Why Does God Stay His Hand

[MrShorty]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What about the suffering of physical exercise?  Having to stand up in front of a class and give a presentation when you are shy?  Eating a vegetable you don't like?  Chores? Getting a bad grade when you didn't study for the test?  Going to court and dealing with the consequences when you break the law?  All of that is suffering too.

Some of that stuff is within your power as a parent to eliminate for your kids.  Have you eliminated it?

The problem I see in those examples is that I really don't have the power to eliminate those evils without imposing different evils. At the end of the day, in the world we live in that I am powerless to change in any significant way, I, as a parent, am often struggling to identify the different evils that I can impose on my children and choose the least evil of those choices. Exercise and nasty vegetables are necessary to have a healthy body in this life, so I impose those evils on my children in order to not impose the evils that are prevented. If I could, I might design a body that doesn't need nasty nutrition or exercise to be healthy, then eliminate disease so that my children would not need to experience those evils. Even these evils that you mentioned, that you claim I have the power to eliminate, I don't feel I can eliminate, because there are other, worse evils waiting in the wings.

As I think about this, it seems to me that most of these kinds of examples just have more evil underneath them. If I had the power, I would eliminate these surface evils, then eliminate the underlying evils until I had dug down to the bottom where no evil exists -- if I had the ability to do so. Because I don't have that ability, I am limited to choosing which lesser evils to allow in order to avoid greater evils and hope that I am successful.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The problem I see in those examples is that I really don't have the power to eliminate those evils without imposing different evils.

Might the same not be true for God, when it comes to eliminating all suffering for His children?  You as a parent have the power to eliminate chores for your children, but you don't (I'm guessing) because you recognize that suffering through chores is necessary if you want your children to grow up to be responsible and capable, etc.  Maybe the same is true for much of the suffering that we go through? 

[Vanguard]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Might the same not be true for God, when it comes to eliminating all suffering for His children?  You as a parent have the power to eliminate chores for your children, but you don't (I'm guessing) because you recognize that suffering through chores is necessary if you want your children to grow up to be responsible and capable, etc.  Maybe the same is true for much of the suffering that we go through? 

Agreed. And there is certainly no guarantee that the steps we take as parents to instill responsibility might not backfire. The child later in life could claim legitimately s/he was scarred from our efforts such that the child is now suicidal. And then we have to come back full circle and have a conversation about how a loving god would allow said scarring in the first place. In other words, why didn't that all-loving, all-powerful God simply allow my parenting to have a positive impact instead of one that rendered my child suicidal? And round and round we go... 

[Vanguard]

This is by the way a great exchange! I have another thought - this issue goes back to Dr. Craig's contention there is no way to know whether God could not have morally justifiable reasons for permitting the horrors inflicted on our fellow brothers and sisters. The biggest problem is that we do not see the end result of said suffering. How could we know? On a MUCH smaller scale, there are probably myriad examples of folks believing that the suffering one goes through is not justified, that is, until they see what results. My middle child crying throughout the night because she has been studying for an important test might in the moment look like she is enduring something unnecessary and unacceptable until she finds out she got an A on the exam. In this example the result mitigates and makes the difference for the suffering she went through. For that matter, even if she had not scored an A, there is no way to tell that the suffering did not bring her benefit in a more unquantifiable way - a way that perhaps escapes the naked eye but is there nonetheless. Similarly and on a MUCH grander scale, there is no way for us to know whether the horrific suffering others go through serves a meaningful purpose once said individuals pass into the next realm. How could we know?

I should also note the paradox we find ourselves in in this mortality is the belief that just because there is a purpose to horrific suffering that we cannot comprehend, we are not freed of the mandate to ameliorate said suffering to the extent possible in this mortality. In other words, it begins to look like our efforts to save others from what is considered horrific suffering looks like we are attempting to frustrate God's plans. Weird how paradox works... ; )     

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Might the same not be true for God, when it comes to eliminating all suffering for His children?

Absolutely, it might, which brings up the point I made about being a bit disillusioned by finding out -- even if only hypothetically -- that God is not quite as all-powerful as I once thought He was.

