Godly Dilemmas, Part I: The problem of suffering

[Cameroi]

the root causes of suffering are generally gratuitous.
while beliefs may have something to do with it, neither god nor gods in any direct way do.
which is to say, i'm not at all convinced, that whatever god or gods there might be, had or have, all that much to do, with popular and common organized beliefs, and none at all with the popular misunderstandings of them.

[Liriena]

Earthquakes, droughts, and pandemics are our fault because the world was perfect before Adam's sin. His sin brought imperfection.

On the flip side, I can see it possible that Earthquakes would've occurred, but was irrelevant because there was no death. Droughts still didn't matter due to the fact that we didn't need nourishment. Pandemics didn't occur either because we were in perfect health and no biological entity was hostile or even harmful.

See... everything you've just said is demonstrably false. There was never a stage in human history where diseases and death did not exist. Earthquakes most certainly have happened since long before the appearance of the Homo Sapiens. After all, the conditions that cause earthquakes have existed for millions of years as well.

Not to mention the fact that, if you were right, and there was no death in the early days of our species, then it would not have been long before our planet became overpopulated, both by human and non-human species in all their forms, which would have put the competence of God to question. Not to mention the fact that claiming that death did not exist in a world of herbivores, such as the Garden of Eden before the fall, is nothing short of absurd. Plants are living beings, and unless nobody ate at all in the Garden of Eden, many plants most certainly perished, digested by Adam, Eve and all other animal inhabitants.

[The Evenstar]

There was never a stage in human history where diseases and death did not exist.

False, the Bible says that death came after Adam's sin. Disease didn't exist either.

Earthquakes most certainly have happened since long before the appearance of the Homo Sapiens. After all, the conditions that cause earthquakes have existed for millions of years as well.

I cannot refute that, but as their was no death, it's unlikely that they happened. Even if they did, it would be irrelevant because there was no death.

Not to mention the fact that, if you were right, and there was no death in the early days of our species, then it would not have been long before our planet became overpopulated, both by human and non-human species in all their forms, which would have put the competence of God to question.

The time between Adam's sin and his creation wasn't very long at all.

Not to mention the fact that claiming that death did not exist in a world of herbivores, such as the Garden of Eden before the fall, is nothing short of absurd. Plants are living beings, and unless nobody ate at all in the Garden of Eden, many plants most certainly perished, digested by Adam, Eve and all other animal inhabitants.

By Biblical standards, they are not living beings in the same way humans and animals are. They were made purely for the purpose of providing food and oxygen.

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm sure Fraulein Fritzl will be glad to know that, even though heaven did nothing to help her, it will at least make up for her tortuous non-life... somehow.

She eventually got out and the perpetrator was captured and punished. An article in The Independent back in 2010 seems to show that she and the other victims are recovering, God promises deliverance from all obstacles. It may take time in some cases, but it will happen.

[The Evenstar]

She eventually got out and the perpetrator was captured and punished. An article in The Independent back in 2010 seems to show that she and the other victims are recovering, God promises deliverance from all obstacles. It may take time in some cases, but it will happen.

-Do the people of the village worship idols?
-Do the people of the village support or encourage non-biblical behavior or standards without repentance?
-Ds the victims of the famine actually know of God? (If not, then they have no way of knowing how to be saved, so they go up to heaven anyways, 'can't follow a God that you don't know exists)
-If they did, were they trying to follow his commandments?
-If there were, did they pray for deliverance?

Oh wait, there ya' go.

So of course they're in that position. Why would the Christian God give deliverance to a people who openly reject him and worship another God? Does a parent give their 15 year old child money to go purchase drugs or alcohol against their wishes?

[Anachronous Rex]

-Do the people of the village worship idols?
-Do the people of the village support or encourage non-biblical behavior or standards without repentance?
-Ds the victims of the famine actually know of God? (If not, then they have no way of knowing how to be saved, so they go up to heaven anyways, 'can't follow a God that you don't know exists)
-If they did, were they trying to follow his commandments?
-If there were, did they pray for deliverance?

