If "God" is omnipotent, then it is evil for refusing to create and maintain this world in a way such that (e.g.) children are not raped or afflicted with painful birth defects and all creatures do not have to devour one other in order to survive. If, however, "God" is not ominpotent, then it is not "God". :sparkle: :monkey:

How can God be omnipotent and good when men who are 5'4 exist?

Yes, I'm aware of the dilemma. But human suffering is only evil for humans, not God. No skin off his nose.

I'm not sure God is in a position to like or dislike anything, because it is omnipotent. God can love, or annihilate. Perhaps only finite powers can like and dislike, We can only like and dislike things that come to us from outside that are not under our control, or that we have only partial control over. Not sure though. — bert1

Yes, I'm aware of the dilemma. But human suffering is only evil for humans, not God. No skin off his nose. — bert1

But why wouldn't an all powerful/knowing god not be able to take on the perspective of a (or any given) human and see suffering from that perspective? In fact all suffering at all moments should be accessible to such a god and known.

Rather, this indicates that either god has values that include allowing countless suffering (not all good in the human sense), or god is not in the picture at all.. or that god wants suffering.

Now if god wants suffering, that is an interesting notion we must explore..

But there is another possibility, that suffering is not a concept/thing that god understands. Then the all knowing element is out of the picture. It's a god that doesn't really take into account what a human may feel. This is akin to a sort of Cthulu Mythos.. gods that are indifferent to humans one way or the other.

Certainly, the god of the Abrahamic religion has a god that cares about the outcome (messianic age, following X, Y, Z edicts, etc.). THAT god knows SOMETHING about humans..

But why wouldn't an all powerful/knowing god not be able to take on the perspective of a (or any given) human and see suffering from that perspective? — schopenhauer1

I don't know, but maybe because in doing so it would cease to be God. If God isn't made of parts (as dogma has it) it has to do things wholly. So maybe God can take on the perspective of a human, but in doings so becomes human. I don't know. Theology is a bit guessy.

Now if god wants suffering, that is an interesting notion we must explore.. — schopenhauer1

I think we can all agree that suffering can teach us things. It's the idea of "unnecessary" suffering that the philosopher objects to as if he can finely discern different sorts of suffering into "necessary" and "unnecessary." Who knows what is necessary for the soul.

I don't know, but maybe because in doing so it would cease to be God. If God isn't made of parts (as dogma has it) it has to do things wholly. So maybe God can take on the perspective of a human, but in doings so becomes human. I don't know. Theology is a bit guessy. — bert1

Then the omnipotent problem..

I think we can all agree that suffering can teach us things. It's the idea of "unnecessary" suffering that the philosopher objects to as if he can finely discern different sorts of suffering into "necessary" and "unnecessary." Who knows what is necessary for the soul. — BitconnectCarlos

1. Right but it's the need to see other people suffer, necessarily or not that seems interesting here. Why would an all good god care to see any suffering? The problem is any answer requires you to explain in a very human perspective. Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering.

2, This goes back to another thread that discussed how god having needs (like seeing the game of "necessary suffering" carried out) is problematic.

3 Even the term "necessary" in front of suffering is problematic, as that implies that God is limited by some sort of super-force (necessity) that he can't help but WANT to see played out (by his human subjects??).

4 And then human subjects- why does he NEED an audience/players to play his game? This goes back to necessity.. An all powerful/knowing/perfect god and NEED doesn't seem to fit unless we go back to my Point number 1..

If so, then "God" for humans is not worthy of worship (i.e. not a moral ideal / authority / exemplar).

I'm not sure what worship is.

Yes, I'm generally not a fan of the 'can do anything' version of omnipotence that just leads to paradoxes.

Yes, I'm generally not a fan of the 'can do anything' version of omnipotence that just leads to paradoxes. — bert1

Then I will lead you to this:

3 Even the term "necessary" in front of suffering is problematic, as that implies that God is limited by some sort of super-force (necessity) that he can't help but WANT to see played out (by his human subjects??). — schopenhauer1

4 And then human subjects- why does he NEED an audience/players to play his game? This goes back to necessity.. An all powerful/knowing/perfect god and NEED doesn't seem to fit unless we go back to my Point number 1.. — schopenhauer1

Suffering is an important mechanism through which we grow. I'm not going to comment on whether God "needs" us to suffer. I also find distinguishing between "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering to be troublesome.

Here's a word from Wittgenstein: "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."

Why are we here? What is our goal? Possibly for self-development. Or improve the world. But I agree with Wittgenstein -- probably not to have the most blissful experience possible. So if the goal is self-development then suffering can be a tool towards that end.