Or maybe God just isn't as just and fair as I've been taught. Continuing with the chore analogy, the disparity in the levels of evil and suffering different people experiences seem like the kind of disparity present if I were to take two of my children who are roughly equal in capacity for doing chores and assign one the tasks of loading the dishwasher, cooking meals, sweep/mop/vacuum floors, wash walls and windows, and the second child's only task is to put the dishes away after the dishwasher is finished. Would I be fair to my children to impose a lesser evil on one and greater evil on the other randomly or haphazardly?

I listened to a podcast recently that explained this using an anecdote from one of Pres. Monson's Oct 2013 conference talks. Pres. Monson tells the story of a woman who gets a bit overwhelmed by life, goes into a depression, loses her appetite and begins to lose weight. Her circle of friends tried so hard to help her get food that she would be able to eat, but most days were struggles. One day, she expresses a desire for some homemade bread. In an interesting coincidence, a distant acquaintance, unaware of her wish, just coincidentally made an extra loaf of bread and just coincidentally decided to drop it off at her house. Pres. Monson attributes these coincidences to God's divine intervention. The podcaster pointed out, of course, that there are innumerable other people in the world for whom a loaf of bread (or any number of other interventions) would significantly relieve their suffering and evil, but similar interventions don't come. As much as it feels good to talk about anecdotes where God intervenes to relieve suffering and evil, does it show capriciousness on God's part? Is God only allowed so many interventions per day of certain types? Does God have the power to intervene and relieve suffering or does He not?

So, yes, maybe God is operating under limits and constraints on the evils and sufferings He can prevent or relieve, just as I struggle to identify the evils I can and cannot, should and should not prevent or relieve. As @MiserereNobis said early in the discussion, I don't blame anyone for whom the problem of evil just becomes too much for their faith, and I hold out hope that God somehow knows how to redeem all of the evil and suffering that exist in the world including for those whose faith withers and dies under their own or observing others' suffering.

[Vanguard]

16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As much as it feels good to talk about anecdotes where God intervenes to relieve suffering and evil, does it show capriciousness on God's part? Is God only allowed so many interventions per day of certain types? Does God have the power to intervene and relieve suffering or does He not?

I absolutely love this. It goes back to the idea that anything good happening to someone considered righteous must be evidence of the hand of God. I'm reminded of the thread many years ago that talked about how leadership attributed the hand of God to the folks in the Philippines who were commemorating a new temple. If I recall correctly, the report said the path of the hurricane was averted and went around the temple grounds. The problem with this was that instead of it affecting those at the temple ceremony it continued to kill countless others who were not at the temple!

To answer your last question, God had decided to allow what appears to be a 'free for all' here in this mortality for purposes that we cannot fathom. However, we cannot allow our emotional sensitivities to dictate the veracity of believing in an all-powerful/all-loving God. I think we're missing too much of the equation to go that far. It is quite possible God has sufficient reason to allow said suffering.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Absolutely, it might, which brings up the point I made about being a bit disillusioned by finding out -- even if only hypothetically -- that God is not quite as all-powerful as I once thought He was.

Or maybe God just isn't as just and fair as I've been taught. Continuing with the chore analogy, the disparity in the levels of evil and suffering different people experiences seem like the kind of disparity present if I were to take two of my children who are roughly equal in capacity for doing chores and assign one the tasks of loading the dishwasher, cooking meals, sweep/mop/vacuum floors, wash walls and windows, and the second child's only task is to put the dishes away after the dishwasher is finished. Would I be fair to my children to impose a lesser evil on one and greater evil on the other randomly or haphazardly?

I listened to a podcast recently that explained this using an anecdote from one of Pres. Monson's Oct 2013 conference talks. Pres. Monson tells the story of a woman who gets a bit overwhelmed by life, goes into a depression, loses her appetite and begins to lose weight. Her circle of friends tried so hard to help her get food that she would be able to eat, but most days were struggles. One day, she expresses a desire for some homemade bread. In an interesting coincidence, a distant acquaintance, unaware of her wish, just coincidentally made an extra loaf of bread and just coincidentally decided to drop it off at her house. Pres. Monson attributes these coincidences to God's divine intervention. The podcaster pointed out, of course, that there are innumerable other people in the world for whom a loaf of bread (or any number of other interventions) would significantly relieve their suffering and evil, but similar interventions don't come. As much as it feels good to talk about anecdotes where God intervenes to relieve suffering and evil, does it show capriciousness on God's part? Is God only allowed so many interventions per day of certain types? Does God have the power to intervene and relieve suffering or does He not?