Oh wait, there ya' go.

So of course they're in that position. Why would the Christian God give deliverance to a people who openly reject him and worship another God? Does a parent give their 15 year old child money to go purchase drugs or alcohol against their wishes?

So kill the innocent children with starvation and razor talon? Nice monster you're worshiping there. Even Dagon is nicer.

Also, this was in South Sudan. Majority Christian. So you're wrong and repugnant.

[Liriena]

There was never a stage in human history where diseases and death did not exist.

False, the Bible says that death came after Adam's sin. Disease didn't exist either.

As I said: demonstrably false.

Earthquakes most certainly have happened since long before the appearance of the Homo Sapiens. After all, the conditions that cause earthquakes have existed for millions of years as well.

I cannot refute that, but as their was no death, it's unlikely that they happened. Even if they did, it would be irrelevant because there was no death.

Except there demonstrably was death, and they did happen. Other things that did happen? Meteorites crashing on Earth's surface, ice ages and volcanic eruptions.

Not to mention the fact that, if you were right, and there was no death in the early days of our species, then it would not have been long before our planet became overpopulated, both by human and non-human species in all their forms, which would have put the competence of God to question.

The time between Adam's sin and his creation wasn't very long at all.

Are you implying that God planned Adam's sin to avoid this overpopulation? Because that, and divine incompetence, are the only explanations as far as I can see.

Not to mention the fact that claiming that death did not exist in a world of herbivores, such as the Garden of Eden before the fall, is nothing short of absurd. Plants are living beings, and unless nobody ate at all in the Garden of Eden, many plants most certainly perished, digested by Adam, Eve and all other animal inhabitants.

By Biblical standards, they are not living beings in the same way humans and animals are. They were made purely for the purpose of providing food and oxygen.

Biblical standards my arse. Objectively speaking, plants are living beings.

[Liriena]

(Image)

-Do the people of the village worship idols?
-Do the people of the village support or encourage non-biblical behavior or standards without repentance?
-Ds the victims of the famine actually know of God? (If not, then they have no way of knowing how to be saved, so they go up to heaven anyways, 'can't follow a God that you don't know exists)
-If they did, were they trying to follow his commandments?
-If there were, did they pray for deliverance?

Oh wait, there ya' go.

So of course they're in that position. Why would the Christian God give deliverance to a people who openly reject him and worship another God? Does a parent give their 15 year old child money to go purchase drugs or alcohol against their wishes?

An omnipotent parent wouldn't let his own children starve to death... unless it was a negligent or abusive parent. A parent that only helps the children of his that worship him is a narcissistic parent.

[The Evenstar]

So kill the innocent children with starvation and razor talon? Nice monster you're worshiping there. Even Dagon is nicer.
Also, this was in South Sudan. Majority Christian. So you're wrong and repugnant.

First starters, define why ''killing'' is wrong to begin with. After all, if life is nothing but suffering, and death is the end of suffering, why is it wrong to do so?
I am also not wrong, the last two questions I asked were directed towards them as Christians. Are those villagers actually trying to follow after God's examples, and are they actively praying for deliverance? Now, I read that a lot of the parents of the children in the village were trying to retrieve food aid from a plane at the time that the image was taken. So there you go, that was God's response.

Except there demonstrably was death, and they did happen. Other things that did happen? Meteorites crashing on Earth's surface, ice ages and volcanic eruptions.

I wasn't aware meteorites crashed into the Earth and caused massive lose of life...Before lose of life was even possible. I also didn't know ice ages occurred within the period of a few hours. Volcanic eruptions could've occurred before Adam's son though.

Are you implying that God planned Adam's sin to avoid this overpopulation? Because that, and divine incompetence, are the only explanations as far as I can see.

No, it's just that was simply was no time for Adam to sin before the world became overpopulated. Kane and Able was born after the fall.

Biblical standards my arse. Objectively speaking, plants are living beings.