Why are we here? What is our goal? Possibly for self-development. Or improve the world. But I agree with Wittgenstein -- probably not to have the most blissful experience possible. So if the goal is self-development then suffering can be a tool towards that end. — BitconnectCarlos

You fail to get beyond comment 1, doubling down on it even, quoting other humans even.

I agreed with points 2 and 3. I would go back to Job on this one: As humans our perspective is incredibly limited. Some suffering is understandable and can be attributed to bad deeds, other suffering isn't. Ultimately, suffering is just another state of being. One among many. One can even experience bliss within suffering - see near death experiences.

I agreed with points 2 and 3. I would go back to Job on this one: As humans our perspective is incredibly limited. Some suffering is understandable and can be attributed to bad deeds, other suffering isn't. Ultimately, suffering is just another state of being. One among many. One can even experience bliss within suffering - see near death experiences. — BitconnectCarlos

Good is relative then. That is to say, can good for humans be at odds for good for God? The answer is harder than offhand references to medievalist Concordia and apology.

God “needs/wants” suffering. Humans rather not.

can good for humans be at odds for good for God? — schopenhauer1

In the biblical worldview they are one and the same. A free will is a will aligned with God. If we become something else, say hedonists, then our "good" can differ from God's good. Thus the hatred of idolatry.

I'm not sure what worship is — bert1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship

In the biblical worldview they are one and the same. A free will is a will aligned with God. If we become something else, say hedonists, then our "good" can differ from God's good. Thus the hatred of idolatry. — BitconnectCarlos

And what's your worldview, or do you dare not to have an original thought? Just punt to dogma?

Anyways, this is now tripling down on point 1:

Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1

You still have not managed to bypass it. You have literally "Dwight Schruted" your answer (pedantic, petty, dogmatic... You are playing a caricature of your own profile pic.. at least true to form to your own hero).

If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering.

Many times the abused identifies with the abuser- they deserve it. It's their fault. They should have done better.

Many times the abused excuses the abuser- it's their nature. Who are we to disagree.

The point of the dilemma is thus: Suffering might not be good for US, but rather, for the one who imposed the suffering.. How do you square this difference? You really haven't. Only tripled down on point 1. Betterment for humans seems awfully unnecessary. This seems like someone else is getting satisfaction from the suffering.. Are we but divine tools then? To be used for this game? Is that not questionable? And again, the mentality of the victim- are we to identify with this? Is this in our interest? And most importantly, out of all possibilities, why would suffering be the tool for growth?

It's not a very clear concept.

If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering.

Many times the abused identifies with the abuser- they deserve it. It's their fault. They should have done better.

Many times the abused excuses the abuser- it's their nature. Who are we to disagree. — schopenhauer1

I think you nailed it. Certainly this seems how one of the more prominent theistic fictions would have it.

By human standards (do we know of any others?), the Biblical god is often evil and seems to be compelled to do evil. Why else would he drown all men, women and children with a great flood - just one example? His omnipotence gave him the power to end all life painlessly, but he decided to opt for cruelty and drown them all, babies included. We really only know this god is good because he tells us he is. But isn't that what an abusive parent/spouse says? 'I'm doing this, because I love you.'

Of course many who defend such a malevolent deity will argue that humans don't have the capacity to judge god and that he has his own special wisdom or celestial discernment, which humans couldn't possibly understand. It's that kind of thinking, I suspect, which leads to mass murdering children because god says it's ok.

And before anyone says it is only crass atheists who argue like this, I have met more than my share of Christians who consider Yahweh to be a cosmic berserker and scourge. My favourite (now dead) Episcopal bishop, formerly of Newark, John Shelby Spong, viewed the Bible as a collection of frequently awful stories which should be ignored:

The Bible says that women are property, that homosexuals ought to be put to death, that anybody who worships a false God ought to be executed, that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned at the gates of the city. Those ideas are absurd.

JS Spong

It's a very ancient and banal practice ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship

Yes I looked. It's not a single concept. Clearer concepts are submission and respect.

Of course many who defend such a malevolent deity will argue that humans don't have the capacity to judge god and that he has his own special wisdom or celestial discernment, which humans couldn't possibly understand. It's that kind of thinking, I suspect, which leads to mass murdering children because god says it's ok. — Tom Storm

Yes, which is where the "dilemma" of two views of suffering come from. There is the viewpoint from humans (suffering is bad). There is the view from God (suffering is good). The job of apologists is to make the two views align (suffering SEEMS bad to us, but is REALLY good in the grand scheme of things that we can never understand).

