If I can't get inside of your mind (or my own mind), how is it that we can get inside of God's... — 3017amen

You don't need to get inside someone's mind to clearly see that he or she is clearly wrong.

Your point is a non sequitur. As all the points you've brought up at any and all times in your life on this forum have been.

You hunt for the word "god" on these forums, and when you find it, you latch onto that topic, and frazzle everyone by a constant series of completely ignoring what the other party says. You just say your part, over and over again, and your part is actually fluff, empty, vacuous.

So go ahead, do your usual worst, 3017Amen.

I don't think it proves it, but for me the issue boils down to respecting my own values enough to consider it a problem in need of explanation if not remedy. I do assume that there are things I cannot understand and all the issues around running universes would be included in this. But if I can't trust my own feelings and reactions to the burning fawn, how can I trust my assessment that God is a loving omnibenevolent being and everything is as it should be. And how can I trust other my 'being convinced' is correct by the arguments of others on the topic, if I can't trust myself around the fawn issue?

I think you are actually agreeing with each other. I could be wrong but he seems to be saying that the omnibenevolent diety - the one posited by theists - is contradicted by the fawn burning up.

Is the content of life good enough to justify any pain?

Fire death is a risk much lesser than a car crash.

Two things here:

Life's content; (metaphor, the alchohol is enough)

Risk.

God might say, and I'm thinking of the abrahamic God, you deserved that risk. In which case the burning fawn is in a 'justifiable hell, but it might be suffering too much, and thus, will get insurance.

It's feasable.

Let's say that a forest is on fire. In it is a fawn who, just like any other animal, lived according to Nature. This fawn had no escape from the fire, and was burned alive. It suffered, just like any other living entity suffers.

Does God's omniscience have any coherent logical explanation for this occurrence of gratuitous pain and suffering?

It seems to me that, with such a simple example one can demolish the omnibenevolence of God in one strike.

The problem here is that it becomes, quite honestly, too simple to deny God's grace with such an evidential claim.

What is your response to the burning fawn scenario with respect to God? — Wallows

Arriving late to the party...

I notice you’re assuming that the pain and suffering of the fawn is an ‘objective’ fact. To the fire, the fawn is fuel. To some trees in the forest, the fire is an opportunity to procreate.

What makes you think that what is ‘good’ according to you is the same as what is ‘good’ according to ‘God’? I think there is much in biblical writings alone to suggest that pain and suffering is NOT considered by ‘God’ to be inherently ‘bad’ or best avoided. Plus, the idea that ‘God’ attributes a value hierarchy to the universe, and places humans at the top, followed closely by cute, helpless deer, with plants and chemical processes far less valuable, sounds to me like human thought masquerading as ‘God’. It seems that you’re judging the ‘goodness of God’ by a limited perception of value structure.

You don't need to get inside someone's mind to clearly see that he or she is clearly wrong. — god must be atheist

Hi atheist!

I'm a little bit confused there between your sense of subjective truth viz right or wrong. And BTW, thanks for spreading the Love! To that end, maybe we should start with a simple question; if Love is right, do we want to be wrong?

Hahaha

BTW, come debate me on the Dumpertrumper Impeachment thread!

It seems that you’re judging the ‘goodness of God’ by a limited perception of value structure. — Possibility

I don't see value in pain and suffering. This sort of ties back into one of my old threads, about the inherent worth of suffering, if there is any. I don't think God suffers along with the burning fawn, or does He? One might even be inclined to agree that God is quite cruel. Or if you care to address the issue raised here:

Does God's omniscience have any coherent logical explanation for this occurrence of gratuitous pain and suffering? — Wallows

Can one even ascertain the notion of gratuitous pain and suffering with respect to notions of God?

You don’t know that it isn’t the case that the more you suffer the better your afterlife. “No pain. No gain.” Who says that the fawn’s soul didn’t bargain for that life before it was born? Perhaps it was shooting for a penthouse suite in Heaven.

All I’m saying is that you don’t know anything about God’s intentions.

All I’m saying is that you don’t know anything about God’s intentions. — Noah Te Stroete

His intentions are irrelevant. They reveal themselves with the working of the world at hand.

If what you're saying amounts to, "God works in mysterious ways," then there isn't really much to talk about and we might as well sit in silence with regards to the topic, then?

I’m just saying, it’s ludicrous to think that you could figure out God’s knowledge with a human mind. If you’re just saying that God cannot exist because suffering, then I agree that we might as well sit in silence.

Why do so many atheists want to debate fundamentalist beliefs about God? Atheist says that God has to be x, y, and z. There is something that is not x. Therefore, God doesn’t make sense.

This is children’s play.

You said you suffered. After you die it's the end - you're at peace(which is a lie, nothing is not peaceful it's nothing).

You not expect more for your suffering? Others may, so going with others who do, that's a fine proposition; you will be credited, in another life.

Life has come out of nothing before, what's to stop it happening again?

Denying afterlife is not denying God. Afterlife is not God-exclusive. Obviously 'something' orders it, that something doesn't need to be like God.