So, yes, maybe God is operating under limits and constraints on the evils and sufferings He can prevent or relieve, just as I struggle to identify the evils I can and cannot, should and should not prevent or relieve. As @MiserereNobis said early in the discussion, I don't blame anyone for whom the problem of evil just becomes too much for their faith, and I hold out hope that God somehow knows how to redeem all of the evil and suffering that exist in the world including for those whose faith withers and dies under their own or observing others' suffering.

I certainly don't have many answers, but my thoughts on the bold went to how maybe God does try to soften suffering for everyone the way that the woman's suffering was soften through the gift of bread, but maybe not many people are answering His inspiration and willing to "make and deliver the bread" like that woman's friend was, so to speak?

If the relieving of suffering often depends on humans doing the work of relief, when no relief is provided, that's on us, right?  Not God?

Like with Pres. Monson's story, an angel didn't show up with bread from on High.  Her friend provided the relief, via God's inspiration.  How often are we being inspired to relieve suffering but we aren't listening for whatever reason?  Speaking for myself, probably way more than I want to admit. 

And yet, lots of times God gets the blame for not coming through in a time of need, instead of me where the blame lies.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

This is by the way a great exchange! I have another thought - this issue goes back to Dr. Craig's contention there is no way to know whether God could not have morally justifiable reasons for permitting the horrors inflicted on our fellow brothers and sisters. The biggest problem is that we do not see the end result of said suffering. How could we know? On a MUCH smaller scale, there are probably myriad examples of folks believing that the suffering one goes through is not justified, that is, until they see what results. My middle child crying throughout the night because she has been studying for an important test might in the moment look like she is enduring something unnecessary and unacceptable until she finds out she got an A on the exam. In this example the result mitigates and makes the difference for the suffering she went through. For that matter, even if she had not scored an A, there is no way to tell that the suffering did not bring her benefit in a more unquantifiable way - a way that perhaps escapes the naked eye but is there nonetheless. Similarly and on a MUCH grander scale, there is no way for us to know whether the horrific suffering others go through serves a meaningful purpose once said individuals pass into the next realm. How could we know?

I should also note the paradox we find ourselves in in this mortality is the belief that just because there is a purpose to horrific suffering that we cannot comprehend, we are not freed of the mandate to ameliorate said suffering to the extent possible in this mortality. In other words, it begins to look like our efforts to save others from what is considered horrific suffering looks like we are attempting to frustrate God's plans. Weird how paradox works... ; )     

I always think about what birth must be like for the baby when I think about how knowing the end result, or the purpose of the suffering, can justify something that seems unjustifiable from a limited perspective. 

How painful birth must be for the baby, how terrifying, and what a loss leaving the safety of the womb must feel like (in ways that baby cannot articulate or reason of course).  Yet, none of us--on the other side of the event--view birth in negative terms.  Something that is probably traumatic and painful for the one going through it is a celebration for us.

Perspective and knowledge make such a difference.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Not anyone who is seriously educated in logic and philosophy, I would guess, but I have heard a few strong atheists who appear to believe that and see it as the only reasonable conclusion anyone being honest with themselves can come to.  If I understood them correctly, they believed absence of proof was proof of absence, but did not understand that was what they were arguing.

This has been my experience as well (and I have conversed with numerous atheists through the years on message boards, and in religion chat rooms).  

[tagriffy]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks for your kind well wishes.   I can see why it might be easier to have that finality and be severed from the church all together.  It is so much easier to be in all in or all out, for sure.   Heaven knows that I often feel more drained and discouraged than uplifted by attending church.  It doesn't seem that the church wants nuanced believers.  The institution seems to be built for all in or all out individuals - the 100% one true church or the 100% fraud type believers.  It doesn't feel friendly to the idea of "cafeteria Mormons" despite the reality that we are all cafeteria Mormons to some degree or another.  I am trying to find my place and it is a struggle. 

Currently, I find it a struggle worth forging forward in.  I think that struggle can be good and helpful in many ways.  I view it a lot like a marriage where the overall relationship provides real value but where differences and struggle are unavoidable realities that we can either grow from or be hurt by.  I am trying to find ways to grow from these unavoidable differences in avoiding an unnecessary divorce from a relationship that has given me so much. 

For my part, I've pretty much given up on the Church, even setting aside the fact I work on Sundays anyway. Nowadays I call myself a Mormon-at-large.

[tagriffy]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well yes.  But theistic religions do a lot more than a simple myth created to give hope. 

Here, I would insert the term organized. Now read, "But organized theistic religions do a lot more than a simple myth created to give hope." That's an advantage to disengaging from the Church and simply being a Mormon-at-large. Mormonism for me is now the myth that helps give me direction and yes, hope.

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the relieving of suffering often depends on humans doing the work of relief, when no relief is provided, that's on us, right?  Not God?

As I said earlier in the discussion, one of the things I learned from a couple of podcasts talking about a process theology's approach to the problem of evil was how it emphasized this idea that we humans are the ones who are supposed to be doing the work of preventing and relieving suffering and evil. I find it a compelling idea, but it does raise the question of just how much God can intervene in the world. Perhaps God's power to intervene is so limited that He must rely on inconstant and unreliable human beings to intervene in the vast majority of cases?

In many ways, the problem of evil is the tension between characterizing God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and the existence of evil. One of the solutions to that tension is to chip away at the "omnis" -- kind of like we are doing here. Maybe God is not as omniscient as we've believed. As @Teancum has commented in a couple of places, another possible solution to the problem of evil is to chip away at God's omnibenevolence.

It's definitely a problem.

[tagriffy]

8 hours ago, Vanguard said:

It's certainly not compelling evidence if one wrestles with the notion of a supreme being. It's probably even a struggle for many who do (I fluctuate with the struggle). The whole thing seems paradoxical to me. If one already believes a supreme being has given him his ability to think and reason then it would be folly to use that God-given capacity to reason oneself out of that belief. ; ) Craig's point is that how can we evidence that God does not have sufficient reason to allow this kind of suffering? It's impossible unless we're already exiting said belief. And in that case, the non-belief is predicated almost entirely on an emotional reaction to the suffering. In other words, - "I am highly exercised by the reality of suffering in this world and therefore do not accept the notion of an omnipotent, supreme being." I think it also pulls the non-believer into what I touched on earlier. That being, s/he is pulled into parsing what is acceptable suffering and what is not. In my mind, it has to be either all or nothing. Either we have to accept the seemingly random, destructive nature of Mother Nature and the 'sky's the limit' horrors of what mankind is capable of doing or we must dispense with the whole notion of a supreme being. I don't believe there can be middle ground. And so to come full circle, either we believe 'God's way are not ours' or we do not.    

This seems incredibly dismissive to me. Sure, there is an element of truth to non-belief being predicated on an emotional reaction to suffering. But is it an unreasonable reaction? Who, believer or non-believer, can consider the reality of suffering in the world and not be highly exercised about it? This is why the problem of evil in either deductive or inductive forms is such a powerful argument in the first place? So non-belief is an entirely reasonable response. Also remember a common theme among the Abrahamic religions is that God will someday intervene decisively and put things right. Such theists are thus relying entirely on hope--itself an emotional reaction if, as @pogi seems to believe, nihilism is the only other real option.

This is also where Craig's point also falls a bit flat. What could possibly be sufficient reason to allow this kind of suffering?

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, tagriffy said:

Here, I would insert the term organized. Now read, "But organized theistic religions do a lot more than a simple myth created to give hope." That's an advantage to disengaging from the Church and simply being a Mormon-at-large. Mormonism for me is now the myth that helps give me direction and yes, hope.

I am happy that this works for you. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, tagriffy said:

as @pogi seems to believe, nihilism is the only other real option.

To clarify, I think that nihilism is only one of several real options and reactions to being atheist.   One doesn't have to go there.  There are other ways to choose to see things for atheists that can avoid nihilism all together.  Most atheists wisely choose not to go there to preserve well-being, though Sam Harris would argue that they couldn't do otherwise - being mere puppets of the universe with hard determinism and all.  

Edited December 6, 2023 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

To clarify, I think that nihilism is only one of several real options and reactions to being atheist.   One doesn't have to go there.  There are other ways to choose to see things for atheists that can avoid nihilism all together.  Most atheists wisely choose not to go there to preserve well-being, though Sam Harris would argue that they couldn't do otherwise - being mere puppets of the universe with hard determinism and all.  

