Is This What We Should Expect From God?
What do you think of the following question emailed to me by Andre:
Is it rationally defensible to believe that God would have created the entire universe, including millions / billions of years of suffering, including human and animal suffering, the extinction of the majority of species and the endless, wasteful suffering we see around us simply in order for a chosen few humans, who have managed to comply with his wishes, may spend eternity in bliss with him?
37 comments:
The only "defense" seems to be offered by those who think they've made the cut. The "arguments" against this world view seem best developed by those who believe that they haven't. Implying, I suppose, that the arguments need to be made against someone - or something? EFH
But even if such a proponent has "made the cut", would she be able to justify that all of what happened since creation was justified solely so that x number of souls can from then on stay with Jesus? Even on the Christian's own version, accepted verbatim, what possible justification can there be? The "glory of God"? Really?
No, it's not rationally defensible. That's why evolution can't be true! QED
/sarcasm
He better get a patent on that sentence before atheist authors and bloggers start swiping it from him.
Im more then positive that 90 percent of the answers christians would give for this dilemma would be- "we are not to understand everything God does, His ways are higher then ours, that is why we must have faith"!
Or something along those lines, basically side stepping the issue.
This is similar to the argument Hitchens makes in his debates, about heaven's indifference to at least 97,000 years of bloody human history.
And yes, it's a good one, only answerable by creationism (fail) or appealing to mystery (lame).
Is this what we should expect from God, well what do you expect? and why would you have an issue with God in the first place?
Based on what do you say these things are bad? What moral basis or high ground do you take?
Since evolution has no moral implications you must have a place of reference other than it to say God is a bad God. what is it?
Well, in scripture we can see that calamity comes due to mans sin and because of sin the world is in turmoil. We simply live in a fallen world however in Christ there is redemption and even if these things befall you, yes you will go to heaven.
Jesus said that these things are the beginning of the sorrows so you will have even more ammunition against God or you can turn to Christ.
Mark 13:8
8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles.[a] These are the beginnings of sorrows.
You see, Jesus told it straight and plain. He didnt run from the fact that there would be suffering.
Its is also funny how you question God but many people who go through much turmoil cry out to God for mercy. So you see, even in calamity God is still seen and saught after. Brilliant!!
Jesus however doesnt shun or run from the fact that people will suffer in the least but he gives people a way out.
What you should ask is why is man so evil? you sit and deny the very existence of God and then you get upset when He allows things you dont like as if he owes you anything or any man anything.
What exactly is your gripe about God anyway? If He is false, why spend so much of your time talking about it? Its is sad because if you take Christianity or God out of the picture atheism is meaningless, However if you take atheism away Christ still remains.
Its like Darkness, Darkness is nothing its only the absence of light. Athiesm is only the absence of belief in God it cannot stand on its own.
Paul - Not one word of your diatribe deals with the question, which is a simple one. Accepting for the sake of argument ALL that you believe in, every little bit of your chosen brand of Christianity - answer the question. When it is all over, how does your god justify what he has vs what it cost?
"Is this what we should expect from God, well what do you expect?"
Well, based on God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence, you would expect there wouldn't be vast amounts of pointless suffering in the world.
It's called "The Problem of Evil," and it's never been solved. But hey, monotheism's only been around 3,000 years. Keep trying! :)
Paul.
You cant have theism without atheism either buddy, nice try.
And you cant have light without darkness.
All your doing is giving opposites and saying some can exist without the other which is impossible.
Hypothetically speaking in terms of your belief system - Did any human being ask to be created?
Did any human ask to be brought into a sinful world, in a sinful body with the threat of hell hanging over our heads....?....and you say God owes us nothing?
Think about what you write before you assume your logic makes any sense at all.
Ask not; 'What would jesus do?' rather, What would I do if I were god? Would I create a universe like this? Would I value 'freewill' above immense, eternal torture for those who either disbelieve or reject me? Would I create beings knowing beforehand that the vast majority would suffer eternal torment?
Would I create a being (Satan) that I knew would deceive my creatures and lead them to eternal torture? Would I forgive only my creatures who worshiped me or even believed in me? Would I want my son or daughter to be tortured for eternity for rejecting me or doubting I was their father? Freewill; Would I allow my toddler to cross into busy traffic knowing she'd be killed...because it is her free choice? Would I allow my teenager to use heroin in my presence knowing he'd die of an overdose...because it is his free choice? Would I allow my drunk friend to drive his car knowing he'd be killed in an accident...because it is her free choice?
Most of us would not think much of a father or friend who allowed these things. Christians often attempt to evade the problem of evil by asserting that freewill is some sort of ultimate value. In real life, we do not value freewill beyond all other values. We readily forbid toddlers to cross roads. We forcibly remove the heroin from our son's hand and take the car keys from our drunk friend. I view life and the absence of suffering as far higher values than freewill. Apparently, god does not care if we suffer eternal torment....as long as he can say it was our own fault. Why are god's values lower than your own? Because he is a creation of the primitive, tribal mind and reflects those values.
Don't forget the teeny little problem that free will (the metaphysical libertarian variety) probably does not exist. And even if it does, it is next to useless when acquiring religious views, as they are determined by circumstance.
As I see the problem (maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough) even free will can be conceded to the Christian. What is the response to the question even after all those billions of people, throughout the ages, have exercised their free will and we arrive at 3 451 724 192 souls who have now managed to spend eternity with Jesus - look back at the cost of this and rationally defend it. Free will and all. Trinity, atonement, resurrection and all.
I agree, Andre. Christianity is really a very unappealing religion. Torture, eternal damnation,suffering, guilt etc. Have no fun in this life because you are waiting for your place in a very overcrowded heaven. Amd if you win the big prize, hey you get to spend the rest of eternity with this loving, peaceful God!
For men at least, the 72 virgins sounds a whole lot more interesting. I can see why the Moslems are gaining in popularity.
Andre,
Yeah, you can absolutely concede free will. And you really have to, as most theists will never accept determinism. But either way, your argument stands strong.
Andre.
This is a good point, obviously the early propagators of these concepts had no comprehension of how big the world was nor how many people existed in it.
Nor did they know 2000 years later we would still be waiting for the second coming and the population of souls would grow exponentially?
Skipping for a moment the total illogic of the premises of the question to the claim at the end, my knee jerk reaction is to agree, such a God is irrational as hell. I would agree that those fundies who adhere to such a God are not logical, not thinking, and are operating under psychological needs of certainty whicthey mistakenly ascribe to the bible read literally.
Now, back to the illogic of the question. Please explain why all this suffering and extinction is "required" so that some few can be saved? That doesn't even follow. I see no nexus at all. The question merely states a view of history (which I don't disagree with--millions have died, and millions have become extinct-- and then attempts to marry it to the end that "some" few will be saved. Show your work! lol..
Seriously, there are quite a few other worldviews of God that do not include that he purposely allows bad things to happen for some "unknown" purpose we are too stupid to yet understand. To suggest that God created the universe in some big bang event (something science cannot disclaim certainly under any theory I've yet seen), does not necessarily mean He orchestrates all that has transpired. He may merely have defined the laws of how the universe would operate and then let it develop naturally according to those laws. His may well be a case of purposeful non-interference. After all free will means nothing if sentient beings don't come to him freely. The fact that we have concocted a whole fantasy of how he did it involving his demand that we ignore our senses in order to be saved, is fantastical I would agree.
This is all the realm of belief, not within empirical proof. You can of course CHOOSE to accept no methodology but empiricism, but of course that is but your choice.
Hi Sherry
Some good points, but do we not then start seeing cracks in the omni-god's omnipotence, his knowledge, even his omni-benevolence? If he could have prevented any of this why didn't he? Why create at all? I have heard all the "answers" to that, I'm just not sure the question is "illogical".
Sherry,
Empricism affords a body of knowledge which leads to actionable information that offers excellence and expertise.
Your faith is devoid of content and depends on subjective interpretation that can, at best, contradict subjectivism you find distastesful.
The interpretation of the fundamentalists is consistent with Jesus interpretation of the Torah law and therefore are more epistemologically consistent with the savior you both claim.
Sherry, it is the apologist who says that this vast amount of suffering is "required," not the skeptic. Appeals to mystery ("we cannot know the mind of god") and free will are attempts to show that this evil is required, and thus justify (excuse) god's allowing it. If it is not required, then there exists a lot pointless suffering. If there exists a lot of pointless suffering, there probably is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent god.
I wasn't aware that all those millions and billions of stars and galaxies are capable of suffering..
Anyway.. your answer lies in the resurrection: death, decay, and corruption have been defeated by Christ, and we will join in that cosmic victory. (Placing evil, subversive link to further one's point).
Paul said... "Is this what we should expect from God, well what do you expect? and why would you have an issue with God in the first place?
Based on what do you say these things are bad? What moral basis or high ground do you take?
Since evolution has no moral implications you must have a place of reference other than it to say God is a bad God. what is it?"
-------------------
What Paul states sounds like it could maybe even be logic and reasonable to this point.As i see it basically he is stating humans are mere humans and so as humans cant understand the ways of supernatural beings.
Then Paul goes on from there.
-------------------
Paul said ... "Well, in scripture we can see that calamity comes due to mans sin and because of sin the world is in turmoil. We simply live in a fallen world however in Christ there is redemption and even if these things befall you, yes you will go to heaven."
---------------
What the??*&%#???...But hold on first Paul goes and asserts a type of thinking that hey humans are only mere human and so as mere humans cannot understand the ways of supernatural beings.Yet now he has only gone and asserted/added some faith scripture, which was also "only" thoughts of these "mere human beings" that Paul just tried asserting could not be expected to understand the ways of supernatural beings?.
The only difference here is religion/faith/scripture
Theists seem to like to try and take a bet each way.They like to try covering the whole field.Its like a win-win situation,if it wasnt madness.They want to impose thoughts of man supposedly cannot know, and then again when he supposedly can know?.
They say oh you are athiest you using mans moral thought...Yet theism is just the sam mans moral thought hidden under the disguise of theism/scripture bias.
It amazes me that theists cannot even see how kind of circular this type of reasoning seems to be.
"in order for a chosen few humans, who have managed to comply with his wishes, may spend eternity in bliss with him?"
FOA, it is NOT an eternity in bliss. It is the glory of Love as well as the eternal fellowship with the King (the Man - Jesus - that God became). It is also about rewards. It is also about glorifying the Creator.
NONE of the above can be isolated on.. neither can you forget all of the wonderful cool things (which we can even imagine) which will be much better than sex or drugs (highs) or downhill skiing/snowboarding or eating ice cream.
NOTHING in this temporary creation comes close to the glory of heaven except the love and fellowship we have with each other at church and the peace we enjoy when we display our LOVE for God when we sing worship/praise songs to Him (clearly for US and NOT for God).
Heaven is greater than anyone here can possibly imagine..think of your favorite thing to do and realize that God can increase the pleasure 100 fold in heaven with things which are "pure" and Holy - rather than things (sin) which are not optimal for us to do.
SOA, until you address how love requires choice and how choice is a danger to a cognitive being (if they make an evil choice)you have not begun to even touch on this subject as it relates to knowledge and learning.
We need to specify more carefully and deeply what a decision/choice actually is and how God creates little sovereign creators who are in His Conscious Imaged. If we have the ability to be self-impulsed and make decisions -this needs to be addressed if violating God's Law cosmically taints us.
Nothing can be "fair" in a universe where everyone is born under different circumstances at different points in time with other people's choices affecting each other.
Those skinny children who are starving are there because of their ancestor's choices. Each choice is both a cause and an effect - yet self-impulsion has to be addressed along with the role of knowledge in order to make the optimal choice.
Question everything...but when you question seek the correct answer - even if it means you have to change your own wants and desires.
Praying to the Infinite Creator is one of the first steps in reversing the intellectual rebellion.
I really expected more than the normal party line (not even very well delivered) of how cool it will be, free-will blah blah.
So far, there seems to be no answer to the question. Or even something that can pass as a cogent attempt.
But I'm sure it is on the way.
"Question everything...but when you question seek the correct answer - even if it means you have to change your own wants and desires."
Do you only give this advice to nonbelievers or to christians also?
I did question everything. Not only that, I still do question everything. Question everything...even when it means giving up your comforting illusions and assumptions. Even when it puts you at odds with family and friends or society. (how difficult must it be to question Islam living in Saudi Arabia? or to question communism living in North Korea?)
Question everything even when it makes you insecure or fills you with anxiety. We all want to know, to be sure...to come to a final conclusion...so that we can go back to sleep intellectually. Honest questioning often entails accepting an open 'not-knowing' rather than pasting an easy answer over a yawning void. This questioning should never stop, even when we think we have found answers. This questioning should be skeptical without being cynical.
"Praying to the Infinite Creator is one of the first steps in reversing the intellectual rebellion."
Is this a first step? Or are you just beginning with another conclusion? Shouldn't I first question prayer itself? What is the basis for thinking it works or what is the activity itself? Is it actually speaking to an invisible deity or only inner yearning or wishful thinking? Does it spring from feeling alone and weak and therefore projecting an all-poweful parent figure who can comfort me and guide me?