You have claimed to have suffered. Do you hold a point even after I told you, hell associated with risk is feasable, because of your own weakness? Or are you just ignoring others?

I don't really know everything, hence the topic.

I seem to amiss with regard to notions about gratuitous pain and suffering. The burning of the fawn seems pointless or trite, or is there some purpose to this senseless suffering that it had to go through?

I suffer. You suffer. The fawn suffers. We think it is bad because it is us. If you are going to posit a god, then it’s not a stretch to think that life goes on after death. You have to know the bad to know the good because you have to have something to compare it to. Perhaps the burning alive is the flip side of the coin of bliss in the afterlife.

You have claimed to have suffered. Do you hold a point even after I told you, hell associated with risk is feasable, because of your own weakness? Or are you just ignoring others? — Qwex

Sorry, not getting your point here. Are you saying that suffering is just, just because God made it a reality? Kinda stupid if you ask me.

You deserved that RISK, that is part of your hell. Was it an accident or did the fawn purposely burn? It lost the lottery it deserved. Who's to say mind is not the game?

You deserve that sort of quality.

Keen judgement by even a God.

He was smart in doing this. But it is enforced. So it's definitely not one man's doing. He's got to survive too.

the omnibenevolent diety - the one posited by theists — Coben

Perhaps, but he seems to take some care to not say that at least clearly. What I don't get from him is the recognition that someone's idea of something is different from the thing itself. Without that distinction, conversation is a waste of time.

Belief in God is like but not a belief in that something that enforces that you exist. I think physical laws enforce their existence. There would also be non physical present.

One day someone will say there is no more God, but truly understand it.

I agree that there was some lack of clarity. When I read the OP, I thought he was saying 'it's all good'. So, I disagreed...and he agreed with me. I was surprised. I think there was lack of clarity in presenting, yes, certain theists ideas of God and what God is. It seemed like he was saying God is omnibenevolent. But i think in fact he was saying that people conceive of God as that but the fawn burning shows this is not the case. But it came off as saying - I know what God is, he's omnibenevolent. Hopefully he'll make it clear what he meant.
Here's where I began to suspect he meant to opposite.

and then here I felt more confident.


Adn there he cleared it up, in the post just below this one.

It seemed like he was saying God is omnibenevolent. But i think in fact he was saying that people conceive of God as that but the fawn burning shows this is not the case. — Coben

All I'm saying can be distilled into the ethos, 'But, why God'? The concept of God as all-loving doesn't really mesh with the concept of a fawn dying through a fiery death.

Or I'll state this otherwise.

If the fawn burning to death is considered a 'natural' death, then there's something to say about the world we reside in, in terms of a cruel God.

A gross oversimplification possibly; but, the thread can be distilled into the sentiment, that if suffering is natural (in the sense that a burning fawn in some forest was just plain unlucky), then why can we ascertain the possibility that it suffered needlessly?

Remove all intent and purpose. Look at what's left.

Remove all intent and purpose. Look at what's left. — creativesoul

Tough luck? Is that the appropriate response? Or that the world is a nasty place? Is that what you meant?

maybe God is this type of species. He is the best species. Maybe it is represented by good energy that contains us and gives us form. However that is at least multiple parts in one organism, if not multiple organisms in a species. If not such chaos in the universe, there would be no matter. There are kinds of energy we haven't defined. Potentially a species could evolve from this energy?

Parasites could be anywhere, but do not have to be and has laws of it's own somewhere else, and one of many who are kin to the greater energy in our universe. Other universes may have a purer energy spectrum.

Not really. Where there is no intent, purpose, or plan there is no needless suffering. It's just suffering. Causality. Needless suffering is meaningful. Causality is meaningless.

Are you really concerned about some hypothetical fawn in a forest, or are you in pain? I suspect it’s the latter. I recommended talking to someone who is a good listener that you trust.

Fact: Bad shit happens to everyone. And yes, sometimes it’s no one’s fault.

If you are going to stipulate that there is a God (which I don’t believe you want to believe in but rather are looking to place the blame on someone for your pain), then isn’t it more comforting to assume that this stipulated God loves you and still has purpose for you than to assume that He doesn’t care? Perhaps God is priming you for your purpose. Are you up to the challenge?

Not really. Where there is no intent, purpose, or plan there is no needless suffering. It's just suffering. Causality. Needless suffering is meaningful. Causality is meaningless. — creativesoul

So, there's no point to it then? I mean, if we can call it as "gratuitous suffering", then the presupposition is that it was in excess to some rationale. Yet, God remains silent, so what's the rationale here?

Can't say... I'm not a believer.

No idea man.

Are you really concerned about some hypothetical fawn in a forest, or are you in pain? — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I'm really concerned about the typical response to these questions. Being quietism, mysterium, and esoterics.

Well, I'm really concerned about the typical response to these questions. Being quietism, mysterium, and esoterics. — Wallows

You’re not fooling me. With all atheists it starts out as personal. Only after finding reasons to hate God do they then rationalize that there is no God.