I have. Lots of times, actually.
There were times that I felt helpless and alone and wondered why God let me be in that situation. There were times that I even stopped praying.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
It shows you've little faith bro. When you want to make a flower more beautiful and attractive and produce more parts or fruits, you prune it right? And remember, in the process of pruning, milky substances that can be related to its blood comes out right? Very painful if it were to be human. But after some time, it dries up and the flower blossoms once again. Any stage of trial in your life is pruning for a greater height. Stand firm bro! God loves you no matter what!
Taken out of the JudeoChristian context, it also shows selfishness. You have no idea what the effects of what happened to you will be on the lives of others, on down the line in your future or theirs. Patience (you have to wait and see) and selflessness (what is bad for you may be exactly what someone else needed) are virtues regardless of your faith.
It always bugs me when people don't even see the point of their own religion...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Epicirus
That`ll be all.:)
Do you have a loaf of bread in your house? I'm sure you do. Do you have legs? I would hope so. Now, assuming you live in a city, I can bet a decent amount of money that there are homeless and hungry people in your city or town. You have a loaf of bread and two legs with which you can walk. Therefore, you are able to help those that hunger, but apparently not willing seeing as you have probably not given your bread to the hungry. According to Epicurus, you are malevolent, no different that what you claim God of doing.
Why should God stop the problems we caused; simply because He can? Well, I should go out and kill people; simply because I can. Simply because I hold the power to do so.
Let's assume you live with a roommate. You come home to find your sink full of dirty dishes, yet you hadn't dirtied a single one. Should you, then, be responsible for cleaning these dishes, even knowing you hold the power to do so? No. You would probably go on your merry way thinking of what to say to your roommate for dirtying all the dishes, yet you would not clean them; even knowing you have the power to do so. Why should God be responsible for cleaning up *our* messes? He is not willing to prevent evil because we are *willing* to cause it. He's not our babysitter.
"According to Epicurus, you are malevolent, no different that what you claim God of doing."
Are you suggesting we shouldn't expect a higher standard of behavior from a deity than from "his" imperfect creations?
For us to alleviate suffering takes effort and resources. If your god is omnipotent, then alleviating suffering does not have those costs.
Also, it appears from your answer that you do not believe your god is omnibenevolent. Is this true?
Firstly, you're assuming that because God is omnipotent, that this obligates him to end the evil on our planet, but why should He end it when *we* cause it? This wouldn't get the the root of the problem. God wants us to realize that these are *our* mistakes and he wants *us* to work to solve them. It's called free will, and him solving all of our problems affects free will and means that He is responsible for all of our problems simply because he has the ability to solve them. I have the ability to buy a gun and shoot up a school, but just because I have the ability to do this doesn't obligate me to do it, does it? No. Just as if you come home and find all of your dishes dirty yet you had not used a single one; you have the ability to clean all of them, but does this obligate you doing so? No.
Secondly, claiming that I do not believe my God is omnibenevolent is to assume that you understand what God considers good and evil, which means that you are insinuating that you are omniscient and know what God knows, which is extremely false. I believe God is omnibenevolent but I also believe He is rational; He shouldn't be responsible for our problems.
"Firstly, you're assuming that because God is omnipotent, that this obligates him to end the evil on our planet."
Not at all. I think omnibenevolence would carry such an obligation, not omnipotence.
"Secondly, claiming that I do not believe my God is omnibenevolent is to assume that you understand what God considers good and evil, which means that you are insinuating that you are omniscient and know what God knows, which is extremely false."
We're not communicating effectively if you thought I was insinuating my omniscience or anything about my level of knowledge. I *inferred* from your post that you doubt omnibenevolence. If you do not doubt omnibenevolence, then we need to pursue it a bit further. But I'll wait to hear the answer rather than taking off on that tangent first.
God is in no way obligated to solve problems that he did not cause, simply because he has the ability to do so. I've already discussed why, so I shall not do it again.
We agree on this point. My question is this: Do you believe that your god is omnibenevolent? If the answer is yes, then I have further questions, but if not, I will not pursue this further to avoid the strawman fallacy.
He is omnibenevolent. But His conception of good and evil differ greatly from ours, in some ways. Therefore, what you may consider evil He may not.
OK, fair enough. How about this? Would you agree that the infliction of unnecessary suffering is evil?
Yes, I would. But it is not God who inflicts these sufferings, it is us who inflicts them upon ourselves. We are the ones who murder others, we are the ones who choose to torture and bully others, not God. God gave us free will, and He was not responsible for what was to happen in doing so.
