If GAE were true, the God of the OT is worse than Dawkins and Hitchens describe

Really? So what part of, say, malaria do you partially understand, enough to know that it’s for our own good?

1 Like

9 posts were split to a new topic: Animals and the Image of God

About malaria specifically, nothing. That does not prevent me from having sufficient reason to believe that God exists (see long series of posts starting here), that he is good (see for example here), and that he has demonstrated his ability to bring good from evil in other cases (here), so that it is not implausible to infer that he can do so in the case of malaria as well.

1 Like

Seems simpler to live a good life with purpose and meaning without believing in ancient Gods.

1 Like

But then God’s plan is not working, because for many thousands of years people had no means of dealing with such things.

Also, your response is so vague it could answer any situation and thus effectively answers none.

This is false, since (by my standards, if not yours) your god would be doing them wrong by allowing them to suffer unnecessarily. It’s also illogical since there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the children, and no link between their (lack of) wrongdoing and your god’s negligence.

He could do that without letting people suffer in agony from untreatable ailments. If you’re right, he does do that for most people, since most people don’t have such ailments. Your response has nothing to do with alleviating suffering and death.

But he does them wrong by allowing some of them to suffer months or years of relentless pain and discomfort. Either your deity doesn’t care, or doesn’t exist.

A better explanation is that you are fallible and one of those data is incorrect.

1 Like

You are again assuming that God’s plan cannot have different specific circumstances for different times and places.

It is not vague, it is general. It may be only minimally informative, but that does not make it untrue.

Unnecessarily for what? To avoid this God could either create a world devoid of suffering, or miraculously intervene every time a child would suffer “unnecessarily”. It’s not clear that either of those options would actually have an outcome that is on balance better (resulting in more people experiencing the greatest possible good of relationship with God for eternity). Something similar could be said about your other objections.

Roy, have you read any more in-depth treatments of this issue? I’d recommend resources like CS Lewis’ Problem of Pain, or Clay Jones’ Why Does God Allow Evil?. Or take a look at this link for an accessible online exploration of the issue. These are not questions that believers in God have no answer for.

1 Like

Your God isn’t great. He is not even good.

1 Like

Foreseen frustrations deliberately being programmed into the world as natural evils by a temporally omnipresent divine being?

36oq5t

I can’t do this topic.

5 Likes

God has authority to decide anything because that is what God is: the Creator of the Universe who defines its rules and defines what is good or evil. We can’t even fully understand the behavior of insects and electrons; I think we know that we can’t understand the overall purpose of the Universe.

So assuming God exists, I don’t think we are in a position to say that our suffering is pointless. We have no right to question God’s plans and actions. See the book of Job.

You will appreciate that I found none of your linked arguments compelling or even interesting. Nor did I find your central claim supported by them.

1 Like

I deny that being the creator gives him the right to make such decisions, and you fall into the Euthyphro dilemma. Job raises a number of theological problems that we could discuss some time; for one thing, God acts reprehensibly.

2 Likes

I give God no authority over my life whatsoever.

1 Like

3 posts were split to a new topic: Poof He is gone

I don’t know why anyone thought this post should be flagged. That was funny. :slight_smile:

1 Like

So, what in your view gives someone or something the right to make decisions about good and evil?

how about their own reasoning, morals, ethics and values?

1 Like

It doesn’t seem to be a right. If there is something that’s objectively good or evil, nobody decides that; it just is. If it’s good or evil because God says so, that’s not objective; it’s arbitrary. If there is only subjective good or evil, each person must decide.

3 Likes

Why is this the case? Is God’s opinion just one among others? Who or what do you think God is?

1 Like

No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that your claim that “Unless God’s plan includes allowing us to respond to suffering by improving our conditions and helping each other in our mortal lives” fails because there frequently is and was no way for people to improve their conditions.

It is not at all informative, since it is based on an unjustified assumption and there is no reason to believe it is true. While you are right that this does not make it false, it doesn’t render it convincing either.

Unnecessarily for the purpose you gave, as is shown by the fact that such suffering is not universal - which fact you deleted from your response.

Yes, I’ve read many many attempts to deal with the problem of suffering - and, like yours, they all distil to
‘There must be a reason why God allows such suffering, but I don’t know what it is’.

Which is equivalent to ‘There is a gaping hole in my argument for which I have no solution’.

Come back when you have enough data or capacity or understanding to work out why your god allows suffering. In the meantime, I’ll stick with my own obvious solutions to the problems you find so intractable.

1 Like

As you know, I don’t think there is such a thing at all. But if there were, how would you deal with the Euthyphro dilemma?

1 Like