And then there is this underlying/hidden understanding of necessity and its relation to God. Here we have an all powerful/knowing being, but somehow it is NECESSARY that humans play this game of suffering, as if God couldn't have done it any other way. As if the rules of X goal/value are confined for God himself. He has his hands tied, he's just working with what he's got.

And these bring up the problems I said earlier:
1) God doesn't care about our suffering other than as a tool for a broader goal
2) God likes/wants suffering as a tool that he preferred for a tool for his goal
3) God doesn't know that what suffering is for humans

All of these things would indicate problems for an all powerful/good/knowing/perfect godhead. Good is relativized as a sort of "all too human" quality. Good is not reflective of divine good, which obviously is indifferent to or even likes suffering.

Then of course you have the notion that God "wants". Once you put "wants" in the equation, you have something that "lacks" in the first place. Lacking seems imperfect.

But there's more.. Then there is the gaslighting aspect whereby it isn't god that is making you suffer. YOU are making you suffer by not following God's commands. God has a plan, and divine command. You must follow this plan or suffer the consequences. This is just a sophisticated version of the whole "God lacks, therefore he wants this game of free willed people to see how good he is". This is problematic as it goes way back to point 1 here:

1. Right but it's the need to see other people suffer, necessarily or not that seems interesting here. Why would an all good god care to see any suffering? The problem is any answer requires you to explain in a very human perspective. Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, the deity now looks all too human, like us. A king that has created his subjects and now wants them to see the manifest greatness of his creation, and if they don't recognize this, they will be cursed, damned, obliterated, laid waste... The ancients saw their own kings and projected their propensities onto their deity. This is how kings act, no? Why not the king of the whole universe? Just a bigger version of this.. And just like a king sometimes grants mercy for those who see that he is indeed the just and righteous ruler that he is (narcissistic self-fulfilling prophecy when fear is involved), then the king of the universe all the same grants clemency.

But let's not go too far here. In the post-Enlightenment, God has become simply the backdrop for holidays and rituals, not the main character. So really it's window dressing with a wink and a smirk, not fire and brimstone.

Either way, if we go way back to what I was saying on how the Bible was constructed, it was meant for a time and place. It was only under historical contingency that a small nation's deity became THE deity of the Western world. Even so, THE deity taken by the "Western" (Roman Empire) world, was one that wasn't even the same as the one from the Hebrew Scriptures (Ezra's Vision fully implemented by at least the Hasmonean dynasty in Judea vs. the Pauline mutation of a god-man that dies for your sins, more amenable to the mystery cults already flourishing in gentile non-Jewish communities around the Mediterranean).

Yes, which is where the "dilemma" of two views of suffering come from. There is the viewpoint from humans (suffering is bad). There is the view from God (suffering is good). The job of apologists is to make the two views align (suffering SEEMS bad to us, but is REALLY good in the grand scheme of things that we can never understand). — schopenhauer1

I do not know whether the view from God is that "suffering is good." I think you go a little too far with that assumption. Some suffering is clearly caused by us. Other suffering is not understandable by us. God's ways are mostly inscrutable but the only way we gain any understanding of it is through his relationship with this world.

We observe suffering and try to make sense of it. In some cases it's much clearer than others. E.g. go off and fuck a bunch of midianite women and don't use protection and catch an std -- here we can clearly tie misbehavior to suffering. Same with an evil person who goes around killing and stealing from those around him -- worldly justice will likely catch up to him.

So it's not that "God likes to see suffering" it's that the world has a certain general way of operating that occurs throughout the generations that ancient writers take note of. Now if you want to go and say "God loves that suffering!" or that suffering is "good for God" now you're engaging in your theology. You are going beyond the pattern recognition and engaging in your own theology when you say that this suffering is "good" for God or that God "likes" the suffering.

The general biblical attitude is that God would rather see someone repent from evil than continue with it and suffer.

As you asked earlier, I am someone who is interested in the biblical worldview but I don't claim to have all the answers nor do I subscribe to any dogmas.

You ignored almost every argument I made in the last two posts.. Go back and read again and come back and do better if you want me to take you seriously and not just falling into the exact problems that I brought up.. This tells me you had a ready-made answer, and did not grapple with what I presented:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935954

So it's not that "God likes to see suffering" it's that the world has a certain general way of operating that occurs throughout the generations that ancient writers take note of. Now if you want to go and say "God loves that suffering!" or that suffering is "good for God" now you're engaging in your theology. You are going beyond the pattern recognition and engaging in your own theology when you say that this suffering is "good" for God or that God "likes" the suffering. — BitconnectCarlos

See especially what I said about necessity and the gaslighting (it's YOUR fault evil exists). But really, the whole argument must be taken into consideration from that post..Lest you cherry-pick and take out of context as is perhaps your wont.

