Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One 754 Replies latest watchtower bible

WheninDoubt

How simple it sounds when logic is exercised to obscure sound research. The assertion that a heavenly creator would purposely subject its creation to pain is overreaching. Understanding all aspects of the subject, then becomes more complex than mere scenario’s. The error man continues to make is the delivery of assertions such as “pain” and “suffering” to mean the same.

PAIN: 1. physical suffering or discomfort caused by illness or injury.

SUFFERING: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

To a theist, why does God allow Suffering? God didn’t, that came about by man’s own sins.

Is that the same as pain? No, pain would be there as a warning mechanism. What does both have to do with theist, nothing since theism is a focus of rather a God or Gods existed? History shows every culture in life up to modern times has had a belief in a God of some kind. Now having said that,

The creator mentioned in the book of genesis, at no point mentioned there would be no pain. It does however stipulate on Genesis 3:16, the woman would have the pains in child baring increased. If does not reflect to make pain, rather than enhance it. Why then would a creator include pain in creation? As a warning mechanism. How would a creation figure out for example if it broke its leg and didn’t feel it? Since the creator had given all the necessary amenities for the cycle of life, then Thinking outside the box would dictate, the creator would also mend creation should something go array, but if that creation was unaware then it would expire without it ever knowing it. How do you come to that conclusion, simple; in the book of genesis 3:9-10 indicates god looking for man and not knowing where he was until Adam replied. So the assertion of an all knowing God is just a mirrored solution to the depths of creation. Does it actually mean God didn’t know, or rather God did, but was waiting to hear from man’s own mouth? That intent was made in genesis to have its creation live forever perfectly. So just as the first set of creation, any number of things to go array. That’s why man would keep the animals in subjection. The other side of having the difference between pain and suffering manifested itself in the Genesis 4:9-10 Did Abel feel pain or did he suffer when he died? The indication is no, why, because told Cain his brothers blood was crying out from the Ground. That’s why it’s also to look at the life source not just the source.

Archeology suggest, let’s say, the dinosaur’s big teeth were formed to penetrate the tuff hide of its prey. However it doesn’t explain if a creator that made the dinosaur created those big teeth to shred, let’s say heavy or thick vegetation. To contemplate one without the other, then becomes inconsistent with what man has learned and experienced thus far.

Now to an Atheist all of this would have no meaning unless there able to prove how the cycle of life actually started. The biggest research on the subject quantified its hypothesis in the 19 century. Does this mean man wasn’t thinking about it before? No, it means the interest back them wasn’t fashioned as it is today. What does this all prove, to evolutionist the cycle of life has been and will always be destructive, and to the creationist, it means that all that man has been through will one day in order to start a world that God always intended.

So to have a rational argument or irrational conversation is moot. That’s the purpose of Noah. Believe or not, the choice is your own.
cofty

That’s the purpose of Noah. Believe or not, the choice is your own.
I prefer facts to ancient myths.
To those who are trying to argue that animals don't really suffer, why do we prosecute people for animal cruelty?
it doesn’t explain if a creator that made the dinosaur created those big teeth to shred, let’s say heavy or thick vegetation.
This is what happens when you feel free to make stuff up on the spot with no knowledge of your subject and no respect for facts.
Viviane

How simple it sounds when logic is exercised to obscure sound research. The assertion that a heavenly creator would purposely subject its creation to pain is overreaching.
The Bible, your holy, book, literally says that God does that. Don't pretend it doesn't, that would be a hilariously obvious lie.
To a theist, why does God allow Suffering? God didn’t, that came about by man’s own sins.
Wrong. Animals suffered long before man existed. Therefore God caused suffering. Why don't theists know their own holy book?
However it doesn’t explain if a creator that made the dinosaur created those big teeth to shred, let’s say heavy or thick vegetation.
It explains it quite well! Why don't theists ever actually know facts, history or their own holy book?
So to have a rational argument or irrational conversation is moot. That’s the purpose of Noah. Believe or not, the choice is your own.
Yours is clear to ignore reality is favor of irrationality.
defender of truth

Excellent points, Cofty and Viviane.

With regard to Fisherman, let's clear a few things up and then focus on the topic...

'Does not make my money grow' is referring to his oh-so-clever story, he means that reality is as it is, nobody's views, opinions, or comments can change that.
You can only 'know' something if you repeatedly test and verify it as true yourself.
That's why he said 'the answer is know'.
Very clever word play (!)

He clearly enjoys flaunting his intelligience and education by means of word play etc. far more than trying to help those without a great deal of education and busy people (such as most JW's who lurk here sometimes), to think about a subject.
That tells you a lot.

Secondly, "you are not running the USA" is referring to his earlier post where he stated that only the view of good and bad held by the 'one in authority' matters.
If God exists and is the supreme authority, our view of good and bad is irrelevant because he can do whatever he wants.

I addressed that point with the 'God-the mafia boss' video, that he declined to comment on.
(For those without time to go back and watch it, the basic reasoning is that: just because we have the power to step on an ant, and kill it if we want to, it does not mean we are right to do so.
For believers to claim that God has the right to kill anything he wants to because he made everything, it is comparable to a parent saying they can hit their child or even kill it, because they brought it into the world.
That's an immoral view, as most people alive today would agree.)

