "dont try to be like me" he said "dont eat this fruit or you will die"

Exactly God overcome death as only God can and so can enter into eternity, but does this mean he didn't suffer on the cross. Because he was both fully human and fully God he suffered greatly.

There are no records of this crucifixion anywhere except in the bible. Its likely a made up story.

Jesus historically existed, have a look at the shoud thread on this site or the earlier video I posted about the star of Bethlehem and there is much much more if your willing to look.

A piece of cloth is not sufficient evidence that Jesus existed and even if it was, its not evidence at all that Jesus is God or that God exists.

It is symbolic of our desire to do things on our own instead of trusting in God.

So are you saying it wasnt a literal tree with fruit on it?

Yes I am, definitely in need of salvation as are we all.

Im glad you realize that you are not a good person, but dont lump everyone in with yourself. You clearly are not a good person, but that doesnt mean everyone else is too.

I did answer but you don't get that it is not about eating something, it is about disobeying.

I asked if you would curse your children for disobeying you. I didnt ask if you would punish them, I asked if you would curse them?

I would punish them every time they disobeyed me, as we are in a constant state of disobedience we are still under punishment.

So what is the punishment?

What is your definition of good? I know I cannot go one day without doing something wrong, everyday is a struggle to do what God requires of me.

How can you do what God requires of you when he doesnt exist? If God existed and required something from us he would come out and tell us himself.

I disagree, even the most Godly people I know still fall short of what we really should be doing.

Well as you have admitted that you arent a very good person yourself, its likely the people you know simply arent very good either. Birds of a feather and all that. The vast majority of the people I know are very good people.

No one can prove to you God exists, that's why it's called faith

So who goes to heaven; an evil person who does evil deed, lies, murders, cheats, steals, treats people poorly and then right before they die they say the believe in God and accepts Jesus as their Lord and savior or the person who doesnt do any of those things, treats people well but doesnt believe in God? Why is belief in an invisible person that has never shown themself more important than the manner in which we conduct ourselves?

Well you answered my question, you expect God to do everything while holding back on yourself, this is hypocrisy of the highest order.

I dont believe in God, whats your excuse?

Like I have said earlier without freewill we are but automatons incapable of thought, I know what I would rather.

Why are you here if you don't think God exists, no one can prove it to you.

Maybe you need to read the board guidelines, this is a forum for genuine seekers not a platform for you to vent your misguided anger.

I used to be a believer, its only recently that I have realized just how stupid religion is. I used to use the main site regularly and found it very informative and uplifting and I would post on several different forums from a pro creation/intelligent design viewpoint. Then I started to realize what a terrible world it is we live in and I started to realize that it has always been a terrible world. I started to see just how much suffering there is in the world. I asked myself, if God exists, why is the world he created such a horrible place? You can say that humans made it that way, but God supposedly made humans and he knows everything, so why would he make humans knowing that they would make the world such a horrible place. So I suppose I come here hoping I will see how I am wrong. I suppose it is a last ditch effort to save what fleeting bits of faith and belief I may have had. I come here looking for serious answers as to why a good and all powerful God allows suffering of innocent people. Well sometimes the simplest answer is the best one. Suffering and evil is everywhere all the time because God doesnt exist. One cannot be good and all powerful and allow suffering and evil. Any being that had the power to prevent suffering and evil and was good would do so, the fact that suffering and evil persists proves that God does not exist or if he does, he is either not good or not all powerful. You cannot be good and allpowerful and allow suffering and evil that you could prevent, it is an oxymoron.

[MAGSolo]

If you think that there is no God and it is just us human beings taking care of that orphan child - I would ask you then how come you attribute goodness to humans and evil in the world to God?

I think the capacity to do good and evil are just human characteristics. I dont attribute evil to God, I just think the pervasiveness of evil is proof that God doesnt exist, or is indifferent to human suffering. I think human suffering at the hands of other humans has been so great that we are a stain on creation. If we were created by God then I think we paint God as a bumbling, incompetent creator and the evil we do and have done far outweighs any good that is done or has been done. I would say that in the history of humanity there have been singular acts of evil so atrocious as to complete negate any positives of human existence or goodness. I will show you a few excerpts to detail what I am talking about. How repeatedly throughout human history, thousands to millions of people at a time have been subjected to the evil whims of other humans, forced to endure atrocities with no angel of deliverance coming to spare them from their cruel fates.