Yes, they are living, but they're not fully comparable to humans and animals. I mean, cells are also living things, yet God doesn't really make a big deal of their life, as we don't either.

An omnipotent parent wouldn't let his own children starve to death... unless it was a negligent or abusive parent. A parent that only helps the children of his that worship him is a narcissistic parent.

Let me backtrack to what I was saying last page: God isn't making the people starve, they're doing it to themselves. By not following God, they are reaping the consequences of going their own way separate from God. It is entirely their choice.

[Anachronous Rex]

So kill the innocent children with starvation and razor talon? Nice monster you're worshiping there. Even Dagon is nicer.
Also, this was in South Sudan. Majority Christian. So you're wrong and repugnant.

First starters, define why ''killing'' is wrong to begin with. After all, if life is nothing but suffering, and death is the end of suffering, why is it wrong to do so?
I am also not wrong, the last two questions I asked were directed towards them as Christians. Are those villagers actually trying to follow after God's examples, and are they actively praying for deliverance? Now, I read that a lot of the parents of the children in the village were trying to retrieve food aid from a plane at the time that the image was taken. So there you go, that was God's response.

So what you're basically saying is, "God always provides deliverance. Except for when he doesn't. But that's totally those people's fault. And by "those people" I mean their parents, not the actual victims who die in agony as a vulture tears into their flesh, having only lived to know pain."

Yeah, I can totally see how you have the moral high ground here. Well done.

[The Evenstar]

First starters, define why ''killing'' is wrong to begin with. After all, if life is nothing but suffering, and death is the end of suffering, why is it wrong to do so?
I am also not wrong, the last two questions I asked were directed towards them as Christians. Are those villagers actually trying to follow after God's examples, and are they actively praying for deliverance? Now, I read that a lot of the parents of the children in the village were trying to retrieve food aid from a plane at the time that the image was taken. So there you go, that was God's response.

So what you're basically saying is, "God always provides deliverance. Except for when he doesn't. But that's totally those people's fault. And by "those people" I mean their parents, not the actual victims who die in agony as a vulture tears into their flesh, having only lived to know pain."

Yeah, I can totally see how you have the moral high ground here. Well done.

The Bible doesn't make life out to be sunshine and rainbows, the Bible says that there will be hardships and trials, and eventually death. It isn't going to be pleasant, but God is there to try to soften it as much as possible - so as long as you do your best to stay true to what he commands - and to give hope by providing a final heaven to live in for all eternity after death.

God dictates morals. You, me, everyone else on this world, everyone that has lived, and will live, are imperfect beings. God created everything, including us. How do we, creatures that naturally incline towards violence and selfishness (Adam's sin being what invited it into the world) have the right to say we can judge the morality of the very being that created us, and shows us mercy everyday by not having a random star going supernova and killing us immediately.

[Verbal Pararhea]

The story of Adam and Eve was not a historical event.

[Verbal Pararhea]

Gotta agree on this one. I find it supremely arrogant to assume that Creation ought to be whatever is nicest for humanity...why should we assume that we're that important?

We shouldn't. It's perfect;y possible that the universe was created by a being who either doesn't know we exist or doesn't care that we do. However, an all-loving being this is not.

[Verbal Pararhea]

The woman is at fault because the Bible teaches that women should dress and act with modesty. God teaches this because a lot of lost men would act like that towards her if she dressed like that. She disobeyed God, and she was reaping the consequences, she has free will.

Not even touching that one. I'll let the feminists here respond to this.

Again, there is proof all around God exists, I already covered that.

This proof is?

He does not punish us, we put ourselves in the position to be put through suffering by not obeying his commandments.

This is a cop-out. If he created the rules, and the consequences, and he makes sure the consequences happen, he most certainly does punish. It's like saying that the judicial system doesn't put you in prison, you put yourself there.

I don't get why you would not follow choose to follow a God - the only one that can prevent you from going to hell - just because you disagree with some of the results from the actions from the creations he made.

