There are 3 choices, 4 votes for welbis' debate

The problem of Suffering

Does the existence of suffering disprove God?


  • I say all are true

    ~~"If God is omnipotent, he could create a world void of suffering."~~

    ----------------------------------------------------

    First of all He did creat a world without suffering. Adam and Eve had a perfect enviroment. They introduced suffering into our world all on their own by disobeying God. This was not God's choice, but man's choice.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    ~~"If God is all-Good - he would want to prevent suffering."~~

    ------------------------------------------

    Again, it was mankind who introduced sin into this world. God not only wants to prevent it, but He also wants to correct our sin problem. he tried to prevent it by ceating the perfect place but man CHOSE to disobey God. That is why He came to Earth in the form of a man(Christ) and hung on a cross. God is a loving God but He is also a "just" God too. He cannot just look the other way and pretend sin is not present. That would be against His holy character. If God chose to just overlook sin then that would be against His perfect character and choosing to do so would mean He would then not be perfect. Even though He can, God will never choose to violate His own perfect holy character. So since He tried to prevent it in the beginning and mankind still chose to disobey, so he even went so far as to creat an escape for mankind in this sinful situation and that escape is Jesus Christ.

    Because God is perfect and holy He cannot be surrounded with sin and since it's introduction to mankind in the Garden, all of mankind is now emersed in it. He can over look it but in doing so He would not be perfect and thus that is not an option for Him. Think of it like this please: If I'm stuck in quicksand and cannot get out then it will take someone who IS NOT stuck in the same quicksand to get me out. How can you free me if you too are stuck in the same sand. You could not help me if you cannot help yourself. Same principal applies here: You canot help free me from sin if you too are emersed in it. It will take someone who is not emersed in sin -- Jesus Christ.

    In conclusion it would seem that only 2 of the conclusions could be true but in fact, after a better understanding of the concepts it becomes crystal clear that all three are true and it could not be no other way. Now, whether you agree or not does not change what really is. What we think about God does not chance who God really is. We humans try so hard to make understanding God a very complicated process but in reality He wishes to keep it simple. Understanding God is not hard at all when you understand His attributes for He never changes. As it says in Hebrews 13: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." People change, circumstances change, but God never changes. he is the only true constant in our lives.

    50%  Voted for by Energizer Bunny, Makessenseright.
    View 18 comments
  • :

  • The argument...

    This is the strongest argument from the problem of evil for disbelief in God that I have seen.

    I don't agree with it, but it surprised me there wasn't a topic devoted to it.

    The argument proposed by Hume in his 'Dialogues with Religion' by Philo goes thus:

    1) The world contains instances of suffering 2) God exists - and is omnipotent and omniscient 3) God exists - and is perfectly good.

    The conclusion he draws is that only 2 of these statements can be true at any one time. If all 3 are stated, then the argument becomes incompatible with itself as follows;

    If God is omnipotent, he could create a world void of suffering. If God is all-Good - he would want to prevent suffering. The world clearly contains suffering and we can deduce it from observation alone.

    Thoughts?

    Voted for by welbis.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • the case for rebellion

    If god existed and was perfectly good, than god would have not forbidden Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In fact, god not wanting man to comprehend his own existence disproves the statement that god is perfectly good. It seemes to me that god is really a tyrant who ought to be overthrown. Honestly, what kind of benevolent ruler would want his subjects to live in ignorance. According to the US Declaration of Independence, if a ruler is unjust or tyranical, then it is not only his subjects' right, but their responsibility to overthrow him. I have outlined above why I see god as being unjust and tyrannical. To finish up my syllogism, because god is a tyrant, it is incumbent on every man, woman, and child to rise up in rebellion against god. Because god is only as powerful as the followers he has, he will be overthrown, bringing peace to the universe.

    That being said, I think that Adam and Eve were foolish to not eat the fruit of the Tree of Life (which was permitted) first, and then eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge.

    Voted for by knaveofhearts.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →