Kirkegaard, a German existentialist, had a dilemma with the Christian God.

He was told that God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient) and all loving, (omnibenevolent) and yet, suffering still exists.

How can suffering exist in the world if God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing.

He went on to say God couldn't be all three of those things if suffering were to exist, either God was all knowing and all loving, but not all powerful and therefore couldn't stop it, all loving and all powerful, but not all knowing and so didn't know that it was going on or that it would happen so he was unable to stop all suffering... etc. The idea being God couldn't be all loving and all powerful and all knowing.

SO, some thoughts?

I think that the idea of a christain God is that he endows us with free will, the hardships are human made, rather than interfering with the human's lives on a constant basis, he lets us live as we will, and judges us after.

And that covers a lot, except for things like tsunamis and random bolts of lightning. If God is all powerful, why wouldn't he stop these things from happening, unless he wasn't all-knowing or all-loving?

It's hard to rationally circumvent the dilemma. You have to appeal to mystery in order to solve it, but Christians are usually pretty good at that. In other words, God's love/power/knowledge works in mysterious ways.

Yeah like I said, I don't think there's a logical way out of that problem.

He lets life happen. There is a difference between all knowing and loving, and all acting. I belive the idea of the Christiain God lets life happen, but offers guidance in a way.

I wish Nevin was here, he could explain it well :(

actually the best rationaliziation/logical explanation of this that I found was in a Dan Brown book (the guy who wrote the DaVinci Code. IT was in the prequel to that book, Angels and Demons)

A priest is discussing human suffering with a swiss gaurd and says that we all consider God to be a father or parent of some sort right? And the gaurd answers yes, and then he goes on to say, you're a father. Your son wants to skateboard, but is unaware of the danger, do you run behind him constantly to catch him when he falls? Or do you let him learn by falling once or twice, hurting himself, but become wiser for the pain. Do you coddle your child constantly and shield him from everything? He said God worked in the same way.

Granted I don't think this is adequte, because as psycholopher pointed out, then what's the point of MASSIVE suffering like tsunami's. However, i think it provides some basis to approach this dilemma rationally. Thoughts?

Well what's too harsh of a life lesson? If death is, then we might ask why does God allow anyone to die for any reason. Why not just have everybody live to a certain age (when they're ready for ascension), and then quickly and painlessly zap them?

Yeah, and there's the idea that God has the POWER to stop tsunamis and what not but chooses not to act. I mean humans had the free will to procreate and then the free will to move to a beach where tsunamis sometimes hit, so it's not like God purposefully put people on a beach on Sumatra only to wipe them out.

And yes, maybe in his love God allows us to suffer pain immensely beyond any father would allow his son to experience. But again, I think there's a necessary appeal to the mystery of God's love. Or the mystery of God's power.

Prehaps a being that is all knowing expresses love in ways that we cannot coprehend?

I really don't know the answers, I'm just throwing out ideas here. Feel free to refute.

No, I agree that there is something to that.

If you except the standard judeao-christian tenant that God surpasses all human understanding, then our understanding of God is inherently well, flawed. Not that we shouldn't try to understand God's will, but that because we're appraoching it from a human stand point, it won't make sense to us, in short our perceptions are inconsistent and we can't understand God in a human context, it would limit God.

So yes, perhaps God does work in mysterious ways, and express love in ways that we can not comprehend.

This topic reminds me that I really need to read The Problem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis. I keep seeing it get recommended, and hearing how it deals really well with the question "Why does God allow suffering?", but I still haven't gotten around to reading it. I will, however, do my best to answer this question without ol' Clive's help.

I'm not entirely sure of the answer to this very difficult question, but I will throw out a few ideas. There may actually be some validity to Kirkegaard's argument -- let us assume, for the moment, that he is correct. Let us assume that God cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. It is not clear to me which one of these qualities God does not necessarily possess -- it could in fact be any of them. The New Testament places much emphasis on God being love -- however, God also says that he "hated" Esau. I tend to look at the latter passage as meaning essentially that God cursed Esau -- hate being not so much a state of mind as an action. So I would personally say that God is all loving. So then, we are left with omnipotence and omniscience. One could make an argument against God's omniscience, seeing as God does often ask humans questions in the Bible, even though he should know the answer -- but I do not think he was asking because he did not know the answer, but for other reasons. It seems to me that God must be omniscient. So, we are left with omnipotence. This is actually the quality which I am not certain God possesses. After all, there is much emphasis in Scripture and in Christian theology about how God cannot be tainted by sin. He does not choose to not allow sin into his kingdom, but rather is not able to. Now, I may be interpreting this wrong, but this is merely a possibility I am presenting. Now, because of God's nature, one may see that it is logically impossible for God to be in the presence of sin, as sin goes against God's very nature. However, this is still a limit on God's omnipotence -- we are saying that God is bound by logic. God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift, and then lift it. This classic argument against theism, while obviously flawed, brings up an important point. I will briefly go over the argument to demonstrate my point. The argument states that if God cannot create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it, he is not all powerful. But if he can, then he is not all powerful either, because he cannot lift it. While this is technically true, it says nothing as to the validity of theism, but rather points out the two possibilities of God's omnipotence: Either he is omnipotent only up to a point -- he is incapable of logical contradictions. That is to say, he cannot make a square circle. The second option is that God is above logic, and is completely and totally omnipotent. If this is the case, he could create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, but then still lift it -- this is logically impossible, of course, but if God can transcend logic, then that doesn't matter. So either God is above logic or bound by it. If he is bound by is bound by logic, then I believe our problem is solved. Because God wants us to have free will, but cannot be tainted by sin, he must allow suffering to occur. This does, however, leave us with such tragedies as the tsunami, where we must ask why God allowed such a cataclysmic event to occur?

There is another possibility which I believe more aquadetely covers these kinds of things, which I will touch on now. In some ways I find this possibility more appealing and it rings more true -- but in other ways I am not sure. In this possibility, God is omnipotent, and transcends logic. God is also omniscient, and all loving. The problem arises in our understanding of these qualities. Omniscience is fairly easy for us to grasp -- it is the state of knowing everything there is to know. This is fairly straightforward. The same is true of omnipotence -- we know what it is to be all powerful. But do we understand what it means to be all loving? I think that of the three, this quality is the most difficult to understand. We can understand what it means to be all knowing -- we know what knowledge is; we can understand what it is to be all powerful -- we know what power is. But do we know what love is? I think it's clear from The Bible that humans are not capable of true love (outside of Jesus, of course, who was both God and man). I do not think that we as humans are capable either of understanding true love, and of understanding what true love would entail. So how can we say that any actions of God go against the spirit of true love, when we do not understand what love is? This is an appeal to what has been said before -- that God is beyond our understanding, or at least, this particular quality of God. This is a clearly Biblical concept, I think -- God never told Job why he did what he did to him. He basically said, "Don't question me." I think it's implicit in that book that Job would never have been able to understand the reasons for God's actions. That's as true for us today as it was in Biblical times for Job. God is quite beyond our understanding, and to think that we can understand the reason for his actions, when we cannot see even a small portion of all that he sees, when we cannot even begin to fathom all that he understands, it stands to reason that some of his actions will seem cruel and unnecessary to us, when there is really a sound reason for them. The tsunami is a perfect example of this. There are some who would say that God does not interfere, and that the tsunami is nature's fault, not God's. I dislike this view. Although I think that God rarely actually uses divine intervention, I believe that everything that happens, happens for a purpose. God set all things in motion and is responsible for everything. So yes, God is responsible for the tsunami on one level. What is the purpose behind this destruction? I do not know. I probably will never know in this lifetime. Rather, we should focus on what can be done in the aftermath of this tragedy -- God no doubt will use this event to bring about much good, if we well let him. I believe that even the most tragic and cataclysmic events can be used by God to affect even just one person -- and although these events no doubt have a larger, cosmic significance, this makes their effect on this single person no less important. In a certain way, these events happen for a few specific people.

The problem with this view is that there are a lot of problems with giving God complete free rein, as it were. This would imply that God is capable of sin, but chooses not to sin. I am uncomfortable with that idea, because it seems to me impossible for God to go against his very nature. If God is capable of sin, then why is such an emphasis placed on keeping God separate from it? Too much of my theology is built up around the idea of God being separate from sin for me to allow the possibility of God being able to sin without re-evaluating many of my beliefs. But there are other aspects of this latter idea that appeal to me greatly. And I don't like to put limits on God, and often have I argued that perhaps God does transcend logic. All of my beliefs seem to rest on the idea that he doesn't, and I think I could reconcile the main ideas of us not understanding true love and of God acting in mysterious ways with this idea, but it still bothers me to put any sort of limit on God.

Assuming a Christian viewpoint, I take it what you are essentially asking is, why would God not merely have people die at a moment which they are Christian, and will therefore go to heaven? This is yet another difficult question. I would probably respond by saying that one cannot be saved one moment and damned the next. If someone is going to come to Christ, he will do it before he dies. Or if he doesn't, perhaps he will still be saved, for God knew his true heart. And perhaps anyone who might profess Christianity at one point but then loses his faith was never saved to begin with? Basically, whether one is a Christian or not is not based on one's current beliefs, but rather on one's heart.

That's too many difficult questions for one day. I need a nice cup of Earl Gray tea right about now.

Alright, hypothetical. God is by nature sinless... ergo to sin is to go against God, or to do something contrary to the will of God, which if we allow free will is technically possible... SO... perhaps we should bring back "what is sin?"

But those who follow God, or at least Jesus, must show feelings of hatred.

The original Greek word "miseo" always means hate. It has no alternative meaning. Doesn't mean to "love less"
So I never quite understood that with the all loving aspect.

As Boru said, one would need to define sin, both in the human version and the all knowing higher being version. I would consider it a sin to wipe out all but a few humans with a huge flood if you had a problem with them.

I do not agree with you here. I'm no scholar, so I'll take your word for it that the Greek word was "miseo" and that it meant "hate". However, I believe that when we are told to hate our family, it is meant in relation to our love for God. After telling us to hate our family and ourselves, Jesus goes on to talk of being his disciple. The point of that passage is that our love and devotion for God should be so great that in comparison to it, we hate our very selves. We need to place God above all else, to the point where we comparatively hate anything which is not God. But so huge and vast should be the extent to which we love and revere God, that although in comparison to it we hate our family, we can still love our family and ourselves. But we should never, never, place that love above our love for God.

On the topic at hand, I've thought about the issue a bit more and I am no closer to finding a solution. I am still bothered by my ideas, and at the moment I'm immersed in other theories. I really need to take a look at this whole subject again, however, and try and reconcile my beliefs.

Kirkegaard's dead. We should rename this one "Nevin's Dilemma."

haha.
Nevin what do you think? Should we grant you this dubious honor?

:lol:

Hey, whatever makes you happy.

I'm going to have to point out that this question came up in my Philosophy class the other day. I cited alot of what Nevin stated, as it is understandable and, I think, quite logical. Needless to say people where impressed, so a "thank you" goes out to Nevin on this one.

You flatter me, Delta.

*blushes*

God allowed his son to suffer, and that does not negate God's characteristic omnipotence (we are told God could have stopped it), omniscience(Jesus knew it was going to happen), or omnibenevolence (it was allowed to happen because God so loved the world, and beyond that, who would doubt God's love for his son?).

I would imagine suffering occurs in our world, not for salvation's sake certainly, but for some good, maybe not a greater good, but maybe a small-scale personal good. I don't think it is unusual for people to discover that it was only times of great suffering that they were able to truly subject themselves to God's will and begin to feel God's love for them. It is easy to ignore God when times are good.

Natural disasters may work in some way to actually help the victims in a spiritual way we cannot understand, but they also highlite needs in the world that we should be aware of and try to remedy, as in the case with Katrina's reminding us all of the poverty existing in our wealthy nation that we need to address.

Is God bound by logic? What a great question! That reminds me of another question which I will post separately.

Are you saying that God causes suffering to remind us that he is around?

Certainly not. But the question was how can such a God allow suffering. I think he could allow it because it can be used as a tool for his glory.

So God allows the suffering to further his own image. You see, that doesn't seem like the actions of a loveing God to me.

Well I suppose that's where your conception of God and/or of "loving" fundamentally differ. For the Christian, suffering is not the ultimate evil, and the avoidance of suffering is not the ultimate goal of life. Suffering is only one part of a greater reality of life--if God did not "allow" suffering, then life would not be complete.

From a Taoist perspective, could we really know joy and peace if we did not also know suffering? Seen in this light, the possibility/allowance of suffering is also tantamount to the possibility/allowance of true joy.

I understand that there must be suffering to enjoy life, thats not what she said. She stated (at least from what I understand) that God would allow suffering to further his own glory.