I don't have all day to make responses but if I don't address your main concern here let me know.

Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1

It's ultimately humans discussing a text, so yes, we'll have our own interpretations of it. We'll tend to personify/humanize God in one sense or another to make sense of him.

If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering. — schopenhauer1

Within the biblical worldview we all need to have a general trust in God. That doesn't mean that all suffering needs to be deemed as good. It could be punishment. But it all happens under God's purview. Job lays out the proper way to dealing with unexplainable suffering e.g. you can curse the day you were born, but you can't curse God.

Just because suffering happens under God's purview doesn't mean that he delights in it or wants to see it.

Within the biblical worldview we all need to have a general trust in God. That doesn't mean that all suffering needs to be deemed as good. It could be punishment. But it all happens under God's purview. Job lays out the proper way to dealing with unexplainable suffering e.g. you can curse the day you were born, but you can't curse God.

Just because suffering happens under God's purview doesn't mean that he delights in it or wants to see it. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, so I am just going to refer you again to the post I made to Tom Storm here, as all of this was addressed in some way:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935954

You say a lot so I need to take it piece by piece rather than all at once.

But there's more.. Then there is the gaslighting aspect whereby it isn't god that is making you suffer. YOU are making you suffer by not following God's commands. God has a plan, and divine command. You must follow this plan or suffer the consequences. This is just a sophisticated version of the whole "God lacks, therefore he wants this game of free willed people to see how good he is". This is problematic as it goes way back to point 1 here: — schopenhauer1

Among the first ways we know God is that we fear him. God is terrifying. Reality is terrifying. So cross your Ts and dot your Is. It's not "gas lighting" and until you understand this point this discussion is futile. If you act in certain ways your suffering may very well be essentially "on you." We must first accept that this world has rules and if you violate these you hurt yourself.

This really goes back to Adam and Eve but we see it over and over again. Certain things are permitted, others are not, and quite frequently doing that which is unpermitted carries consequences.

Going back to Adam and Eve - life/nature/reality can be enjoyed, but there is always at least one rule which one must abide by.

Among the first ways we know God is that we fear him. God is terrifying. Reality is terrifying. So cross your Ts and dot your Is. It's not "gas lighting" and until you understand this point this discussion is futile. If you act in certain ways your suffering may very well be essentially "on you." We must first accept that this world has rules and if you violate these you hurt yourself.

This really goes back to Adam and Eve but we see it over and over again. Certain things are permitted, others are not, and quite frequently doing that which is unpermitted carries consequences. — BitconnectCarlos

That is to say, the deity now looks all too human, like us. A king that has created his subjects and now wants them to see the manifest greatness of his creation, and if they don't recognize this, they will be cursed, damned, obliterated, laid waste... The ancients saw their own kings and projected their propensities onto their deity. This is how kings act, no? Why not the king of the whole universe? Just a bigger version of this.. And just like a king sometimes grants mercy for those who see that he is indeed the just and righteous ruler that he is (narcissistic self-fulfilling prophecy when fear is involved), then the king of the universe all the same grants clemency. — schopenhauer1

But even more perplexing, why would a supreme deity need things like "a game of justice of right and wrong to be carried out by various lower beings who can choose right and wrong whilst sometimes being rewarded and sometimes arbitrarily suffer (Job)"? Besides the inconsistency of the Job ("seemingly unnecessary" suffering), the whole game itself is very much similar to what a human would construct.

The biblical authors do say humans are a reflection of god, but isn't this just more evidence of the human construction of the godhead? And yet, when this parallel comes too close to home (that god is all too human), the apologist moves to make god transcendental and unknowable again.. Thus cherry-picking when it is convenient. God is "sort of" like humans (until tricky questions of morality come into play about suffering and why even implement this game in the first place? So it's for human growth.. but why would a deity care? That also seems too human. Yet, the "why is suffering necessary IN THE FIRST PLACE" is unknown and transcendental somehow. You're selling hollow, tired, arguments. Why not just drop them all? If you say, fear of X, I then will direct you back to questioning a being that wants this kind of love out of fear... And if you say because you want to be close to your god-daddy.. again goes back to the human qualities of want and need. You are in a pickle Dwight.