Theory Of Suffering

[Brian 2.0]

"With his total control of nature, God has the ability to prevent ANY and ALL suffering resulting from NATURE in action"

This is the piece of the OP that I think relates. Without total control in nature, it seems the "consequences" to natural events are not necessarily controllable either. So it becomes difficult to state that ALL suffering is the result of God's will.

Maybe i need to rephrase it. When I say NATURE I'm talking about the effect of nature we see in the life (tornadoes, earthquakes, law of gravity, body deterioration, etc). I'm trying to think of a scenario that relates to suffering that God could not have control over. I'm not referring to things like Mercy robbing justice, or creating matter from nothing.

Natural distaster stuff he's got control over

Physical Laws - he may not be able to change them, but he somehow has a may to manipulate around them (walking on water to avoid and thereby avoiding natural gravity)

Body Functions also by healing people and raising them from the dead.

I stand by my statement that he has total control of over those things. What can God NOT control of those three things?

[Brian 2.0]

Yes God COULD stop us from exercising our agency, but by doing so he would cease to be God.

I basically agreed with this in my original post:

The agency of man is often called a Gift from God. It seems and though God granted us the power to choose and can never FORCE us to choose one way or the other. But that does not mean God is powerless when it comes to the

effects

of agency.

Some could argue whether it's a true gift form God, or it's an Eternal Law that he is bound by, so he doesn't really have a choice whether or not to gift us the agency. Either way, it doesn't affect the points of my original post.

[Log]

If I may make a clarifying point:

The scriptures don't use "agency" to mean "free will." The concept of "free will" is pre-built into the word "intelligence," which means, literally, "that which chooses between [things]."

Intelligences cannot be deprived of free will without ceasing to be intelligences, and, doctrinally speaking, intelligences cannot be created nor destroyed - which means intelligences cannot be deprived of free will.

Agency means being responsible for yourself - it is the ability to represent yourself in a negotiation with another party.

Small children have free will and power to act upon their choices - but they are incapable of yielding to the devil, because he is not permitted to make a pitch at them, therefore they have not got agency (or, alternatively, they are not "agents unto themselves").

Edited June 12, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

I think its fair to say that a number of latter-day prophets support the notion that God was not the first thing ever to exist (i.e. uncreated intelligence, unorganized matter, etc.). In other words, nature itself probably pre-dates the mormon God.

I don't think you got this correct. Nothing pre-dates God. How can it? God is eternal. As are the elements. That is official LDS Doctrine.

Edited June 12, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I stand by my statement that he has total control of over those things. What can God NOT control of those three things?

These things are part of the test.

"We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them"

So it would make no sense for God to interfere too much with them -- although, perchance, upon our pleadings, he might.

[Brian 2.0]

These things are part of the test.

So it would make no sense for God to interfere too much with them -- although, perchance, upon our pleadings, he might.

You're getting into the WHYs, which I'm not referring to. This is only the first part of my therory, and it deals in what God CAN do. I understand it would make no sense of God to interfere with everything all the time, an prevent all suffering. My question is CAN God interfere with them.

He may choose not to and have very good reasons not to, but I'm only talking about his ability to if he wanted.

Again... not trying to talk about the WHYs (part of a test, etc.)

Edited June 12, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CASteinman]

You're getting into the WHYs, which I'm not referring to. This is only the first part of my therory, and it deals in what God CAN do. I understand it would make no sense of God to interfere with everything all the time, an prevent all suffering. My question is CAN God interfere with them.

He may choose not to and have very good reasons not to, but I'm only talking about his ability to if he wanted.

Again... not trying to talk about the WHYs (part of a test, etc.)

Well, I think that it is kinda related.

God's capacity is complete. However his willingness to mess with the conditions of our probation appears to be very small -- and usually only upon our extreme faith and prayers -- if then.

In other words:

God's Interference = God's Capacity to Interfere X God's willingness to Interfere.

My point is, you can't really divorce these two qualities in any practical way.

Edited June 12, 2012 by CASteinman

[Brian 2.0]

Well, I think that it is kinda related.

God's capacity is complete. However his willingness to mess with the conditions of our probation appears to be very small -- and usually only upon our extreme faith and prayers -- if then.

In other words:

God's Interference = God's Capacity to Interfere X God's willingness to Interfere.

My point is, you can't really divorce these two qualities in any practical way.

They are related, and I think we're on the same page. There is no practical reason to only use one side of the equation... I'm just trying to set up agreed upon assumptions before moving on.

I think we are in agreement when you say "God's capacity is complete."