Well, Kou Mei may not have meant this, but perhaps God's glory IS our glory...

Or perhaps God's "glory" could just be showing his "supremacy."
I'd like to see how she answers.

I don't think God created us merely so that we could honor him, but rather, for what more specific reasons I cannot understand, so that we could be in a loving relationship with him. Allowing us to undergo suffering allows both him and us an opportunity to deepen that relationship that we might not get in a world devoid of suffering.

I am not saying that God created suffering so that we might love him and he us, but simply that he allows it because it can be a tool. I am not arguing anything more than that a loving God can indeed allow suffering to ocur and still be in love with us.

I don't think it is necessary that true love try to shelter the object of love from possible pain, but rather that the lover prove his faithfulness in the presence of suffering, which I beleive God does.

I neglected to tell you what I meant by God's glory:

Glory does imply a celebration of an individual image, in this case God's. But I think if we looked as God's glory in the same way we generally look at human glory, we would be misled. By God's nature, one hopes, God would not take glory at others' expense (eg allow us to suffer to prove his supremacy). I assume his glory is the ultimate Good for all of creation. It is for our ultimate good, and it is God's desire, that we remain in relationship with God, so that we can love him and so that he can love us. If suffering may act as a means to this end, then it is a tool for God's glory.

So God's Glory = the fulfillment of God's desire for his creation, which includes that we all be in a loving relationship with God.

kou mei, just wondering. Would you inflict suffering on a loved one so that they would better understand how much they love you? I mean, damm, would that work for you?

Well, she said that she didn't think God caused suffering as much as allowed it.

I for one, allow suffering to happen to loved ones, depending on the circumstances.

Talking about logic, how's this?
------------------------------------

If God exists and we believe in him, then we're doing fine.

If God doesn't exist and we don't believe in him, no worries.

If God doesn't exist and we believe in him, we might think we're pretty silly.

If God does exist and we don't believe in him, He might think we're pretty foolish.



How's that sit with everyone? Too simply put, maybe? :)

That's more or less Paschal's wager (which is another thread in this forum actually :))

Now I have to go Google that to see who that is.... and how unoriginal I may have been. :( Still, do I get credit for such rationalization independantly?

{Added via edit}
Okay, you were referring to a mathematician and philosopher. I guess I can appreciate the similiar lines of thinking, even though he's French. When you spelled it with an "H", I completely missed the fact that it was probably the same Pascal whom a computer language was named after... which is 'bout the only references I'd known to him.

Guess a world expands more when people illustrate by comparison. Thank you, Boru.

Yeah, gotta love typos.

Anyway there is a discussion on that point already on this forum located here:
Pascel's Wager

Feel free to add your two cents there as well :)

I'm kinda of the opinion, that like in Angels of America, that if there ever was an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god then he took off & left us to fend for ourselves. We should sue him if he returns.

I admit it's been a year since I read Angels and Demons, but didn't the Charmerlonge respond to that when the guard brought it up?

He said that the gaurd was a father himself, to which the gaurd replied yes. And the priest continued that God is our father. Then he asked the gaurd would he follow around his son when he was skateboarding and catch him everytime he falls or would he let his son learn from their mistakes? To which the guard replied that he wouldn't coddle his son.

I think that the problem is this, christianity and for that matter most religions do not view suffering itself as evil.

Two world wars & a chernobyll disaster? Hmmm How close is a loving god gonna let us walk the brink of the abyss?

Much fun as it is to philosophize about God and the nature of evil, the fact of the matter is that we never will understand why God has made the Earth the way that he has. Getting angry at God over evil and suffering won't do much good. What will do good is going out there ourselves and doing what we can to alleviate suffering and prevent evil. The idea of a father letting a child learn from his or her mistakes may not provide what we see as an adequate philosophical explanation for suffering as part of God's plan, but it certainly does make a good point: that if we want to change the problems in our world, we are going to have to be an active part of that. As Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world.

I disagree. If there is a God, understanding your creator, and in what image you've been created, is the only way to understand yourself and your world. And knowing what He is, and how He sees good, evil, etc, is also key in knowing what awaits you in the afterlife.

Alright then. Someone please tell me. What is "evil"? What exactly is it that I'm supposed to fix so that "good" is spread.

Maybe if I knew what I'm supposed to be doing then I'd be better at it.