It's more that I don't believe such a being exists in the first place. I can't following people if I don't believe they exist.

I already responded to the points. God is omnipotent and benevolent. He does let things happen, but that's because of our own fault. Death and suffering in is the world, but that's because of Adam's sin.

Then it isn't our fault at all. It's, at best, Adam's fault. God also shares responsibility, because he decided to punish all humans because of the actions of one.

Of course, Adam is a mythic figure, so this is irrelevant anyway.

[Pope Joan]

Excellent question.
Those like Calvin who would give up all other assertions in order to retain the sovereign ominpotence of God have not answer, other than that God could stop it but doesn't want to because it's meant to punish or educate us. In other words, God is a sadist.

Unlike Calvin, I am ready to give up the claims of omnipotence. Then God would want to end suffering but can't, he lacks the power.

An interesting answer, certainly not the most common response to the question. Most Christians are very attached to the idea of the omni-everything sort of god. This possibly stems from the influence of Greek philosophy on the foundations of Christianity.

I heartily agree. We too often confuse Greek philosophy and its fascination with substance and essence, with the Biblical God, who is far from "a being without parts or passions".

[Lost heros]

I responded 'err..' and you questioned why so here's the heart of it..

Why is the woman here at fault, why can't she go dressed as she pleases and not expect 'every creep to hit on her, call her names and beat her for not going back to their place..'

Similarly, why are we at fault for not loving a figure for which we've no proof, threatens us with severe punishment if we do not worship them, sends a son down to suffer horribly for our supposed salvation..

Even if there were but the slightest evidence for a supreme being, this is not one I'd 'choose' to follow.

Aside from the points put forward in the OP, that it's impossible for the god within the Bible to be both omnipotent and benevolent..

..if you deny certain aspects of the Bible, then you may as well deny all if we're allowed to choose - and if no part of the Bible is credible, then what on earth is anyone believing in?

The woman is at fault because the Bible teaches that women should dress and act with modesty. God teaches this because a lot of lost men would act like that towards her if she dressed like that. She disobeyed God, and she was reaping the consequences, she has free will.

Again, there is proof all around God exists, I already covered that.

He does not punish us, we put ourselves in the position to be put through suffering by not obeying his commandments.

I don't get why you would not follow choose to follow a God - the only one that can prevent you from going to hell - just because you disagree with some of the results from the actions from the creations he made.

I already responded to the points. God is omnipotent and benevolent. He does let things happen, but that's because of our own fault. Death and suffering in is the world, but that's because of Adam's sin.

The Bible also teaches that if your brother dies, you are required to marry his wife. The Bible also endorses slavery. The Bible also says to cut off a girl's hand when she accidentally touches a guy's junk. The Bible also says we should do absolutely nothing on Sabbath. The Bible also says we should stone astronomers. Do you do all of this?

I missed that. Could you please link to that.

But if he was omnipotent, he could prevent us from putting ourselves in the position for him to punish us. Unless of course, he doesn't want to not punish us.

I don't get why you would not follow choose to follow Zeus - the only one that can prevent you from going to Tarturus - just because you disagree with some of the results from the actions from the creations he made.

Why doesn't he destroy sin? Why did he create Satan? Why doesn't he destroy Satan? Why don't we live in a utopia? Why did God let Adam sin? Why does he punish us, for actions we didn't commit? How can he be both omnipotent and benevolent if he cannot or does not want to destroy evil?

[The Tovian Way]

All of these objections always seem to boil down to:

The universe has such-and-such a property, but an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God would not create a universe with this property, so an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God has not, in fact, created the universe.

The striking characteristic about everyone making this claim, however, is that they are are - in every case - a tiny, transient being whose experience of the universe is limited to a fraction of a fraction of its scope in space, time, and knowledge. These people, who have explored maybe a few hundred miles of the vast universe, who have lived maybe a few tens of years in a universe ticking off billions, who have access to only that tiny fragment of cosmic information that is not permanently hidden from us by distance, these people are the ones claiming to have such a vast understanding that they can say with surety that an all-powerful and all-loving God couldn't possibly have been responsible.