The next part is the "God's willingness to interfere" which I plan to talk about later. Just putting up the first part thoughts to see if I'm wrong somewhere.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[TAO]

I'm pretty fine with what you posted but one thing; God doesn't cause evil (though he does cause suffering). Rather, he allows evil to exist.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

I believe that is an important distinction. The parent knows the child will at some point touch the hot stove, but the parent didn't cause the child to do it.

[Brian 2.0]

I'm pretty fine with what you posted but one thing; God doesn't cause evil (though he does cause suffering). Rather, he allows evil to exist.

I agree. And I dont' think I said God caused evil... only that he can cause events that bring about suffering... but that doesn't mean the event he is causing is "evil"

TAO:

I believe that is an important distinction. The parent knows the child will at some point touch the hot stove, but the parent didn't cause the child to do it.

Agreed again. He is ALLOWing it, which is the other thing I point out in the OP. God either CAUSES, PREVENTS or ALLOWS suffering.

[Aliwe]

We should not expect that God CAN create a soul who experiences pleasure without ever experiencing or being capable of experiencing pain, as these are derived through mutual existence and relationship to each other.

Pain is a gift of God, but nobody wants it, and that's precisely the point of pain. Children are born who do not have the ability to feel pain, and they usually die in their teens. Dr. Paul Brand discovered that lepers and diabetics lost their limbs not because they rotted off, but because of neuropathy...the nerve endings actually die. Normally when we walk, little aches and pains below the conscious level cause us to shift our weight around, or vary the rhythm of our walk, so we don't end up rubbing a patch on our foot raw. Untreated diabetics don't feel these little pains, so they fall into a pattern when they walk, and if they don't check their feet every night, they will end up with open sores that will get infected, and they won't even feel that. Eventually they develop gangrene and lose the foot.

[altersteve]

Children are born who do not have the ability to feel pain, and they usually die in their teens.

I've never heard of anyone with an inability to feel pain. CFR.

(I'm not doubting you, just curious.)

[Bikeemikey]

This is the meat of the debate to me. Agency is often the answer given to certain situations of suffering as if God doesn't have a choice -- his hands are tied.

I agree God can't control our choice. But that doesn't mean that God cannot prevent any choice from actually being carried out. He COULD, if he wanted, prevent any choice we make from actual coming to fruition -- either by influencing us so that we changed our mind of our own free will, or cause someone to occur that would prevent us from carrying out our choice (including killing us).

He may have good reason to NOT do this (greater good, experience, etc) but God CAN prevent any choice from coming to fruition if he chose.

Do we agree on that?

I am not sure I agree with this.

I don't think god has all power. For example - I don't think that god could produce an outcome that does not have it's own consequence. Just as every action we engage in has an outcome we understand aswell as a range of other consequences that are hard to perceive, so it is the same for god. I believe god acts by employing natural processes to create results that have consequences, consequences that even he can not change. In this respect he may not be able to stop all suffering, be it natural or agency because the action required to stop it would be catastrophic (perhaps resulting in god no longer being god or the explosion of the universe) (your greater good obseration) or simply because he actually just couldn't do it as the consequence of some earlier decision (his hands are tied- it would be physically possible for him).

I think we agree on the following: god can never stop a choice from occurring, at best he may be able to mitigate a choices outcome/impact. Choice happens in the mind and is the motivator of action but not the action itself. All choice is internal and beyond direct control, even gods. At best he could influence the physical stimulus we engage with eg send Angels to sign to us and try to make us happy again.

However, when we recognize that perception is also a choice it puts god it a tough spot relating his direct control over us. God can not control our choice, he can provide stimulus to persuade us, however stimulus perception is controlled by our choice, over which god has no control. Because perception is the result of choice it may be possible that god is already providing the stimulus we need inorder to avoid action that would create suffering. If it is a choice beyond gods control that results is us not seeing such stimuli then God could not be capable of mitigating the outcome. God can provide the stimulus but he can not control that we see it as he intends, there may also be no possible iteration of presentable stimulus that the agent would choose to see/let them revise their action/choice. As such, gods hands would be tied.

Part of the issue with most religion is that it actually creates moral problems for god as the result of believing in an unrealistic level of gods power.

I believe that god is as powerful as it is possible to be, not that he is all powerful. In my opinion this is a belief that Mormonism is uniquely capable of allowing faithful members to actually hold without contravening scriptural doctrine.

This belief relating to the nature of god also makes the question of suffering and the morality of god in the face of such obvious suffering irrelevant. It does not however make our moral obligation any less.

I do not think god has the power to create this potential moral paradox. It seems much more likely that he can not do what we are thinking he can.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Bikeemikey