Tomas de Torquemada (pictured here) - Born in Spain in 1420, his name is synonymous with the Christian Inquisition's horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism. He was a fan of various forms of torture including foot roasting, use of the garrucha, and suffocation. He was made Grand Inquisitor by Pope Sixtus IV. Popes and kings alike praised his tireless efforts. The number of burnings at the stake during Torquemada's tenure has been estimated at about 2,000. Torquemada's hatred of Jews influenced Ferdinand and Isabella to expel all Jews who had not embraced Christianity.

Vlad Tepes - Vlad the Impaler was a prince known for executing his enemies by impalement. He was a fan of various forms of torture including disemboweling and rectal and facial impalement. Vlad the Impaler tortured thousands while he ate and drunk among the corpses. He impaled every person in the city of Amlas -- 20,000 men, women and children. Vlad often ordered people to be skinned, boiled, decapitated, blinded, strangled, hanged, burned, roasted, hacked, nailed, buried alive, stabbed, etc. He also liked to cut off noses, ears, sexual organs and limbs. But his favorite method was impalement on stakes, hence the surname "Tepes" which means "The Impaler" in the Romanian language. It is this technique he used in 1457, 1459 and 1460 against Transylvanian merchants who had ignored his trade laws. He also looked upon the poor, vagrants and beggars as thieves. Consequently, he invited all the poor and sick of Wallachia to his princely court in Tirgoviste for a great feast. After the guests ate and drank, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. No one survived.

Joseph Stalin - Born in 1879. During the quarter of a century preceding his death in 1953, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin probably exercised greater political power than any other figure in history. In the 1930s, by his orders, millions of peasants were either killed or permitted to starve to death. Stalin brought about the deaths of more than 20 million of his own people while holding the Soviet Union in an iron grip for 29 years. Stalin succeeded his hero Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1924. From then on, he induced widespread famines to enforce farm collectives, and eliminated perceived enemies through massive purges.

Genghis Khan - The Mongol Temjin, known to history as Genghis Khan (born 1162) was a warrior and ruler who, starting from obscure and insignificant beginnings, brought all the nomadic tribes of Mongolia under the rule of himself and his family in a rigidly disciplined military state. Massacres of defeated populations, with the resultant terror, were weapons he regularly used. His Mongol hordes killed off countless people in Asia and Europe in the early 1200s. He was "known for killing boys and men of captured cities; and kidnapping the woman and girls..." Steven R. Ward (Georgetown University Press) wrote, "Overall, the Mongol violence and depredations killed up to three-fourths of the population of the Iranian Plateau, possibly 10 to 15 million people." Genghis told his comrades: "Man's greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, use his women as a nightshirt and support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are as sweet as the berries of their breasts." (Quote source: "101 People You Won't Meet in Heaven" by Michael Powell and "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard K. Bloom.) "During three years, the Mongols destroyed and annihilated all of the major cities of Eastern Europe with the exceptions of Novgorod and Pskov."

Gilles de Rais - A Fifteenth Century French war hero, Gilles was also one of medieval Europe's worst killers. He enjoyed killing mostly young boys, whom he would sodomize before and after decapitation. He enjoyed watching his servants butcher the boys and masturbated over their entrails. He killed over 140 people.


Ivan Vasilyevich, (born Aug. 25, 1530, in Kolomenskoye, near Moscow) was the grand prince of Moscow (1533-84) and the first to be proclaimed tsar of Russia (from 1547). His reign saw the completion of the construction of a centrally administered Russian state and the creation of an empire that included non-Slav states. He enjoyed burning 1000s of people in frying pans, and was fond of impaling people

Pol Pot (born in 1925 in the Kompong Thom province of Cambodia) was the Khmer political leader whose totalitarian regime (1975-79) imposed severe hardships on the people of Cambodia. His radical communist government forced the mass evacuations of cities, killed or displaced millions of people, and left a legacy of disease and starvation. Under his leadership, his government caused the deaths of at least one million people from forced labor, starvation, disease, torture, or execution.