The sheer hubris is very telling.

[Bombadil]

All of these objections always seem to boil down to:

The universe has such-and-such a property, but an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God would not create a universe with this property, so an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God has not, in fact, created the universe.

The striking characteristic about everyone making this claim, however, is that they are are - in every case - a tiny, transient being whose experience of the universe is limited to a fraction of a fraction of its scope in space, time, and knowledge. These people, who have explored maybe a few hundred miles of the vast universe, who have lived maybe a few tens of years in a universe ticking off billions, who have access to only that tiny fragment of cosmic information that is not permanently hidden from us by distance, these people are the ones claiming to have such a vast understanding that they can say with surety that an all-powerful and all-loving God couldn't possibly have been responsible.

The sheer hubris is very telling.

Well, here's the thing.. even if, despite absolutely no evidence for such a God existing, we were to accept it as a possibility, which is fine..

..to have any opinion whatsoever on the wants, desires or wishes of that God, is ridiculous. One could point to the Bible but it's riddled with inconsistency, at best one can select what one wants.. which makes it meaningless.

That's beyond the fact that there are countless varieties of that God, countless religions that claim to teach such a God's ways.

Given all this, at best one cannot make any decision based on the idea any God exists, at worst one certainly cannot tell other people what to do.

So, given the existence of such a god can make no difference to your life whatsoever.. then you've neither any evidence nor any reason to live as though they did exist.

Surely the hubris is in pretending to know what such a god wants and, further, telling other people what to do.

Living assuming there isn't one, and there you've no special place in this universe, seems quite humble to me.

[The Tovian Way]

All of these objections always seem to boil down to:

The universe has such-and-such a property, but an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God would not create a universe with this property, so an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God has not, in fact, created the universe.

The striking characteristic about everyone making this claim, however, is that they are are - in every case - a tiny, transient being whose experience of the universe is limited to a fraction of a fraction of its scope in space, time, and knowledge. These people, who have explored maybe a few hundred miles of the vast universe, who have lived maybe a few tens of years in a universe ticking off billions, who have access to only that tiny fragment of cosmic information that is not permanently hidden from us by distance, these people are the ones claiming to have such a vast understanding that they can say with surety that an all-powerful and all-loving God couldn't possibly have been responsible.

The sheer hubris is very telling.

Well, here's the thing.. even if, despite absolutely no evidence for such a God existing, we were to accept it as a possibility, which is fine..

False. There's plenty of arguments out there purporting to give exactly this evidence. The job of the one who disagrees with the conclusion is to address the arguments and demonstrate exactly how they are unsound. Instead, they are simply dismissed as if they did not exist at all.

..to have any opinion whatsoever on the wants, desires or wishes of that God, is ridiculous. One could point to the Bible but it's riddled with inconsistency, at best one can select what one wants.. which makes it meaningless.

No, claiming to be able to describe God's full nature based on our own reasoning is ridiculous. Fortunately most theists don't claim this is the case. Some aspects of God can be arrived at through reason. For others we depend on revelation. The fact that you can interpret a text in whichever way you choose if you engage in enough intellectual gymnastics does not entail that there is not a single way the texts was intended to be interpreted by the One who inspired it. The Bible is not a science textbook with which you can work out the details of the subject matter just by slogging through it with appropriate determination; the Bible derives its authority from the Church that wrote it, and cannot properly be understood outside her.

That's beyond the fact that there are countless varieties of that God, countless religions that claim to teach such a God's ways.

There are also countless varieties of belief about all manner of factual claims. The fact that people disagree about the subject does not entail that all of them are false; it might very well be the case that one of them is true, and the others are false.

Given all this, at best one cannot make any decision based on the idea any God exists, at worst one certainly cannot tell other people what to do.