Thirdly, this is from his profile..
"The information posted past present and future is to be considered viewpoint, opinion, feeling, believed. It may also be the belief, feeling or opinion of someone else and not necessarily mine or it may be hypothetical or it may be to see how others feel about a certain opinion or position but not intended to be authoritative or factual presentational or factual representational."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/users/11814/Fisherman

At least now,
anyone just joining us has some idea what's going on.
........

Fisherman, what reason can you offer as a justification for God allowing animal suffering before the fall of man?
defender of truth

Prologos said the following:

"re animal suffering: in the natural world, In predation, the animal would be dead before the numbing effect of the hormones that are triggered by terror wear off."
How would you explain the injustice of allowing countless species to go extinct?

"In all my terror moments, falling 18 feet at age 80, going under a truck with my motorcycle at age 20, even cutting my leg with a saw, and so on, I never felt any initial pain."

Not all animals are killed instantly.
You have only offered a defense for a 'quick kill' scenario.

"The question of the cancerous dog, in the natural world it would be quickly identified and devoured because of it's weakness, before chronic pain would set in."

That is a weak excuse.
If we were to kill everyone with incurable cancer, as soon as they were diagnosed so they did not suffer, would that be a just and loving solution? Especially if you had the power to cure them.
Bear in mind the animal has no choice in the matter.

"Seconds of terror possibly painless,-- to pay for years of joy? a fair bargain."

Many animals do not even get years to live.
Possibly painless?
Depends on the scenario.
Viviane

'Does not make my money grow' is referring to his oh-so-clever story, he means that reality is as it is, nobody's views, opinions, or comments can change that.
Except the story isn't clever at all. It's ridiculous.
He clearly enjoys flaunting his intelligience and education by means of word play etc. far more than trying to help those without a great deal of education and busy people (such as most JW's who lurk here sometimes), to think about a subject.
Except you can't flaunt what you don't have.

"Seconds of terror possibly painless,-- to pay for years of joy? a fair bargain."
That's not actually a bargain, though. It's seconds or minutes or hours of terror with immense pain followed by death.
WheninDoubt

Once again Cofty, you’re showing your own self-serving convoluted view by distortion in hatred of the subject. To call someone ignorant you must first study your own fallacies. Without it, your discussion becomes meaningless. I have no doubt you’re experienced, and knowledgeable. Use it in a good sense, so your readers will respect, what you actually bring to the table. That’s if you’re looking for, to being the champion for this forum.

Once again “Pain” and “Suffering” hold to different values. If you’re going to use one-sided arguments, then you need to expand your knowledge to reflect all aspects of your argument.

The experience of pain is shaped by a host of psychological factors. Choosing to attend to a noxious stimulus and interpreting it as painful are examples of 2 factors involving normal psychological processes. To be sure, pain is a subjective experience, and although it is certainly related to physiological processes, how individuals react to a new episode of pain is shaped and influenced by previous experience. Indeed, without learning from experience, it would be difficult to cope with pain and maintain good health. Thus, these psychological processes have tremendous value for survival.1 Yet, psychological factors are not completely understood, and the translation of their use to the clinic remains a challenge. Therefore, in this article, we focus on the most important psychological factors that have been incorporated into theoretical models of pain that may explain pain perception and treatment benefits. In our view, awareness of these factors is crucial for understanding patients in pain and is a prerequisite for integrating them into clinical practice.

With the hypothetical illustration of the dinosaurs sharp teeth. Science conforms that early dinosaurs had even sharp teeth. Your confusion starts as the animal kingdom developed let’s say fangs. If that life cycle was created and turned into carnivore, it would explain the obvious, the animal kingdom adapted. Now you can include suffering, but not before.
Viviane

To call someone ignorant you must first study your own fallacies. Without it, your discussion becomes meaningless.
So, you're making an assumption that Cofty hasn't studied himself? Since you have know way of knowing that, wouldn't making such an assertion be an ignorant position to take?
With the hypothetical illustration of the dinosaurs sharp teeth. Science conforms that early dinosaurs had even sharp teeth. Your confusion starts as the animal kingdom developed let’s say fangs.
Full stop. Are you defining "sharp teeth" as fangs? If so, why? If not, why? Sharp molars? Teeth that broke? Molars ground by years of plant eating? All can be sharp, you've made no distinction, you need to be more clear on exactly what you are saying.
If that life cycle was created and turned into carnivore, it would explain the obvious, the animal kingdom adapted. Now you can include suffering, but not before.
The animal kingdom, prior to the existence of man had predation, disease, and painful death by other unfortunate circumstances. Animals suffered. If you assert an all loving god as the source of existence, you've still not explained suffering prior to mythical sin.
WheninDoubt

That would be incorrect,Viviane. I was just responding to Cofty's assumption: This is what happens when you feel free to make stuff up on the spot with no knowledge of your subject and no respect for facts.
So then the assertion of defending Cofty would draw the parallels on what you just mentioned.
prologos

defender, you are right! my arguments are weak, but then I described only the the reality as I see it. as an octogenarian I can see that i would be the victim of predation soon, and there is unspoken sentiment out there, that resources should be spend on the young, and not extending my life or mitigating the suffering that has started in my heart, bones.

Theists, why does God allow suffering..

Share this