Mao Tse-tung - who killed somewhere between 20 and 67 million (estimates vary) of his countrymen, including the elderly and intellectuals. His picture still hangs throughout many homes and businesses. Mao's own personality cult, encouraged so as to provide momentum to the movement, assumed religious proportions. The resulting anarchy, terror, and paralysis completely disrupted the urban economy. Industrial production for 1968 dipped 12 percent below that of 1966. In short, the Revolution led to the destruction of much of China's cultural heritage and the imprisonment of a huge number of Chinese intellectuals, amongst other social chaos. This policy is usually regarded as a complete disaster.

Idi Amin Dada Oumee (born in 1924 in Uganda) was the military officer and president (1971-79) of Uganda. Amin also took tribalism, a long- standing problem in Uganda, to its extreme by allegedly ordering the persecution of Acholi, Lango, and other tribes. Reports indicate torture and murder of 100,000 to 300,000 Ugandans during Amin's presidency. In 1972, he began to expel Asians from Uganda. God, he said, had directed him to do this. (Acutally, he had been angered by the refusal of one of the country's most prominent Asian families, the Madhvanis, to hand over their prettiest daughter as his fifth wife.) Over the years, Ugandans would disappear in the thousands, their mutilated bodies washing up on the shores of Lake Victoria. Amin would boast of being a "reluctant" cannibal - human flesh, he said, was too salty. He once ordered that the decapitation of political prisoners be broadcast on TV, specifying that the victims "must wear white to make it easy to see the blood". One of Amin's guards, Abraham Sule, said: "[Amin] put his bayonet in the pot containing human blood and licked the stuff as it ran down the bayonet. Amin told us: 'When you lick the blood of your victim, you will not see nightmares.' He then did it.

Here I have not even mentioned Adolf Hitler who systematically exterminated millions of human beings as if they were insects (Gods chosen people at that). I have also not mentioned the TransAtlantic slave trade which was responsible for he deaths of millions of Africans, and the enslavement and millions more who were constantly subjected to whatever evil punishments their masters saw fit. And these are but a literal handful of examples. The whole of human history has been humans suffering evil at the hand of others. And God permits this why? So that some message can be spread across the world?

if you think that there is indeed a God then you would have to concede that he loves his creation and takes care of them too?

No, why do I need to concede this. Look at this picture again. Where is the love in this? How can you reasonably say God loves us and yet he permits stuff like this to occur? Im looking for a serious answer, either God has the power to prevent this kind of suffering or he doesnt. If he has the power to prevent it and doesnt then he allows it and allowing this is not love.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zk8dtd5dlk

You will have to define Goodness and evil, what do these terms mean to you? why goodness matters? why is evil bad?

Goodness is being good to people and evil is not being good to people. I dont understand what you mean when you say why does goodness matter and why is evil bad? Those questions dont make sense to me.

[Danieltwotwenty]

How can you possibly claim to know what every individual on earth does all the time?

Because that is the nature of man.

I didnt say God does it, I asked why he doesnt do something about it. So why doesnt he?

Because it interfer's with freewill.

I see no evidence that God is just. If its all about the next life than why should we not all just kill ourselves and hurry and get to heaven. Why bother with this life at all?

Because we are here to learn, and murder is sinful, even if it is to yourself.

Plenty of people are good. Anyone who does not harm or take from other people is good. Anybody who treats others well is good.

Again by whose standard do you say they are good, your own?

I quoted what you said so obviously you didnt say complex maths.

You must have quoted while I was editing a mistake, I don't normally expect replies so quick so I post then proof read then edit.
My bad, but I did say complex.

Perhaps it is the work of a different God other than the Christian God. How do you know the biblical God is the one responsible?

