• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Suffering is necessary as a contrast? (Problem of Evil)

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
Right. This is looking at the problem of evil from an eastern perspective, but it still holds all the main three traits of your traditional christian God. The only difference seems to be that most eastern religions tend to view life as a learning experience, where some individuals believe that suffering can become a very strong learning tool.

Three questions:

1. Given that free will exists. Can God logically make a world without suffering? [Given emotions such as love etc]

1a. [Suppose this is similar to all those other variations: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it]

2. Does having a contrast (suffering) emphasis happiness more so, than if there were no suffering?

3. If God removed this suffering, and made humans appreciate happiness without the need of a contrast. Would this be considered as infringing on free will?

(Been debating on another forum. It came down to this...)

Other Person said:
1. God can create a world without suffering.
2. God would want to eliminate suffering as he is good. [Is suffering really negative?]
3. Suffering exists.
4. God is not good or powerful.
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
Yeah, either god doesn't exist, doesn't have the power, is not good, or suffering is good or neutral.

(EDIT: I don't think that this can be very long discussion... There isn't really space to move the way the question is asked...)
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
The way I view it is...

God is inherently the most valuable thing that exists.
That which is most valuable must be given utmost glory and honor.
Because God is all powerful and all knowing the world he creates is necessarily the world in which he is most glorified.
Therefore the suffering of both humans and God (Christ) is requisite for God to receive all the glory he is due.
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
Oh, btw, this is not really related but, if god is good, does that mean that he has no free will?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I guess nolla's trying to argue that if God is good, he has no freedom to be evil.
 

SecondBest

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
844
MBTI Type
eNxp
Enneagram
5/7
Three questions:

1. Given that free will exists. Can God logically make a world without suffering? [Given emotions such as love etc]

If we're working under the premise of the existence of free will and the additional premise that God is omnipotent, then yes, I suppose it's not impossible.

1a. [Suppose this is similar to all those other variations: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it]

Not if he's omnipotent.

2. Does having a contrast (suffering) emphasis happiness more so, than if there were no suffering?

I think so. Think of it this way:

You have a flashlight. Are you going to visually experience the light more strongly when there's already sunlight or when its pitch dark?

3. If God removed this suffering, and made humans appreciate happiness without the need of a contrast. Would this be considered as infringing on free will?

Not entirely certain on the connection between free will and appreciating happiness without the contrast of suffering. Can you elaborate?

My perspective is that free will is an illusion. Like Doctor Manhattan once said in the Watchmen, "We're all puppets who can't see the string... except I can see the string." Or at least something to that effect.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Right. This is looking at the problem of evil from an eastern perspective, but it still holds all the main three traits of your traditional christian God. The only difference seems to be that most eastern religions tend to view life as a learning experience, where some individuals believe that suffering can become a very strong learning tool.

Three questions:

1. Given that free will exists. Can God logically make a world without suffering? [Given emotions such as love etc]

No. One person's free will changes the choices all other people have. If everyone is free, someone's gonna step on someone else's toes. If God made it that no one could step on each other's toes, we wouldn't have free will.

1a. [Suppose this is similar to all those other variations: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it]

Well, if you assume God is omnipotent, you'll have a definition of God that's not logically coherent.

2. Does having a contrast (suffering) emphasis happiness more so, than if there were no suffering?

Yes. More as a psychological truth than a philosophical one.

3. If God removed this suffering, and made humans appreciate happiness without the need of a contrast. Would this be considered as infringing on free will?

Logically, yes. (As mentioned above)
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
I guess nolla's trying to argue that if God is good, he has no freedom to be evil.

Yeah. If there is a spectrum of good and evil, wouldn't that make god do the things that are the best things possible? That would mean that god could not have created any other world than this one we live in, and this world is perfect, since all he did was 100% good.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
1. Given that free will exists. Can God logically make a world without suffering? [Given emotions such as love etc]

If God made a world without suffering then it would have to have at least one of the following two conditions:
1) People did not have free will.
2) People had free will but were omniscient. Therefore they would know the complete consequences of their actions.

1a. [Suppose this is similar to all those other variations: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it]

When you think about the implications of this rock, then you realize this is a nonsense question.

Such a rock would have such a strong gravity field that it would create a black hole that sucked all of the universe's matter, time and space into it. Since the rock does not exist in time and space, then the word "lift" has no meaning in this context. That is why this is a nonsense question.

2. Does having a contrast (suffering) emphasis happiness more so, than if there were no suffering?

Yes.

3. If God removed this suffering, and made humans appreciate happiness without the need of a contrast. Would this be considered as infringing on free will?