Yes. Existentialism, for example, has a pretty strong philosophical foundation and tradition for those who want to avoid nihilism.

[MiserereNobis]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:01 AM, teddyaware said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only religion that provides a perfectly adequate and satisfying answer to the so-called “problem of evil and suffering.”

Actually, the answer is not perfectly adequate nor satisfying, just like all the other theodicies.

On 12/5/2023 at 10:01 AM, teddyaware said:

The answer lies in the fact that the spirit of evil, and its attendant spiritual darkness and suffering, is coeternal with God and had no beginning;

All this does is say evil and suffering have always existed, therefore there is not a problem of evil.

That doesn't solve the problem -- it just tries to say it doesn't exist. However, it doesn't answer the question as to why couldn't one fewer child have died during the last war. Was that one child's death necessary for opposition in all things? For co-eternal evil? It was only one child -- surely she could have lived. Or is this the "best possible of all worlds"?

I want to reiterate that I'm not picking on the LDS theodicy. I'm just reacting to the smugness of this answer. I find no theodicy sufficient or adequate or satisfying to cover all aspects of the problem of evil. It's something we take on faith, not something we can reason ourselves into or out of. Reason can certainly help and I strongly believe in partial answers and that some of these partial answers can overlap. But I don't believe there will ever be a satisfactory answer in this life.

[tagriffy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

To clarify, I think that nihilism is only one of several real options and reactions to being atheist.   One doesn't have to go there.  There are other ways to choose to see things for atheists that can avoid nihilism all together.  Most atheists wisely choose not to go there to preserve well-being, though Sam Harris would argue that they couldn't do otherwise - being mere puppets of the universe with hard determinism and all.  

Thank you. Let's modify to read something like "for those who think nihilism is the only other real option."

[mfbukowski]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:32 PM, pogi said:

Even if there is no God, hoping in one still serves a good purpose.  

This, right here, is the WHOLE point and strength of a pragmatic view.

Suddenly science and religion could be united in the search for the Ideal paradigm that is best for all humanity if we had a paradigm uniting the scientific notion of a "God Qualia" aka "the still small voice", or spiritual experience,  with the "conscience" which even atheists have admitted exists.

SOMETHING is happening in the brain, as real as what happens when we see red and distinguish it from green, to tell us right from wrong.

It's the "burning in the bosom " we discuss as LDS.

We know "qualia" are caused within the brain when stimulated by some "outside" stimulus, ie: in the case of what is called "red", light of a certain frequency.

We often use radio waves as a analogy for that still small voice, and I think that analogy is a good one

The question is WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE THE EXTERNAL CAUSE of that qualia called "conscience" / "The Holy Ghost"?

I think it's a built in set of "receptors" which exist to create a physical brain reaction, as designed or evolved to be understood as "the word of God"

 

[pogi]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:01 AM, teddyaware said:

The answer lies in the fact that the spirit of evil, and its attendant spiritual darkness and suffering, is coeternal with God and had no beginning;

Besides not really answering the problem of evil, me thinks you are making up doctrine here.

”The spirit of evil”???  I have heard of evil spirits who have fallen, but no eternal “spirit of evil”.  Where is this eternal spirit of darkness described in scripture?   Who is this “coeternal” evil being?  Or, is this the opposite of the light of Christ?  Some omnipresent ubiquitous and amorphous dark spirit?  News to me that such an eternal being or spirit exists.  Did he/it have any choice in the matter of being evil?  That doesn’t sound problematic to you given our central doctrine of agency?

[mfbukowski]

Why does ANYONE have to suffer for sin? What good does someone else's suffering do for anyone?

Sounds to me like a cosmic mommie/daddy is required to spank us, if they fail someone else has to get spanked to set the account straight.

Kinda odd.

I believe in natural consequences for doing evil.

I think the atonement paradigm is/should be about empathy, not punishment.

Edited December 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Alma 12:25 +

""25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken. 26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect. 27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.

28 And after God had appointed that these things should come unto man, behold, then he saw that it was expedient that man should know concerning the things whereof he had appointed unto them; 29 Therefore he sent angels to converse with them, who caused men to behold of his glory. 30 And they began from that time forth to call on his name; therefore God conversed with men, and made known unto them the plan of redemption, which had been prepared from the foundation of the world; and this he made known unto them according to their faith and repentance and their holy works. 31 Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good— 32 Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, according to the supreme goodness of God.""