Not in my opinion.

God was not with us he was with adam and eve. Also God cannot be perfect because he creates imperfect things? How can a perfect being create things that are not perfect?

When I say us I mean Human kind which includes Adam and Eve.
Why should a perfect God make perfect things? please explain in more detail.

I never said that

Prehaps I should reword it..it is a question, not a statement.
Do you mean because we are mortals we are excused from rape,murder, genocide, etc... etc... and because God is God he is accountable?

God never told them not to try to be like him. He told them not to eat the fruit. He didnt say "dont try to be like me" he said "dont eat this fruit or you will die"

The fruit was symbolic for the knowledge of good and evil, they thought they could have knowledge like God to be like God.

There are no records of this crucifixion anywhere except in the bible. Its likely a made up story.

Not true. The historical account of Josephus etc.. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus

A piece of cloth is not sufficient evidence that Jesus existed and even if it was, its not evidence at all that Jesus is God or that God exists.

I am not saying just a pice of cloth, it is only one part of a multitude of evidence, I particulary find the hirtorical Jesus compelling.

So are you saying it wasnt a literal tree with fruit on it?

No idea, I wasn't there but some people think so, some do not. Does it really matter?

No we dont all need salvation. There is no such thing as salvation. Its all make believe

Then why be here arguing with me, after all I am just dancing to the random chemical reactions in my brain.

I asked if you would curse your children for disobeying you. I didnt ask if you would punish them, I asked if you would curse them?

What you keep failing to realise is that the disobedience has not stopped and hence the punishment continues.

So what is the punishment?

The wages of sin are death.

How can you do what God requires of you when he doesnt exist? If God existed and required something from us he would come out and tell us himself.

Only according to you he doesn't exist, God has told us what he requires to the Israelites through the prophets in the Old Testament and to us through Jesus Christ.

Well as you have admitted that you arent a very good person yourself, its likely the people you know simply arent very good either. Birds of a feather and all that. The vast majority of the people I know are very good people.

You seem to have tabs on yourself, yet with your sentence you have just proved your not a nice person by insulting me and the people I hang out with.

So who goes to heaven; an evil person who does evil deed, lies, murders, cheats, steals, treats people poorly and then right before they die they say the believe in God and accepts Jesus as their Lord and savior or the person who doesnt do any of those things, treats people well but doesnt believe in God? Why is belief in an invisible person that has never shown themself more important than the manner in which we conduct ourselves?

Wrong again, God has shown himself through Jesus.
Anyone can go to heaven, we have ALL fallen short and sinned and everyone has a chace at redemption.
God does not see one sin is greater than the other, all is sin and worthy of punishment.

I dont believe in God, whats your excuse?

If you don't believe in God then why ask?
So let me get this straight, you want to hold God accountable but you don't think he exists, You don't want the human race to be a part of the solution but expect an imaginary ( according to you) God to fix the issue.
WHAT!!!

I used to be a believer

How can you know who Jesus is then un-know him?
Please explain how you can un-know someone.

God supposedly made humans and he knows everything, so why would he make humans knowing that they would make the world such a horrible place.

Because he loves us.

I come here looking for serious answers as to why a good and all powerful God allows suffering of innocent people. Well sometimes the simplest answer is the best one. Suffering and evil is everywhere all the time because God doesnt exist. One cannot be good and all powerful and allow suffering and evil. Any being that had the power to prevent suffering and evil and was good would do so, the fact that suffering and evil persists proves that God does not exist or if he does, he is either not good or not all powerful. You cannot be good and allpowerful and allow suffering and evil that you could prevent, it is an oxymoron.

I am sorry you feel that way and I will pray for you.

Dan

[neo-x]

No, why do I need to concede this. Look at this picture again. Where is the love in this? How can you reasonably say God loves us and yet he permits stuff like this to occur? Im looking for a serious answer, either God has the power to prevent this kind of suffering or he doesnt. If he has the power to prevent it and doesnt then he allows it and allowing this is not love.

Mag, I think you did not get perhaps what I asked you. And on that note, I do not think I'm kidding with you either.