Not necessarily. I kind of answered this in the first question.

Oh, btw, this is not really related but, if god is good, does that mean that he has no free will?

One must be careful when trying to draw the same conclusions about man and God. They are two very different beings. In this case what is relevant is that (potentially) God is omniscient, while man is not. An omniscient and good God does not have the freedom to do evil. However such a God still has freedom in other choices. (For example, "Will I make the sky blue or green?")
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
An omniscient and good God does not have the freedom to do evil. However such a God still has freedom in other choices. (For example, "Will I make the sky blue or green?")

So he can only have a say on the things that don't matter anyways?

EDIT: And then goodness as a principle would be the real god, since it is above god.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
So he can only have a say on the things that don't matter anyways?

That's a matter of opinion. I think that a lot of choices matter than don't involve good and evil. (At least they matter to me.)

EDIT: And then goodness as a principle would be the real god, since it is above god.

I don't quite follow you. Wouldn't this mean that God embodies goodness? The way I see it there is more to God than good and evil, so even if God must be good, that doesn't make the principle of goodness above God.
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
Umm... something like, god depends on good, but good is what is constant and doesn't depend on god. Good is the foundation that god must build on. Unless god can influence what is good. I guess I meant to ask, does god have power over what is good?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Umm... something like, god depends on good, but good is what is constant and doesn't depend on god. Good is the foundation that god must build on. Unless god can influence what is good. I guess I meant to ask, does god have power over what is good?

:huh:
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
unwilling=/=unable.

Isn't that in practice the same thing? The world is now the most perfect of all the possibilities if god is being as good as he can be.


If god can just decide what is good, then it doesn't matter at all what he does since everything he does will be good in any case. "This is good because I did it" Which would also mean that the world is perfect.

I don't know, maybe I am not making sense. Is there any way that the world can be imperfect if god is good?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Isn't that in practice the same thing? The world is now the most perfect of all the possibilities if god is being as good as he can be.

No. They are not the same thing. For instance, my dog is unable to fly, but he is quite willing. He is also unwilling to drink out of my unflushed toilet, but quite able.

If God was perfect, then he would have the capacity to create imperfection. Furthermore, God=/=God's creations.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm not going to say my personal views on the matter, because I'm not too clear on them myself. I think the way many Christian theologans explain it is that Good is that which brings you closer to God and Bad is that which makes you distant from God. In either case the existance of evil is humankind's fault by choice of apple, not by design of God.
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
If God was perfect, then he would have the capacity to create imperfection. Furthermore, God=/=God's creations.

So god created an imperfect world? I wonder what is the point in that if he loves good...

In either case the existance of evil is humankind's fault by choice of apple, not by design of God.

He knew that was gonna happen. It was his fault to create the scenario.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
This was not made by me.

W(x, y) = y is willing to prevent x
A(x, y) = y is able to prevent x
E(x) = x is evil, T(x) = x exists
M(x) = x is malevolent
I(x) = x is impotent

A: If god is not able to prevent evil, then god is impotent.
¬A(god,evil) -> I(god)

B: If god is unwilling to prevent evil, then god is malevolent.
¬W(god,evil) -> M(god)

C: If evil exists, god is unwilling to prevent evil or god is unable to prevent evil.
T(evil) -> (¬A(god,evil) v ¬W(god,evil))

D: If god exists, he is not malevolent and he is not impotent
T(god) -> (¬M(god) & ¬I(god))

1. God exists: T(god)
2. Evil exists: T(evil)
3. By 1 and D, god is not malevolent and he is not impotent: ¬M(god) & ¬I(god)
4. By 2 and C, god is unwilling to prevent evil or god is unable to prevent evil: ¬A(god,evil) v ¬W(god,evil)
5. By 4 and A and B, god is malevolent or god is impotent: I(god) v M(god)
6. 3 and 5 are a contradiction.

By 6, either 3 is false or 5 is false.
If 3 is false, then 1 is false, then god does not exist:
¬3 -> ¬1 -> ¬T(god)
If 5 is false, then 4 is false:
¬5 -> ¬4
If 4 is false, then 2 is false, then evil does not exist:
¬4 -> ¬2 -> ¬T(evil)
Therefore, either evil does not exist or god does not exist. We cannot conclude that god does not exist unless we presume that if god exists, evil exists:
T(god) -> T(evil)
The contrapositive would then be:
¬T(evil) -> ¬T(god)
and thus god would not exist. If this is not the case, then this proof is not possible because if evil does not exist, then god does not need to prevent it. That is, false implies true OR false in C.
 
Top