No, given all this, we cannot claim to have knowledge of the existence of God or the full extent of His properties, at least in the same sense that we can be said to have scientific knowledge. But the lack of certitude does not dismiss us from the responsibility to believe true propositions. The best we can do is to first jettison the naturalism bias that prevents a person from entertaining the possibility of a non-material world, and then engage in an honest attempt to seek whatever divinity might exist. The theism question is not a scientific hypothesis to be tested in an antiseptic lab; it is an experiential searching out of another person or persons, in an attempt to know him, her, or them, not in the way we know that entropy tends to increase over time, but in the way that we know one another. If God is a person (a center of consciousness with a sense of self and a will), the only way to approach God is as a person, not as a dry fact.

So, given the existence of such a god can make no difference to your life whatsoever.. then you've neither any evidence nor any reason to live as though they did exist.

Not the case. If God does exist, and is a person as Christians and others say He is, then it indeed makes a powerful difference to one's life whether or not one engages with this being or refuses Him. In fact, if God exists in any way remotely like the way Christianity claims He exists, then how one relates to this being might be the single most important facet of one's existence.

Surely the hubris is in pretending to know what such a god wants and, further, telling other people what to do.

The claims of Christianity as to what God wants are not propositions we claim to have pieced together through our faculties of reason. We have not tested them in a lab or reasoned them out through our own genius. We freely admit that we have no capacity to do so. Were it not from the direct revelation of God to man, we would have no knowledge of God's intentions save the limited scope we can deduce from the natural world, and from logic. Fortunately, we do have such a revelation, and are capable of understanding what God wants for us. This is not knowledge in the same way as we can be said to have knowledge about scientific matters, because it comes direct from the source of the truth, as it were, rather than being deduced or pieced together.

Living assuming there isn't one, and there you've no special place in this universe, seems quite humble to me.

Living assuming there is no God is humble only if there actually isn't a God. If there were, and if God is even slightly as Christians claim He is, an omnibenevolent and omniscient being who not only wants what is best for His creation but alone among all beings is actually in a position to know what is best for His creation, if this were to be the case then living assuming He doesn't exist because one simply can't get beyond the fact that this life isn't roses and sweet cream all the time - that's the height of hubris.

[God Kefka]

Welcome to the part one of a possibly continuing series of posts about theology and its many problems. I've decided to call this "the problem of suffering" as opposed to "the problem of evil" in order to avoid the "Where do your morals come from then?" gotcha question that theists like Ravi Zacharias ask in response to the latter phrasing of the question.

The problem of suffering is deeply unsettling challenge to the notion of a god that is both all-powerful and all-loving. Indeed, it is one of the most common arguments used by atheists. Though it does nothing to refute the existence of some sort of god, it certainly poses a deep problem for the Platonic ideal god that appears in classical Abrahamic theism, particularly Christianity. Using suffering language, I shall pose the classical Epicurean tetralemma which outlines the problem rather nicely:

1) Is god willing to prevent suffering but unable? Then he is impotent.

2) Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

3) Is he willing and able? Then whence cometh evil?

4) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

This argument purports to give an exhaustive list of all possibilities. If, indeed, only these four possibilities exist, then it seems an all-loving, all-powerful god is incompatible with the nature of the observed world. Many theists have attempted to answer this challenge by accepting possibility 3) and trying to explain how suffering still exists. The most well-known and popular defense is the so-called "free will defense."

God wants to prevent all suffering, and he certainly could do so, however, he wants even more for humans to have free will, and with free will necessarily comes the capacity to do evil. We need free will because it's important that we choose to obey god rather than simply obey him out of compulsion. This argument has several problems.

1) Whence cometh natural suffering? Even if we accept this argument, at best, it only explains evils which exist due to human actions. Genocide, war, rape, torture, etc. would be explained away, but what about disease, natural disasters, famines, and the horrific ways that nature is cruel to non-human animals capable of experiencing pain? The only way these can be explained are either as the either the result of blind, uncaring natural forces or as the acts of an angry god. But why would god fill nature with cruelty against non-human animals, cruelty which doesn't even affect us? What need would there be to "punish" wild animals with starvation, disease, parasitism, predation, and other nasty results of living in nature? God necessarily comes off as uncaring, non-existent, or as the kind of individual that tortures animals. None of these is "all-loving."