First you have to concede that point because you cant have it both ways. It nullifies the law of non-contradiction. Two statements can not be true at the same time while also being in direct opposition to each other. God is good, God is not God, can not be both true at the same time, can it now?

And that is why I asked you, if God doesn't stop evil or allows it? why does he allow Goodness as well? (there is happiness and goodness in the world) you still have to answer that, pasting that picture over and over is not an answer Mag.

let me riddle you with the exact opposite of what you're saying and perhaps then you may realize what I am trying to say...I can post 100 images (Im not going to but just imagine) of happy people, people helping each other, wiping the tears of an orphan, etc etc. and then say

"Either God allows goodness or he doesn't, and since there is so much goodness around therefore God is good and he exists."

What would be your objections to this, If your argument carries truth, so does mine. Goodness is all around us too if you but only notice. Let me know what you find wrong with my statement, how will you refute it?

You said

"I think the capacity to do good and evil are just human characteristics. I dont attribute evil to God, I just think the pervasiveness of evil is proof that God doesnt exist, or is indifferent to human suffering."

Do you realize you just shot your argument squarely in the head? (no pun intended)
When saying human beings are good and evil, you just answered your own dilemma. I would then ask you, why is it that some are good and some are bad?

I also asked you whether there was any good in the world and if so, why do you think that is? It seems to me that even a single act of "evil" in your opinion is valid enough for you to think that either God doesn't love us or he doesn't exists. While all acts of compassion and mercy can not be attributed to God at all.

I'm quite well aware of the excerpts you posted about cruel people, I can perhaps add to the list a few people as well, I appreciate your effort nonetheless.

Why goodness matters? is a good question. For example, Hitler's extermination of the non-Aryan race was in his eyes a good deed. Did you think Stalin wept for millions of people that he had killed, tortured? To these people what they did was good and therefore something which should be perused by others as well. This is why I asked you, what is good and why does it matter in a Godless world? Do you even realize that without a "God" the concept of good and evil is plain arbitrary. You can argue, hurting someone is bad or starving someone is bad but mind you this is not as plain and simple as it sounds. Some people would disagree with you, perhaps the people on the list you posted are likely to deny this. And you can cry out "foul" and you would be rightly doing so and yet what you hold as good or evil, is nothing more than your personal take on the matter. and if there is no higher authority which one is subjected to then what makes you think that your opinion is the only one which matters, why not Hitler's opinion matter? Isn't he doing the same thing. Doing what he thinks is right and justifying the consequences thereof. Whats to prove him wrong? That millions die? he will say that the millions of Germans in the coming years will prosper. You can say that starving someone is wrong, but he may tell you that he will use the same bread to feed a German kid rather than a Jew. So giving bread to a Jew in his eyes, evil and feeding the German kid is a good thing.

I am sure you do not agree with the notion, neither do I but can you actually prove that this is wrong? Your objectivity has to have its roots. Without an objective standard of Good i.e God, there is no such thing as goodness or evil, they are at best, matters of perspective.

What do you think "death" is to God? when we die, do we feel pain, sometimes yes, sometimes no. You seem to be applying anthropomorphism and asking if God can feel our pain and he doesn't do anything, he is not loving. Or God is very loving but because of all this pain and suffering, there is no doubt that such a God could exist and be not dealing with the problems that we have, thus he doesn't exist.

But what you are missing is that you have created a false dichotomy. IF this is wrong, then else must be right. Try things from the other side, lets assume you are God. You look down and you see man's corruption. You see the evil there is, what do you do?

1. You can wipe out all humanity (as you earlier suggested) but this means you are not Just
2. You can save them but in the process it takes time because God won't force his will on humans too. This way everyone reaps what they sow, some people even recover and realize that they did wrong, but this seems more loving than killing everyone. In this way you are loving as well as just.

You have to grasp that to God all of this is not a game at all. God is not merely out to eliminate evil, he also wants to rescue mankind from the fallen state. Can God make everything alright with the twitch of his pinky? sure he can. but that would only satisfy one thing, lack of responsibility. Its like the six year old Kid who lost a snake ladder game and went on to tear the board apart.

You will not kill your child if he killed a dog? would you? the dog suffered at the hands of your 8 year old kid. Do you think that merits termination because he failed a standard held by others, on some accounts yes, on some accounts no, most serial killers start in life with cruelty against animals. Does this mean that a child killing an animal is beyond hope, lost that he should not be even clarified on the consequences of his actions or made to see what was wrong or perhaps more to be punished for his mistake. The punishment would be just but from a parent it would also be an act of love. Killing the child wont solve the problem.

And Should not God use more wisdom than this if he created all life? The fallen humanity deserves a chance. There are those who abuse this grace of God and kill, torture others. If God merely wipes out everyone to get rid of these few, would it be a fair judgement? I do not think so, regardless of what you say. It won't be just. God must be just as he must be loving.

I am detecting more disdain of suffering from you than a logical construct of your argument. May be you have suffered or perhaps watched someone suffered and have seen the ugly side but in all earnestness I think your solution is more out of hate of pain rather than anything else. Everything is backed up by emotional appeal. I suggested before that this is a fallacy and can ruin any good and sound healthy reasoning on both sides.

In fact, if you look at it, your solution is no more different than Hitler's, its only a derivation at best. You consider evil and suffering to be a problem, you like wise suggest that God could have never made us or he should wipe all out to end evil. Hitler considered Jews to be the problem of that was wrong with Germany so he came up with the "the final solution of the Jews" and therefore decided to eliminate everyone to get rid of the problem.

Please do not mind this, as I am just pointing out what seems apparent and common enough to merit such a comparison. My intent is merely to understand what you are saying and perhaps make you realize that while your premise is valid, the conclusion is not. It is very easy to think of ending problems in our mind and then project it on God without calculating the broader scope. This will lead your discussion nowhere.

As a matter of fact, I am going to push the argument a bit more further, just for the sake of the argument If all life has value, then eating an apple from a tree is equal to killing a child. I mean after all, all living things indeed have value. Killing one life (be it a harmless apple) just because it is not human life is also a cruel way. wouldn't you agree? You may not feel the pain or suffering a plant may feel. You may even say they do not have any conscience so they can not feel pain, but you do understand that they have life, its just different than ours.

The question is not of pain here but the value of Life. It is too much precious to be eternally condemned because of some people who chose to abuse God's creation. And they will be held responsible, as a matter of fact I think that is the only and the most just outcome, a God can offer. To claim otherwise, IMHO is a logical absurdity.

[PaulSacramento]

Re: God "taking over".
I hear a lot of people saying that at times, some are skeptics ( why doesn't God just do it?) and some are believers ( I can't wait for God to do it) but what ALL seem to h ave in common is that belief that God wil take over and fix things the way THEY want him too !
LOL !
God does not go against Free Will, He didn't do it with His angels, didn't do it with Adam and Eve, didn't do it when His Son was nailed to a cross and killed and won't do it even after His Kingdom is HERE.
BUT, lets assume that God DOES come crashing into our Universe/reality and says:
Ok you talking monkeys, you had your chance, Now I take over.
What would God do?
Eliminate world hunger? Of course, and with that the world economies would be eliminated ( not a bad thing per say).
Eliminate all suffering? Hmmm, that may be a tough since humans are at their MOST HUMAN when they see OTHERS suffering...BUT lets assume He does that too, NO suffereing, bam !! ALL GONE.
Not a bad thing either though, of course we will lose our ability to CHOOSE what we do so as to NOT cause ANY suffering to ANYONE, EVER, but hey, look at all we gain !
What else would he do? lets see...
No homosexuals or hetrosexuals for that matter no sex at all( can lead to suffering), no choosing what to be-everyone will be a farmer or rancher basically, because we will have to take care of this planet HIS way ieL Garden of Eden type.
Not bad when you think of it, not that your opinion matters at all because you gave up your free will to have God fix everything for you so you don't have ANY choice in the matter now.
Hmmm, should I go on...
In short, careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
One thing we know about humans and human nature:
Since when do humans KNOW what is best for them ??

