The god of suffering

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because "investigable" is a broad term - it doesn't necessarily need to lead to an answer that's on the true/not true spectrum; it might just lead to a "this is my opinion on the matter" outcome. If, say, I asked you a moral question you hadn't considered before chances are you'd think about it for a bit, and then come up with an opinion that's a mix of intuition and reasoning (perhaps based on certain precepts, like equality).

On the other hand, if I asked you "uhyo877y 67tt 7y7866 i7o6?" you'd just say that the question is incoherent. 

"God" falls into the latter category, not the former. The actual moral answer though isn't supernatural because it's not on the true/not true spectrum type of investigable.

So when you said:

'How would you propose to investigate subjective judgements? I might judge “The Haywain” to be a great painting (or to be a terrible one) – what would you have to investigate about that?

Unless there’s an answer to that, the morality point is a non-sequitur. '
you didn't actually mean that there morality isn't 'investigable' which is what you have defined as necessary for the natural, and this distinction between investigated and investigable that you seemed to be seeking to draw earlier was a mistake?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So when you said:

'How would you propose to investigate subjective judgements? I might judge “The Haywain” to be a great painting (or to be a terrible one) – what would you have to investigate about that?

Unless there’s an answer to that, the morality point is a non-sequitur. '
you didn't actually mean that there morality isn't 'investigable' which is what you have defined as necessary for the natural, and this distinction between investigated and investigable that you seemed to be seeking to draw earlier was a mistake?

No, I was responding you your use of the term which you then used to suggest that I'd have to exclude moral questions from the natural. You can still "investigate" moral (or aesthetic) questions inasmuch as you can consider and respond to them with no claims to a truth, but you can't do that when the claim is simply incoherent. I'd be happy to use a word other than "investigable" if you prefer, but in principle at least that's what I take coherent to mean. "Considerable" (ie, capable of consideration) doesn't really work which is why I went for investigable.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, I was responding you your use of the term which you then used to suggest that I'd have to exclude moral questions from the natural. You can still "investigate" moral (or aesthetic) questions inasmuch as you can consider and respond to them with no claims to a truth, but you can't do that when the claim is simply incoherent. I'd be happy to use a word other than "investigable" if you prefer, but in principle at least that's what I take coherent to mean. "Considerable" (ie, capable of consideration) doesn't really work which is why I went for investigable.   

It's not about any use I make of terms. Let's take this slowly.

Is your position that the natural is what we know to be investigable (your terns)?
Is morality investigable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's not about any use I make of terms. Let's take this slowly.

Is your position that the natural is what we know to be investigable (your terns)?

For want of a better term, yes. "Coherent" is fine though, as is "capable of consideration".

Is morality investigable?

Yes, provided of course you use the term in the sense of "capable of consideration such that I can form an opinion on it".

Incidentally, you seem to have ignored the earlier discussion about the significance of the "that we know of" part. Are we now agreed that the "that we know of" is valid whether or not we could ever find some meaning in potential other explanations? If, say, I interviewed everyone on the planet and every one of them said, "yes, the natural is all I know of that I can investigate/consider and respond to" do you still think that we'd have to think "supernatural" to be meaningful for that conclusion to hold?

[Sassy]

Thought for all:-

'If you set fire to a straw man would it literally go up in smoke with nothing left to show it existed?'

[Sebastian Toe]

Thought for all:-

'If you set fire to a straw man would it literally go up in smoke with nothing left to show it existed?'

Would there not be a pile of ash left? 

[floo]

God must be having a field day, if it exists. All these terrible atrocities to 'enjoy' whilst sitting on its white cloud with its feet up. It must be really proud of itself, after all it is supposed to be responsible for creating human nature.

[Shaker]

God must be having a field day, if it exists. All these terrible atrocities to 'enjoy' whilst sitting on its white cloud with its feet up. It must be really proud of itself, after all it is supposed to be responsible for creating human nature.

Reminded me of this:

http://tinyurl.com/ycoruemu

[floo]

Reminded me of this:

http://tinyurl.com/ycoruemu

Very true, where was god when its very own 'chosen' people were being put into those death camps?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

If god exists and is responsible for creation including humans and their nature, ...

So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless.

it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world.

Given that you are assuming that God created human beings, you first have to establish accuracy as to how God is allegedly responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world

If god is omnipotent, as is claimed by believers, it must have known exactly what would happen when it invented badness as well as goodness.

Again, if you are assuming that God created human beings, you need to demonstrate when and how God invented badness

That being the case why did god want humans to suffer, does it get a perverted thrill when observing human distress?

Do you? Your caricature sounds more like something of your own creation!

Given that you've clocked up 20+ years on forums railing against God Most High, do you get some sort of perverted thrill out of it, to use your own words?