2) Why is it so important to have free will in the first place? Why is it important that we choose to obey god rather than obey him out of compulsion, especially if you're the sort that also believes in an all-knowing god? Think about this, is there free will in heaven? If the answer is yes, then how can heaven really be a paradise? If all suffering and "evil" results from free will, why isn't heaven just like another earth? If the answer is no, then why does heaven exist, and why would anyone want to go there? If there's no free will in heaven, then is free will really all it's cracked up to be?

3) Borrowing from the previous question, if there's free will in heaven, and heaven remains a paradise, then free will must be compatible with a world that contains no suffering at all. Why then couldn't god simply create that world? He's clearly already created it in the first place (heaven), so why would he need to create non-heaven at all? It just brings about needless suffering.

4) Why did god make it so that our base predilections are toward sin? Why make humans be naturally lustful if lust is to be a sin? Why make humans naturally curious and place a piece of fruit in an easily accessible area if you didn't want them to eat it? Why are some people born sociopaths or psychopaths? It is certainly possible for there to be beings that have no innate desire to sin who still choose to sin nonetheless. Why didn't god create beings like that? Why did god create humans that have innate drives to do things he hates? Why not create beings that are immune to temptation and only sin if they make a conscious choice to do so? Such beings clearly would have even more free will than humans, and if free will is so great, god should have created them instead.

5) Does free will even exist in the first place? If so, what is it? What is a coherent definition for free will, and how do we know that humans possess it?

What do you think of the problem of suffering/evil? Am I correct in asserting that god must be impotent, malevolent, both, or non-existent, given the proliferate and superfluous suffering which exists in the universe? Comments, questions, additional defenses, etc. are all welcome.

The ironic thing is that there is a REALLY REALLY easy answer for Christians to give but they don't give it. If I were running the Church hundreds of years ago and needed to deal with this inconsistency, this is how I would have interpreted the texts.

Just change your doctrine and admit that God is NOT omnipotent (but still seemingly omnipotent to us because his power is still greater than everyone in the material and spiritual world combined).

Honestly... why does God even NEED to be seen as omnipotent anyways? It's just hubris of the Christian faith I tell you.

It's SUCH an easy cop-out to this answer if you just admit that God is to some extent unable. What's wrong with that?! Sure your God is no longer limitless... but He's still the most powerful thing out there?!

Anyhow... it's what I would do to logically make it all work better if I were Christian. It's not THAT slippery a slope and really the whole story would make more sense...

Having yourself get crucified on a cross in order to wash away all the sins just never came across as the actions of a very omnipotent being. And seriously? The whole OT smacks of the actions of a being with limited power and knowledge engaging in some exercise of trial and error rather than that of a being with unlimited power and knowledge...

''Oops I screwed up, let's flood the people. OH CRAP! I guess I should have put the tree higher. Definitely didn't see the serpent coming in and ruining this garden...''

Why not just say God is not unlimited but still much greater than anything else?

This way you can just pick a watered down 1). He is not ''impotent,'' but his powers are just not that great.

Why not?

The pride of Christians in insisting that their God has no limit... it creates so much logical inconsistency.

[Bombadil]

*snip*

"So, basically, we may not have your (finger quote) 'according-to-science' facts but, umm, some of us have been speaking directly with god mmkay..."

[Xsyne]

Off the top of my head I can think of two methods of "solving" the problem from evil. (I'm a bit annoyed at myself that I never even considered the "God is not omniscient" solution.)

The first is that there are essentially three distinct definitions of omnipotence.
1. An omnipotent being can do anything.
2. An omnipotent being can do anything logically possible.
3. An omnipotent being can do anything physically possible.