[Byblos]

I do get it when atheists complain about suffering and why there seems to be so much of it. At least they think there is too much, as opposed to the theist who can argue that it can always be worse. Here's the kicker though Paul, on an atheistic worldview what exactly does suffering mean? Is it only human suffering that counts? What about animal suffering, does that even factor into the equation? And if it does, how about the suffering of any living thing, including bacteria, microbes, even plants? Where does one draw the line as to what constitutes suffering and what doesn't? If God decided to end all human suffering today (in a fallen world I'm not entirely certain how that's doable but I'll indulge for a moment) but let's assume that He did do it. Do you really think for a second that atheists will be satisfied with that? Not in the least for they will most certainly drudge up animal suffering, then plant suffering, then sedimentary rock suffering. They are blinded to the truth if it opened their eyelids and shone a laser beam right through their retina. If eyewitnesses to the resurrection continued to not believe what hope do we have for the modern skeptic to do so? There is always a chance but it is tiny.

[PaulSacramento]

I do get it when atheists complain about suffering and why there seems to be so much of it. At least they think there is too much, as opposed to the theist who can argue that it can always be worse. Here's the kicker though Paul, on an atheistic worldview what exactly does suffering mean? Is it only human suffering that counts? What about animal suffering, does that even factor into the equation? And if it does, how about the suffering of any living thing, including bacteria, microbes, even plants? Where does one draw the line as to what constitutes suffering and what doesn't? If God decided to end all human suffering today (in a fallen world I'm not entirely certain how that's doable but I'll indulge for a moment) but let's assume that He did do it. Do you really think for a second that atheists will be satisfied with that? Not in the least for they will most certainly drudge up animal suffering, then plant suffering, then sedimentary rock suffering. They are blinded to the truth if it opened their eyelids and shone a laser beam right through their retina. If eyewitnesses to the resurrection continued to not believe what hope do we have for the modern skeptic to do so? There is always a chance but it is tiny.

From a naturalistic view ( not all atheists are natualists), suffering is irrelevant.
Suffering is a human concept, a human notion that, somehow, we have the belief that "suffering" exists.
Animals do NOT understand that concept of suffering.
If a human doesn't grasp suffering he/she is labled as "mentally ill" yet they are simply being a "human animal".
The fact that we KNOW suffering is virtually all the "evidence" we need for God because is we were simply a by-product of "suvival of the fittest" and "natural selection" the notion of "suffering of others" bothering us would never have come to be.
One can quite correctly argue that the human animal that does NOT know the compassion for the suffering of others is far better equipped to "survive" and "propogate his gene" than one that feels compassion and is moved by the suffering of others.

[Beanybag]

I do get it when atheists complain about suffering and why there seems to be so much of it. At least they think there is too much, as opposed to the theist who can argue that it can always be worse. Here's the kicker though Paul, on an atheistic worldview what exactly does suffering mean? Is it only human suffering that counts? What about animal suffering, does that even factor into the equation? And if it does, how about the suffering of any living thing, including bacteria, microbes, even plants? Where does one draw the line as to what constitutes suffering and what doesn't? If God decided to end all human suffering today (in a fallen world I'm not entirely certain how that's doable but I'll indulge for a moment) but let's assume that He did do it. Do you really think for a second that atheists will be satisfied with that? Not in the least for they will most certainly drudge up animal suffering, then plant suffering, then sedimentary rock suffering. They are blinded to the truth if it opened their eyelids and shone a laser beam right through their retina. If eyewitnesses to the resurrection continued to not believe what hope do we have for the modern skeptic to do so? There is always a chance but it is tiny.

