I'm not trying to say what God should and shouldn't do. That's an impossible argument anyways. Rather I'm arguing that God fits the conditions for responsibility. Not that we should be angry at him, but that we should understand that suffering exists because God wants it to exist.
For instance, if someone intentionally harms another person, then we would usually say that he is responsible for this person's injuries. However, if the attacker had a good reason to injure the person, (let's say that it was somehow necessary in order to save the person's life) then we wouldn't normally hold the first person responsible. To use a more specific example, we don't usually consider a surgeon responsible for the incisions he inflicts on his patients. This I think is your point. God is like a surgeon (or a parent), which sometimes causes, or allows, a lesser injury in order to obtain a better result, or avoid a worse calamity. In the case of this universe, the better result is balance and freedom perhaps, or to avoid human puppets with no appreciation or will of their own. Are you with me so far? If this is what you are saying, then I would understand and agree if not for one other point, the point I'd like you to address. To return to the surgeon analogy, what if the surgeon could cure the patient without inflicting any harm? He was aware of his options, yet continued to perform surgery anyways. Wouldn't he then be responsible for causing needless injury to the patient? We would normally say yes.
So does God need to allow suffering in order to balance the universe, like a surgeon needs to cut flesh to save lives? Is suffering not only necessary in this universe to realize a better good, but also necessary for God to create a better good? If so, then does this undermine God's omnipotence? Earlier you said that it doesn't, but how so? How can something be necessary to an all-powerful God? If it is not necessary, then how is God not responsible?
Couldn't God create a world in which we could gain, grow, become better than the sum of our parts, and still not contain any suffering? Again I'm not saying that he should, merely that he could. And if he could, then what reason is there to allow suffering? Can you see that God has no reason other than his own will?Could He create a world sans Sufferin'? Probably, but what would we learn in that world? What would we gain? How would we grow? How could we become so much better than the sum of our parts? How could we then learn what not ta do?
Scourge (Aug 25, 2008)
It is simple; it is written in the Bible that the world will be turned into damnation and no other works or faith will save them, today devils can easily possess a man's body; in our time devil possess a body but not controlling their mind like in the excorsit but they are the one who will be their conscince and will guide as their evil advisor so be prepare cause the end is really near.
Also, what you are refering to is the appocolips which really means when translated from its origenal Hebrue meaning to "new beginning." A purification of the world, it does NOT mean that Hell and demons and monsters will ruel the world.
Or something along those lines if any one wants to clarify.
"MY DEAR... I GIVE YOU THE CAPELLAN CONFEDERATION"AND THUS THE WAR WAS STARTED NOT BY GUN SHOT BUT BY WEDDING BELLS
hello again, sorry it has taken me so long to respond.
Joe Mage, it seems that your argument follows the following format. God is not responsible for suffering, because he has good reason to create/allow suffering. My disagreement with your argument is not against the reasons you give, but rather that God can have any reason at all. Usually when we say that someone has a reason for something, we mean that they acted with the expectation of acheiving a certain result. For an example, if I do X, then Y will follow. My reason for doing X, would be to produce Y. But let's say I could produce Y without doing X. Would I still have a reason to do X? Let's say that I could do anything or nothing, and still produce Y. Why would I choose X over an infinite number of other options, when any of the options would produce the same result? In this situation, it seems that I no longer have any reason to do X. Do you understand my reasoning here?
I agree most of the content of your post. However, your description only relates to this universe, not to all possible universes. In another universe, it could be possible to acheive Y without X and still be able to understand and appreciate the gift we were given. Is this impossible? Perhaps in this universe. But to God, nothing is impossible. So we still need an explanation as to how God can have reason to allow suffering. In order to answer this, we need to answer how God can have a reason for anything at all. That is a key question to this conversation, and needs answered before we can move on.
You could make Y to mean anything. Y could include appreciation and understanding, etc.... Couldn't God create Y exactly as if X had happened? If the answer is no, that Y wouldn't exactly be the same without X, then we would be placing a limit on God's power. We would be saying that it is impossible for God to create Y exactly the same as if X had happened. In that case, he is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then God has no reason to allow suffering. Of course, you might argue that God doesn't allow suffering, rather he created the entire universe 5 seconds ago, complete with our full memories of suffering that never happened. I wouldn't be able to argue with that =)Let's say X is "Experience and Learnin'" and the Y result is "Freedom and Independence." W/o X we could never really have Y, sure we would could have it; but we would never full understand and apprieciate the gift that we have been given. We would only take it for granted and may even abuse it, like I stated 'fore; "It's not the Destination, but the Journey that matters."
i cry inside for life anew i die each time im torn in two i live for earth and die for none along comes a god who will always bring peace and tranquility