Definition 1, I wager, is the definition that most people will think of when they hear the word "omnipotent". In my experience, definition 2 is the one that is more common among theologians and philosophers.

If we use definition 2 or definition 3, then we leave open the possibility that this is, in fact, the best of all possible worlds. It is, of course, only a possibility, but if you assert that then the problem from evil is solved.

The second solution is far more simple. We are, with respect to God, not real, and therefore God has no moral obligation towards us.

[Anachronous Rex]

So what you're basically saying is, "God always provides deliverance. Except for when he doesn't. But that's totally those people's fault. And by "those people" I mean their parents, not the actual victims who die in agony as a vulture tears into their flesh, having only lived to know pain."

Yeah, I can totally see how you have the moral high ground here. Well done.

The Bible doesn't make life out to be sunshine and rainbows, the Bible says that there will be hardships and trials, and eventually death. It isn't going to be pleasant, but God is there to try to soften it as much as possible - so as long as you do your best to stay true to what he commands - and to give hope by providing a final heaven to live in for all eternity after death.

God dictates morals. You, me, everyone else on this world, everyone that has lived, and will live, are imperfect beings. God created everything, including us. How do we, creatures that naturally incline towards violence and selfishness (Adam's sin being what invited it into the world) have the right to say we can judge the morality of the very being that created us, and shows us mercy everyday by not having a random star going supernova and killing us immediately.

You've never once actually replied to a point I have made directly.

Just thought I'd point that out, as it speaks volumes about you.

But yeah, basically, you were smashed down as to your claims of divine benevolence, and so you shifted the goalpost. I don't expect sunshine and rainbows, I expect "doesn't torture children." Who am I to judge? Someone who doesn't torture children.

[Liriena]

Except there demonstrably was death, and they did happen. Other things that did happen? Meteorites crashing on Earth's surface, ice ages and volcanic eruptions.

I wasn't aware meteorites crashed into the Earth and caused massive lose of life...Before lose of life was even possible. I also didn't know ice ages occurred within the period of a few hours. Volcanic eruptions could've occurred before Adam's son though.

Un-fucking-believable... an actual young Earth creationist.

Are you implying that God planned Adam's sin to avoid this overpopulation? Because that, and divine incompetence, are the only explanations as far as I can see.

No, it's just that was simply was no time for Adam to sin before the world became overpopulated. Kane and Able was born after the fall.

Then, God got lucky and was spared the headache of overpopulation? Isn't that awfully convenient?

Biblical standards my arse. Objectively speaking, plants are living beings.

Yes, they are living, but they're not fully comparable to humans and animals. I mean, cells are also living things, yet God doesn't really make a big deal of their life, as we don't either.

So... death did exist before Adam's sin, but God had a double-standard for plants so it doesn't really count? Holy fucking special pleading, Catman!

An omnipotent parent wouldn't let his own children starve to death... unless it was a negligent or abusive parent. A parent that only helps the children of his that worship him is a narcissistic parent.

Let me backtrack to what I was saying last page: God isn't making the people starve, they're doing it to themselves. By not following God, they are reaping the consequences of going their own way separate from God. It is entirely their choice.

So, you are telling me that all the starving children in Africa, including the newborns who are not even self-aware, would suddenly see food rain down from the skies if they just prayed to the Christian God (which most of them do anyway)? Are you telling me that the African continent's lack of fertile land is due to its population's alleged godlessness?

Are you even reading the insanely idiotic bullshit you are writing?

[Bottle]

Gotta agree on this one. I find it supremely arrogant to assume that Creation ought to be whatever is nicest for humanity...why should we assume that we're that important?

We shouldn't. It's perfect;y possible that the universe was created by a being who either doesn't know we exist or doesn't care that we do. However, an all-loving being this is not.

Well yeah. I mean that's why I find the Abrahamic God so childish. It really just comes off like the kid who is all, "My dad is a black belt! And a spy! With the biggest guns ever! And he'll totally beat up anybody who is mean to me! Also he drives a tank!"