[Nearly Sane]

So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless.
Given that you are assuming that God created human beings, you first have to establish accuracy as to how God is allegedly responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world
Again, if you are assuming that God created human beings, you need to demonstrate when and how God invented badness
Do you? Your caricature sounds more like something of your own creation!

Given that you've clocked up 20+ years on forums railing against God Most High, do you get some sort of perverted thrill out of it, to use your own words?

when you understand what a hypothetical means, and don't misrepresent how they work, please repost.

[Shaker]

when you understand what a hypothetical means, and don't misrepresent how they work, please repost.

Indeed. The word If ... makes everything that comes after it a hypothetical scenario, not a statement or declaration or assertion of belief. A statement such as:

So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless ...Given that you are assuming that God created human beings

is - deliberately or not; I don't know - a misrepresentation of that hypothetical scenario.

This is a normal and common feature of the English language and shouldn't require explanation, so I'm inclined to suspect deliberate and conscious misrepresentation for your own ends.

[Nearly Sane]

Worse is the asking for someone positing a hypothetical to demonstrate the truth of how it might work.

[floo]

So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless.
Given that you are assuming that God created human beings, you first have to establish accuracy as to how God is allegedly responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world
Again, if you are assuming that God created human beings, you need to demonstrate when and how God invented badness
Do you? Your caricature sounds more like something of your own creation!

Given that you've clocked up 20+ years on forums railing against God Most High, do you get some sort of perverted thrill out of it, to use your own words?

I am not assuming god exists, I was asking a hypothetical question. I wonder if you have ever actually read the Bible without wearing rose tinted spectacles? The things attributed to god don't do it any credit whatsoever

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I am not assuming god exists, I was asking a hypothetical question.

Which is flawed

I wonder if you have ever actually read the Bible without wearing rose tinted spectacles? The things attributed to god don't do it any credit whatsoever

Which just serves to illustrate why your question is flawed.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is flawed
Which just serves to illustrate why your question is flawed.

Not that you have shown this to be true, merely shown you have no understanding of the concept of a hypothetical.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Not that you have shown this to be true, merely shown you have no understanding of the concept of a hypothetical.

Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation? The words in her post betray her true intentions. It's a similar tactic to those used by those trying to trick the Lord Jesus with their 'hypothetical' questions, e.g. here in Matthew 22:

23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

[floo]

Which is flawed
Which just serves to illustrate why your question is flawed.

Why is it flawed?

[floo]

Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation? The words in her post betray her true intentions. It's a similar tactic to those used by those trying to trick the Lord Jesus with their 'hypothetical' questions, e.g. here in Matthew 22:

23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

If Jesus made that statement it was without any evidence to back it up.

[Nearly Sane]

Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation? The words in her post betray her true intentions. It's a similar tactic to those used by those trying to trick the Lord Jesus with their 'hypothetical' questions, e.g. here in Matthew 22:

23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

Brcause that us how hypotheticals work. Let's take an example so you can see where your confusion lies. In the 1970 World Cup, Gordon Banks wasn't well enough to play in goal for England in the quarter final and they lost 3-2. Many people consider that if Banks had played (that's the hypothetical) in the quarter final (that's the real life situation) then they would have won.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Why is it flawed?

It wasn't. It's actually an old construction - a shorthand for, "how can you maintain a belief in a benevolent god capable of intervening when the evidence of the Holocaust suggests otherwise?"

There have been various answers to it ("where were you?", "God was in the suffering", "who are we to question His deeper intentions?" etc) that all seem casuistic to me when compared with the more obvious answer of, "I can't".   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation?

Because, outside of maths, that's generally how hypothetical questions are framed.

[SteveH]

The traditional defences of God in the face of suffering don't impress me. I think we have to let go of at least one of the three omnis: potent, scient and benevolent. The Bible explicitly says that God is love. It nowhere says that God is power. Therefore, I think we can say that, while God is very powerful, God is not all-powerful. One traditional defence of God is human free-will, but that hardly explains natural evil. However, if we argue that all of creation has something analogous to free-will; that matter is intransigent stuff by its very nature and even God can't do with it exactly as God likes; we may be getting somewhere. How if God created the universe, including the natural laws, in such a way that evolution would eventually lead to us, or at any rate to intelligent free agents, but couldn't stop things like plague, cancer and various genetic horrors from happening, but decided that the good of creating us outweighed the unavoidable suffering? The alternative, after all, would be non-existance.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, frankly 'God does what he can' rather than 'God can do anything but doesn't because reasons' makes more sense if you believe that your god is one of love.

Not exactly what Christianity teaches but a way to try and fit a square peg in a round hole. I thought like this myself once.

[ekim]

The Bible explicitly says that God is love. It nowhere says that God is power.

There is a view that the expression 'El Shaddai' meant "God Almighty" and that  Elohim  meant "the all-powerful One", based on the usage of the word "el" in certain verses to denote power or might (Genesis 31:29, Nehemiah 5:5).