how can a good God create a world iwhere there is suffering

Post by **__id_1679** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:08 pm

Asimov,

quote: "No, my implication is that God created something flawed".

Ps 18:30 " As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless..." Would you care to elaborate what you mean?

My first rebuttal was intended to show a lack of content to your statement.
A better question IMO would have been; is this the best world God could have created? With your latter question, you "judge" God's character, soverignty and His justice. Are you a Christian?

Post by **_JC** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:48 pm

Traveler, Asimov is not a Christian. Your question, however, about judging God is perfectly valid. As an athiest (if Asimov is still an atheist) he would be rather out of his element in issuing moral judgements on a God that doesn't exist. I think what he/she is trying to say is this: If we judge the God of the bible by the bible's own standards of good, then God is not good. Would that be your position, Asimov?

If I were an atheist, I don't think I'd ever use that argument. I know you are trying to expose a weakness in Christianity by demonstrating an internal inconsistency. The problem is, it only exposes a limited philisophical grasp on the issue and overwhelmingly bad theology. There is no logical inconsistency with a perfect God designing beings who are able to choose good or evil. I'm not sure why this is an area of confusion. Perhaps you could clue me in? Is love even meaningful without the choice not to love?

On the issue of suffering, all human beings suffer. Some people are made better by suffering and others give up and are overtaken. Is it suffering and trials that are evil, or a certain response to them that are evil? Some abused children shoot up their school and kill a dozen people. Some abused children resolve to help other abused children by adopting orphans later in life. Both suffered, yet one was made better by it. And that person's suffering was able to help other (the orphans). Can you see that this is a complex and nuanced subject?

Post by **_djeaton** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:53 pm

Asimov wrote:[quote="djeaton"Then I don't see why you take issue with my concept of removing "choice" from the equation.

When we spend eternity with Him, there will be no need for choice as we have already chosen Him. To do away with it now though means that no one else could do that.
D.

Post by **__id_1679** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:29 pm

JC

Thanks for the info. If the rest of your comments were directed to Asimov,
I pretty much agree with you. My questions directed toward him was to point out the implications behind his premises. I doubt he is an atheist though. Maybe an agnostic or once a Christian trying to reconcile some issues in his life with a loving God? I don't know. Maybe he'll tell us?

Peace in Jesus,
Bob

Post by **_Asimov** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:50 pm

Traveler wrote:Asimov,

quote: "No, my implication is that God created something flawed".

Ps 18:30 " As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is flawless..." Would you care to elaborate what you mean?

Is this world not flawed, according to the Christian worldview? Is sin not a flaw of imperfection? Is the desire to sin, or even the idea to sin not a flaw that humans have?

If you say it is, then of course, I would say that humans are flawed and had to have been created imperfect in order to make imperfect choices.

My first rebuttal was intended to show a lack of content to your statement.
A better question IMO would have been; is this the best world God could have created? With your latter question, you "judge" God's character, soverignty and His justice. Are you a Christian?

Is not this entire thread about God's character in regards to the existence of suffering? Were the points raised in the OP not an analysis of what it means if suffering exists and God exists? Why then would you ask me if I'm "judging" God? I'm not judging God, I'm judging your conception of God as a consistent being.

Post by **_Asimov** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:59 pm

JC wrote:Traveler, Asimov is not a Christian. Your question, however, about judging God is perfectly valid. As an athiest (if Asimov is still an atheist) he would be rather out of his element in issuing moral judgements on a God that doesn't exist. I think what he/she is trying to say is this: If we judge the God of the bible by the bible's own standards of good, then God is not good. Would that be your position, Asimov?

I'm not making any moral judgements. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've operated all of my questions and conclusions based on what has been said in this thread by Christians. So, no, my position is not what you stated. My position has been explicitly stated:

"
God can create a state of affairs where people do not suffer and choose good without being forced to do so.

God can create a state of affairs where people do not suffer and do not have a choice in good or evil.
"
Which places a questioning burden on those who maintain that God does not desire suffering in this universe and does not desire anyone to be destroyed.

So I have made no judgements, I've questioned and asked, and made conclusions based on the information that I've been given.

You must think I'm faulty in my reasoning, yet instead of pointing out the flaws, you resort to accusations of "judging".

There is no logical inconsistency with a perfect God designing beings who are able to choose good or evil.