Given omnipotence, ALL suffering is unnecessary regardless of who inflicts it. There is always a way, given omnipotence, to accomplish a given goal without inflicting suffering. Any goal can be accomplished via omnipotence in any way whatsoever. Suffering is NEVER necessary with omnipotence. There is always another way to accomplish the same end. To contradict this is to completely discount and disavow omnipotence.
You are assuming what is true... Given free will is not involved. Free will means God will let us do what we want and He will not *directly* intervene. To just fix all the problems we've caused is to affect free will, and, thusly, God would not have kept his promise to us, and would be a liar. How can you assume that, simply because he is omnipotent, He can accomplish all of His goals without suffering? You mean to tell me you know what God can and cannot do, you know what He does and does not will? This is to insinuate omniscience, that you know what God is doing.
"How can you assume that, simply because he is omnipotent, He can accomplish all of His goals without suffering?"
Well, that's pretty much the very definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence says god could accomplish all of his goals in any way 'he' chooses. What definition of omnipotence allows for any limits at all?
He chooses not to, because of free will. That answer your question.
OK, so you are saying god "chooses" to allow unnecessary suffering. That would summarily rule out Omnibenevolence.
Because of free will. If He does something, He is affecting free will. Theology, my friend. The study of God. He will not affect free will, therefore He will not solve our problems. It's also not his job to solve them. This allows omnibenevolence at the same time.
Choosing to allow *unnecessary* suffering is incompatible with omnibenevolence. In your scenario, the god character is essentially saying that free will is more important than the lack of suffering. While a legitimate expression of free will, it is not omnibenevolence, because unnecessary suffering is permitted.
*He* is not permitting it, we are. He will not intervene because He said he wouldn't. The fact that free will is involved vitiates any claims on not being omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Just because God possesses these traits does not constitute him following them; that's part of omnipotence, He has the will to choose what He does and does not act on. *We* cause the evil and suffering on this planet, therefore *He* should not be the one to end it, *we* should.
Also, I can't help but notice that you seem to know what God, in His own mind, considers to be good or evil. I, a Christian, don't even claim such. I'd like to know how you know what He considers good and evil.
"I'd like to know how you know what He considers good and evil."
As an atheist, I lack belief in any external god, which pretty much rules out "him" considering anything at all.
What I have attempted to point out is a variation on the Problem of Evil. The traits of omnipotence and omnibenevolence together would render all evil and suffering unnecessary. A being who could prevent unnecessary suffering but chooses not to is not omnibenevolent, based on the premise that unnecessary suffering is not benevolent. This is based on definitions of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, not on my knowledge or lack of what a hypothetical being knows or thinks.
Your theory is based off of the assumption that because God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent this he is *obligated*, that is, these traits essentially mean that He *has* to stop evil and suffering, but that's just not true. God is not obligated to do anything, He is a being of free will, certainly on a larger scale than ours.
Secondly, what you observe as evil God may not; you are assuming to know exactly what God would consider evil or good. His definition of "good" and "evil" may differ greatly from yours. Essentially, your theory is based on a fallacy.
Your theory is based off of the assumption that because God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent this he is *obligated*, that is, these traits essentially mean that He *has* to stop evil and suffering, but that's just not true. God is not obligated to do anything, He is a being of free will, certainly on a larger scale than ours.
Secondly, what you observe as evil God may not; you are assuming to know exactly what God would consider evil or good. His definition of "good" and "evil" may differ greatly from yours. Essentially, your theory is based on a fallacy.
It appears we have differing ideas about omnibenevolence. In an effort to nail this down, how would you define it?
Omnibenevolence, by my definition, is the trait that allows one to perform any and every act that could be deemed "good". The act of being absolutely morally good.
Wow, this is awesome! If you guys keep replying to this thread chain, it will be so pressed to the right by all the rely bars that eventually, avatars will not even fit :)
I don't think this has happened yet on the forum, lol. I would like to see how the design adjusts itself, if it does.
Yep, I'm a total dork and I get excited by little things like that :)
If your god created everything, then he/she/it thus caused everything.
I think every religious person do wonder at some level; they wonder why their god would prove them or punish them. theist say their deity knows everything... then why people need to pray? does their god has that extreme ego that s/he needs his creation to beg him/her?
ps. great quote Strider
thx :)
And everything we do and say, we should be careful of disregarding the supremacy of God. He allows some kind of evil so as to work His wonder perfectly. Remember Lazarus.? He allowed him to stay dead for 4days. The max for the Israelites to believe he is truely dead before coming to his aid. He is Omnipotent.
Pages