From a naturalistic view ( not all atheists are natualists), suffering is irrelevant.
Suffering is a human concept, a human notion that, somehow, we have the belief that "suffering" exists.
Animals do NOT understand that concept of suffering.
If a human doesn't grasp suffering he/she is labled as "mentally ill" yet they are simply being a "human animal".
The fact that we KNOW suffering is virtually all the "evidence" we need for God because is we were simply a by-product of "suvival of the fittest" and "natural selection" the notion of "suffering of others" bothering us would never have come to be.
One can quite correctly argue that the human animal that does NOT know the compassion for the suffering of others is far better equipped to "survive" and "propogate his gene" than one that feels compassion and is moved by the suffering of others.

I don't think this argument holds at all. Animals do know suffering (have you ever owned a dog?). There's also an argument from the naturalistic view that empathy is an evolved trait to help social creatures. I think the strongest argument against the naturalistic view, though, is the nature of feeling.

[PaulSacramento]

I do get it when atheists complain about suffering and why there seems to be so much of it. At least they think there is too much, as opposed to the theist who can argue that it can always be worse. Here's the kicker though Paul, on an atheistic worldview what exactly does suffering mean? Is it only human suffering that counts? What about animal suffering, does that even factor into the equation? And if it does, how about the suffering of any living thing, including bacteria, microbes, even plants? Where does one draw the line as to what constitutes suffering and what doesn't? If God decided to end all human suffering today (in a fallen world I'm not entirely certain how that's doable but I'll indulge for a moment) but let's assume that He did do it. Do you really think for a second that atheists will be satisfied with that? Not in the least for they will most certainly drudge up animal suffering, then plant suffering, then sedimentary rock suffering. They are blinded to the truth if it opened their eyelids and shone a laser beam right through their retina. If eyewitnesses to the resurrection continued to not believe what hope do we have for the modern skeptic to do so? There is always a chance but it is tiny.

From a naturalistic view ( not all atheists are natualists), suffering is irrelevant.
Suffering is a human concept, a human notion that, somehow, we have the belief that "suffering" exists.
Animals do NOT understand that concept of suffering.
If a human doesn't grasp suffering he/she is labled as "mentally ill" yet they are simply being a "human animal".
The fact that we KNOW suffering is virtually all the "evidence" we need for God because is we were simply a by-product of "suvival of the fittest" and "natural selection" the notion of "suffering of others" bothering us would never have come to be.
One can quite correctly argue that the human animal that does NOT know the compassion for the suffering of others is far better equipped to "survive" and "propogate his gene" than one that feels compassion and is moved by the suffering of others.

I don't think this argument holds at all. Animals do know suffering (have you ever owned a dog?). There's also an argument from the naturalistic view that empathy is an evolved trait to help social creatures. I think the strongest argument against the naturalistic view, though, is the nature of feeling.

You need to re-read my post, the issue is the suffering of others.
Animals do NOT show compassion or acknowledge suffering in others.

[Beanybag]

You need to re-read my post, the issue is the suffering of others.
Animals do NOT show compassion or acknowledge suffering in others.

But that's not true. Mothers defend their children, animals defend each other. Look, here's a video of a dog saving another dog from harm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

[PaulSacramento]

You need to re-read my post, the issue is the suffering of others.
Animals do NOT show compassion or acknowledge suffering in others.

But that's not true. Mothers defend their children, animals defend each other. Look, here's a video of a dog saving another dog from harm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And how on earth do you know WHY they are doing that?
What makes you think that a dog feels any remorse for the suffering of another dog half way around the world? or would even give up its OWN food for a dog that it has never seen before and has no "relationship" with?

[Beanybag]

You need to re-read my post, the issue is the suffering of others.
Animals do NOT show compassion or acknowledge suffering in others.

But that's not true. Mothers defend their children, animals defend each other. Look, here's a video of a dog saving another dog from harm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5OEKA47xFI

And how on earth do you know WHY they are doing that?
What makes you think that a dog feels any remorse for the suffering of another dog half way around the world? or would even give up its OWN food for a dog that it has never seen before and has no "relationship" with?

How do you know otherwise?

[Reactionary]

What makes you think that a dog feels any remorse for the suffering of another dog half way around the world?

Maybe we should ask him?

[Byblos]

That was all utterly besides the point I made by the way.