I didn't say there is a logical inconsistency with respect to that, you're limiting the issue. Please go back and read what I've said.

On the issue of suffering, all human beings suffer.

I do not wish to repeat myself, please go back and read what I've said.

Post by **_Asimov** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:06 pm

djeaton wrote:When we spend eternity with Him, there will be no need for choice as we have already chosen Him. To do away with it now though means that no one else could do that.
D.

Despite the fact that this makes no sense whatsoever, you're still not addressing the issue of suffering.

I've created a possible world where people choose God, and there is no such thing as suffering.

I've also created a possible world where people have no choice, and there is no such thing as suffering.

Now, my question is, why is the first possible world not in existence if God does not desire that human being suffer?

Post by **_djeaton** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:59 pm

Asimov wrote:Despite the fact that this makes no sense whatsoever, you're still not addressing the issue of suffering.

Sometimes I don't make sense, so I will try again. Some suffering is due to human choices. In order to do away with ALL suffering, God would have to eliminate that. The problem with eliminating our ability to choose is that people that have not chosen Him would no longer be able to do so.

I've created a possible world where people choose God, and there is no such thing as suffering.

But your possible world would have to include the possible choice of evil in order for people to actually choose God over not-God. It's like the early days of Model-T's or telephones. You could get them in any color you chose as long as it was black. That's no choice. In order to have a true choice, there would have to be red ones or blue ones or something other than black. Same with a choice of God's holiness and evil. If we truly have a choice to choose God, then the other alternative has to exist.

I've also created a possible world where people have no choice, and there is no such thing as suffering.

Actually, I think God is going to create that.

You are right though. In that future world where there is no sin or suffering, we will no longer need to choose God as the choice was already made in the here and now.

Now, my question is, why is the first possible world not in existence if God does not desire that human being suffer?

Because God wants us to choose Him of our own free will. This requires that there be more than one choice available. The not-God choice has consequences that we don't like. And what is the result of those? It makes us turn to Him for answers. It's all about Him.
D.

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:05 pm

My main contention is, if you don't want your creation making the wrong choice, don't make them flawed.

My main contention is that making man with a free will was NOT making them flawed. Rather it was ----- well making man with a free will. God took a risk in doing so. He knew they might choose evil, for they had the ability to do so. Sure enough, our first parents chose evil. This had dire consequences ---- the fall of mankind and his progeny, as well as the fall of nature itself ---- including the animal kingdom.

The Genesis record indicates that God created plant growth for animal food. But after the fall, certain animals began to attack and eat other animals instead.

Years ago I made a conjecture about mosquitoes. I couldn't believe that a good God would create mosquitoes to torment people and animals.
So my conjecture was that He originally created mosquitoes to suck the juices of plants in order to produce their young. After mosquitoes participated in "the fall", they began to suck the blood of animals and people to produce their young.

A couple of years later, I was browsing through a science book, and much to my amazement, I found that an experiment with mosquitoes supported my conjecture. Mosquitoes were isolated so that they did not have any animals or people available. It was found that they took the juices of the plants in their isolated environment, and produced their young!

Post by **_Asimov** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:19 pm

djeaton wrote:Sometimes I don't make sense, so I will try again. Some suffering is due to human choices. In order to do away with ALL suffering, God would have to eliminate that. The problem with eliminating our ability to choose is that people that have not chosen Him would no longer be able to do so.

Non-sequitur. God would not have to eliminate human choice to eliminate suffering.

But your possible world would have to include the possible choice of evil in order for people to actually choose God over not-God.

What's the problem? If they don't choose that possibility, there is no suffering, and there is choice.

It's like the early days of Model-T's or telephones. You could get them in any color you chose as long as it was black. That's no choice. In order to have a true choice, there would have to be red ones or blue ones or something other than black. Same with a choice of God's holiness and evil. If we truly have a choice to choose God, then the other alternative has to exist.

Yea, I know. But let's say there's red, blue, black and yellow and all of those colors except for black leads to instant death, everyone knows this, and no one chooses red, blue, and yellow.

They CAN choose red, blue, or yellow, but they don't.

Actually, I think God is going to create that. You are right though. In that future world where there is no sin or suffering,

Has there always been sin and suffering?

we will no longer need to choose God as the choice was already made in the here and now.

You're operating on a very large assumption that this could not have been done 50 years ago, or even the day after Jesus died.