Isn't positing a Creator another conclusion, rather than a first step? Examine the evidence and follow the logic where it leads without assuming there is or is not any creator. How do we question or even think logically without being influenced by our own hopes and fears? Do I fear finding out that there is a creator because I may be sent to hell? Do I fear finding there is no creator because it would make me feel alone and without purpose? All sorts of emotional and pyschological factors can influence our questioning and thinking...beginning with our social conditioning as a child.
Isn't positing an intellectual rebellion also a conclusion? Perhaps you are the one in intellectual rebellion.
Excellent postings. I agree that the question has no satisfying answer. I find that into what I would call 'common sense objections'. In my 'quest' I have created a theory of why apologetics exists.
Namely, apologetics seeks to explain why every manifestation obtainable by human reason of what omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and the like would look in the world... is absolutely wrong and that, in fact, the way it currently exists is the only way that god could have exercised those abilities.
I have found no satisfying answer to this question and many others like it. As stated, the only responses I receive from friends, other blogs, and even the Catholic Answers forum have been:
- free will is of utmost importance
- god doesn't want everyone to simply believe in him; he wants everyone to believe in him in faith
- how dare you question god; atheists are just stuck in their arrogant pride and think they could do better.
- I'm sure you can make a longer list out of this yourselves...
Quite frustrating when seeking the truth. Oh yes, and a la Breckmin, that I'm the one who sees the evidence and rejects it, isn't open and what have you.
Breckmin, I continue to ask Jesus how and where to find him. I even let a friend wash my feet and pray over me (quite awkward for me, but he insisted). I continue to disbelieve. I suppose I don't meet your criteria for truly being open, do I? I tell you that I am open -- you can take that on faith.
"So far, there seems to be no answer to the question."
Because of the way in which the question is structured in the end of the sentence - the answer is "no."
It IS, however, rationally defensible to believe that God would create a temporary creation to deal with the REAL problem of sin/evil and how it is an eternal danger to His children if they do not enter into heaven equipped with the knowledge that will set them free (and motive of love from seeing God's Self-Sacrificing Love as well as His Mercy to forgive them).
Knowledge, learning, salvation, always choosing to obey God and stay within His Parameters, being rewarded for letting yourself be used of God through weakness, being the hands/arms of God, etc etc are all an important part of this temporary creation preparing us for the third and fourth points above (always choosing to obey God which we will finally be free to do in heaven) and the eternal fellowship with Jesus Christ and His eternal rewards.
Suffering often refines us. It shows us our character through how we endure it. When we say God is "testing us" it does NOT mean that God somehow doesn't know the answer. (that would be illogical)
It means that we will "prove" ourselves and our true character (to ourselves and to the world) by the way in which we react to it or endure it. QE
There are a dozen or more reasons for why there is suffering. Often times more than one reason applies.
"Do you only give this advice to nonbelievers or to christians also?"
If the Christian does not question, then they will never know "why" they believe what they believe and will be danger of having their foundations pulled out from underneath them (and they will fall).
Christian apologetics is always behind skepticism because the skeptics keep asking more and more questions that need to be answered. Christian apologists are busy both teaching and answering.
Just because you may feel you have the advantage asking the questions doesn't mean you are truly seeking answers. If you are consumed with the inevitable contractions in the details because of the imperfection of colloquialism, terminology and nomenclatures then you will indeed find those contradictions....
but if you seek wisdom from the Infinite Creator on your knees and on your face before Him then true
wisdom and knowledge can come to you through "weakness."
Weakness and humility are everything (and we are infinitely weak in comparison to the Infinite Creator).
Humility is logical.
"Isn't positing a Creator another conclusion"
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to use an ounce of common sense and see that the primordial soup is going to sit there forever and never spring forth the complexity of life.
The conclusion of agnostic atheism is really not about "faith" - it is about evidence.
A Creator is concluded based on evidence - NOT assumed. Information comes from Intelligence and this is fully open for falsification.
Complex mechanical "working" systems don't just come together.
You don't need to be a rocket scientists to have an ounce of common sense to look at the complexity of the nano-factory of a living cell and see clearly the theistic implication. Once again, this doesn't prove orthodox monotheism or the God of Abraham. That is based on accumulative case argument from other evidences and reasons, but clearly seeing a living cell and all of the organelles and enzymes and all of its physiology and organic substances (which also need an origin and come from existing life) should lead to the first honest conclusion of agnostic theism. The same thing would be true of two part control mechanisms and IF-THEN algorithmic programming. Unless you worship at the throne of an undefined concept of "natural selection" that somehow defies basic entropy and all current positive data it is very easy/logical/honest to come to the "conclusion" of agnostic theism. No assumption
needed - just common sense scientific observation without a flawed philosophy in science that wrongfully eliminates theistic implication because of materialistic circular reasoning.
QE
God is bigger and more powerful than you and is not bound by your logic.
Breck
I see all you see and come to the conclusion that gradualism over millenia, genetic drift, speciation and natural selection are real.
Also care to explain why an all intelligent designer gave me useless equipment like an appendix that will kill me?
Question everything Breck and when you do drop your narrow cultural superstitions to learn ideas with explanatory power.
"God is bigger and more powerful than you and is not bound by your logic."
Two things tell you so : The Bible, and your own logic. If you cannot see the illogic in that, there is hardly any sense in even trying to show you the irony. Read any Paul Coppan lately?
Brecky said..."You don't need to be a rocket scientist to use an ounce of common sense and see that the primordial soup is going to sit there forever and never spring forth the complexity of life."
In my back yard all that seems to ever be needed, is some sunlight and a lil puddle o rain.And soon enough, all sorts of wrigglys start to jiggly about.There is also these lil wrigglys in that primordial soup, that start off looking like lil spermys,but dammit next moment theys grown wings! and come flying at ya at night, sounding a lot like helicopters but with a sting that creates a wee bump on your head, and makes you all itchy and wanting to slap your face.
What are saying Brecky, it was holy water + sunlight??.Man why the heck did this god/deity ever bother creating those wee nasty mongrels?....AGAIN because of ole Adam and Eve and the fall thingy with that damm naughty talkin snake??.
Ive seen it said that living microorganisms have also even been detected in frozen ice.So it seems just the "sun" and "frozen rain" is even plenty enough for some life.Add to that mix, billions and billions of years.....which when you try thinking of it is so very hard to even quite imagine, because its just such a freaking plurry long time its bl**dy mind boggling.
We ourselves see certain types of microorganisms mutate and evolve around us, over just a matter of a few years or decades.Some so fast,us humans even have lots of trouble trying to keep up with our understanding of them.Some have us scrambling to try to figure them out double quick!,because it becomes a matter of survival.
Your statement might be correct Brecky.I admit to not being a rocket scientist at all,so would you mind expanding a little on how you can be so sure? of your conclusion in that very definite statement you made.
Cheers.
Gandolf and Brecky,
The science on how the first replicant life forms came about - ie cells, DNA,RNA are a relatively young but fruitful area of science called ABIOGENESIS.
Its early days but - hey - guess what -each week we get more clues as to how it could have come about and as the years go by more and more evidence comes along to suggest that the chance for life to come about ( BEFORE evolution occurs ) increases.
I wouls suggest regularly checking out the Science web site Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
Here you will find the latest sumaries of actual research being carried out all over the world.
Its fascinating stuff.
Breckmin, please take that fundie ostrich head out of the sand for a change and spend some time reading up on the latest science.
Oh and I DONT mean just scanning over tid bits for creationist quote mining.
Go watch some proper documentaries on these topics. BBC ones have been excellent recently.
With the invention of the telescope and now with the Hubble telescope, there appears to be over 100 billion galaxies similar to our own, the nearest one, the Andromeda galaxy 4.5 million light years away with thousands of Suns and millions of planets revolving around Suns, with life forms similar to ours, I mean if galaxies exist just like ours, who can say there are no humans on those planets also?
I want to know where Jesus is on one of those planets, I mean surely Jesus had to die for their sins too?
You see, the bible was written with the assumption that the earth was created specifically for a god to control us humans with a nemesis foe to thwart his every wish and desire.
That's the reason the bible was written out of pure ignorance, the bible writers had no knowledge of other planets existing in outer space, they had no idea that other galaxies existed with Suns, planets, with moons orbiting them and they also assumed that no other humans existed outside of this planet.
So I want to know where Jesus fits in on other planets in other galaxies.
Breckmin says question everything, but it sounds like you have never questioned one single damned thing, I question you Breckmin and your phony man inspired buybull.
So where does Jesus fit in with over 100 billion galaxies and planets similar to our own?
But you wouldn't question 100 billion galaxies existing would you Breckmin, because questioning science would go against your silly superstitious beliefs wouldn't Breckmin?
You're hypocrite aren't you Breckmen??
Nonchai said... "I wouls suggest regularly checking out the Science web site Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ "
Cheers thanks alot for that tip Nonchai
@ mdf1960
Without showing how some logic is wrong, saying that God is not bound by logic is equal to saying that God does things that make no sense.
Post a Comment