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:10 PM, bluebell said:

What about the suffering of physical exercise?  Having to stand up in front of a class and give a presentation when you are shy?  Eating a vegetable you don't like?  Chores? Getting a bad grade when you didn't study for the test?  Going to court and dealing with the consequences when you break the law?  All of that is suffering too.

Some of that stuff is within your power as a parent to eliminate for your kids.  Have you eliminated it?

 

 

Personally I have a a lot of difficulty making the leap from the routine parenting items and other routine things that require some effort on our part ( exercise for example) to starving children, 250k people killed by a tsunami, a three year old suffering and dying from a painful cancer or a child that is kidnapped, abused and murdered. Certainly there are things that come upon us that stretch us, we learn from and can make us grow (and sometimes they may break us-think losing a child to early death).  But again you the leap from your example to the horrific suffering so many humans go through is tough for me.  I doubt if you could prevent it you would stand by idly and let your child starve to death.

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Personally I have a a lot of difficulty making the leap from the routine parenting items and other routine things that require some effort on our part ( exercise for example) to starving children, 250k people killed by a tsunami, a three year old suffering and dying from a painful cancer or a child that is kidnapped, abused and murdered. Certainly there are things that come upon us that stretch us, we learn from and can make us grow (and sometimes they may break us-think losing a child to early death).  But again you the leap from your example to the horrific suffering so many humans go through is tough for me.  I doubt if you could prevent it you would stand by idly and let your child starve to death.

I agree, but the leap is meant to be in purpose, but not in kind.

If we can agree that some suffering serves a purpose and is absolutely required for growth and learning, then the question isn't "why is suffering allowed?"  We've already answered that question. 

The new question we have to deal with is "when does suffering go from serving a purpose to no longer serve a purpose"?

If we are incapable of answering that question because our knowledge is too limited, then to me, that in and of itself is an answer (not the answer, but an answer), to the problem of evil.

 

[Teancum]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:22 PM, Vanguard said:

It's certainly not compelling evidence if one wrestles with the notion of a supreme being. It's probably even a struggle for many who do (I fluctuate with the struggle). The whole thing seems paradoxical to me. If one already believes a supreme being has given him his ability to think and reason then it would be folly to use that God-given capacity to reason oneself out of that belief. ; ) Craig's point is that how can we evidence that God does not have sufficient reason to allow this kind of suffering?

Yes I agree and this was really my point. Craig's argument seems to me to be  that we really don't know the whole pan, we are not God and so on so how dare we question God.  

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:22 PM, Vanguard said:

 

 

It's impossible unless we're already exiting said belief.

 

Sure.  A believer has to find a way to reconcile this and I guess :God's ways are above our" works. It works for many other faith based things.  Especially when our critical thinking about such things cause questions, doubts and cognitive dissonance.  As a doubter, this one seems to me the most compelling evidence that there may not be a theistic involved god being.

 

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:22 PM, Vanguard said:

 

And in that case, the non-belief is predicated almost entirely on an emotional reaction to the suffering. In other words, - "I am highly exercised by the reality of suffering in this world and therefore do not accept the notion of an omnipotent, supreme being." I think it also pulls the non-believer into what I touched on earlier.

While emotions play into this (what doesn't human emotions play into.  It plays into religious beliefs, god beliefs, prayer, testimony etc) it is also base on rational and logical discussion and thinking.

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:22 PM, Vanguard said:

 

That being, s/he is pulled into parsing what is acceptable suffering and what is not. In my mind, it has to be either all or nothing. Either we have to accept the seemingly random, destructive nature of Mother Nature and the 'sky's the limit' horrors of what mankind is capable of doing or we must dispense with the whole notion of a supreme being. I don't believe there can be middle ground.

Perhaps you are correct.  If the problem of evil and suffering are drilled into hard enough and long enough I think many will reject the notion of a theistic involved god being as I personally think they should. 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:22 PM, Vanguard said:

 

And so to come full circle, either we believe 'God's way are not ours' or we do not.    

For something as serious and important I just can't say God's ways are not ours.  Such a god being that allows and even inflicts so much horror on its sentient beings seems like an evil being.  Easier for me to think that such a being likely does not exist.  Heck, even some humans think about the morals of suffering we inflict on other creatures we share this planet with.  See here: