A universe with a supernatural presence would be different..........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would have thought that was obvious as there is so much suffering in this world.

Yes that is largely the fault of mankind. Something the secular humanists are completely deluded over.
However why is it you think it is wrong or bad. Answer it is your God given capacity.
In other words you have no qualifications to judge God.
And while we are about it if what you say about nature is true why isn't nature a thing to be reviled rather than wondered at?

[Roses]

Yes that is largely the fault of mankind. Something the secular humanists are completely deluded over.
However why is it you think it is wrong or bad. Answer it is your God given capacity.
In other words you have no qualifications to judge God.
And while we are about it if what you say about nature is true why isn't nature a thing to be reviled rather than wondered at?

If god exists and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, humanity has every reason to judge it, as it comes over as an evil psycho.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Suffering is the mechanism which tells us things are not right. We have shown we can develop technologies to alleviate it and natural disasters are accidental.
The constant cause of most suffering is human ommission and commission and if you doubt the primacy of that over natural disaster then you need to remember species annihilation and global warming.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If god exists and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, humanity has every reason to judge it, as it comes over as an evil psycho.

Humanity is in no position to judge.

[jeremyp]

Humanity is in no position to judge.

You’re being very judgemental.

[SteveH]

Yes that is largely the fault of mankind. Something the secular humanists are completely deluded over.

Epidermolysis Bullosa? Spinal Muscular Atrophy? Usher's Syndrome? Proteus Syndrome? How can they possibly be blamed on mankind? There are dozens of other horrible conditions I could have named.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Epidermolysis Bullosa? Spinal Muscular Atrophy? Usher's Syndrome? Proteus Syndrome? How can they possibly be blamed on mankind? There are dozens of other horrible conditions I could have named.

I said laŕgely .We know these to be wrong and to work against them but will is needed also to eradicate these.

[Roses]

Humanity is in no position to judge.

And why is that?

[SteveH]

I said laŕgely .We know these to be wrong and to work against them but will is needed also to eradicate these.

What's that to the purpose? The question is "why do these and other horrors exist in a world created and sustsained by a loving, omnipotent God?". Don't give me any guff about them presenting a challenge to human compassion and scientific ingenuity; that's no comfort to the millions who suffered and died with these horrible conditions over the millennia. No doubt a world created by a wise, loving and all-powerful God would not be too easy for its inhabitants, who would benefit from challenges to overcome, but horrendous diseases need not exist, and such suffering as inevitably would exist would presumably be shared out a bit more fairly.

[Dicky Underpants]

The constant cause of most suffering is human ommission and commission and if you doubt the primacy of that over natural disaster then you need to remember species annihilation and global warming.

Humanity is certainly exacerbating natural tendencies in those directions. However, it has still got a long way to go in its wrongheadedness to approach the enormity of the Permian Extinction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Humanity is certainly exacerbating natural tendencies in those directions. However, it has still got a long way to go in its wrongheadedness to approach the enormity of the Permian Extinction.

Bonkers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's that to the purpose? The question is "why do these and other horrors exist in a world created and sustsained by a loving, omnipotent God?". Don't give me any guff about them presenting a challenge to human compassion and scientific ingenuity; that's no comfort to the millions who suffered and died with these horrible conditions over the millennia. No doubt a world created by a wise, loving and all-powerful God would not be too easy for its inhabitants, who would benefit from challenges to overcome, but horrendous diseases need not exist, and such suffering as inevitably would exist would presumably be shared out a bit more fairly.

But are pain and suffering and death our eventual end?
If we are bringing benevolence into it, what we have to ask is, is a universe given freedom to develop as it is doing to the point  of parts having freewill to love or hate...which ends in eternal restoration, the ultimate in benevolent acts?
If you think not...then what is?

[Sebastian Toe]

.......... the ultimate in benevolent acts?
If you think not...then what is?

That would be you, leaving this forum,......."indefinitely"!
 

[Roses]

 

[SteveH]

But are pain and suffering and death our eventual end?
If we are bringing benevolence into it, what we have to ask is, is a universe given freedom to develop as it is doing to the point  of parts having freewill to love or hate...which ends in eternal restoration, the ultimate in benevolent acts?
If you think not...then what is?

Even if universalists are right, and everyone eventually makes it to heaven (I'm not saying that you're a universalist - I don't know your position on that), the fact remains that in this life there is a hell of a lot of undeserved suffering. If, as evanjellykules like to tell us, no amount of good works on our part can atone for our sin, the flip side of that is that no amount of happiness in the afterlife can atone for our suffering in this.
I think you have to forget about an omnipotent God if you're going to hang on to the idea of a really-existing God: very powerful, even the most powerful agent in the universe, maybe, but the idea of omnipotence as usually understood is not in the bible, and I think comes from Greek philosophy. In that case, this world, with all its suffering and sin, is perhaps as good as God can make it. Matter is intractable stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it. Just as humans have free-will, which led to sin, maybe all matter has something akin to free-will. This, at any rate, is what I tell myself when I try to believe in a really-existing God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be you, leaving this forum,......."indefinitely"!
 

That is beyond my power, i'm afraid. Granting you a sense of humour on the other hand.

[Roses]

That is beyond my power, i'm afraid. Granting you a sense of humour on the other hand.

Oh dear who is forcing you to remain on the forum?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if universalists are right, and everyone eventually makes it to heaven (I'm not saying that you're a universalist - I don't know your position on that), the fact remains that in this life there is a hell of a lot of undeserved suffering. If, as evanjellykules like to tell us, no amount of good works on our part can atone for our sin, the flip side of that is that no amount of happiness in the afterlife can atone for our suffering in this.
I think you have to forget about an omnipotent God if you're going to hang on to the idea of a really-existing God: very powerful, even the most powerful agent in the universe, maybe, but the idea of omnipotence as usually understood is not in the bible, and I think comes from Greek philosophy. In that case, this world, with all its suffering and sin, is perhaps as good as God can make it. Matter is intractable stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it. Just as humans have free-will, which led to sin, maybe all matter has something akin to free-will. This, at any rate, is what I tell myself when I try to believe in a really-existing God.

Great post and I hope to discuss all the points you raise with you.

On first reading this example of equivalence caught my eye:

 If, as evanjellykules like to tell us, no amount of good works on our part can atone for our sin, the flip side of that is that no amount of happiness in the afterlife can atone for our suffering in this.

It is a fertile idea but I can't quite help feeling that there is something not quite right with it.

We can certainly make restoration and restitution with people but does that fully atone for sin in its fullest sense?

I'm not sure.

I'm probably more where you are since I'm not taken with the greek or antitheist(stenger) notions of omni this or that preferring the Anselmian inference of God as most, best or highest if anything.

I think we are damn close on God allowing the unconscious part of the universe freedom but probably differ a wee bit between God's inability and God's unwillingness and which is more benevolent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear who is forcing you to remain on the forum?

I'm afraid I'm this forum's equivalent of Nanny McPhee.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm afraid I'm this forum's equivalent of Nanny McPhee.

I dont know why but I like this notion. Do you still have the warts or have they disappeared by now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you still have the warts....

No, I always walk this way.

[Roses]

I'm afraid I'm this forum's equivalent of Nanny McPhee.

Who?

[Nearly Sane]

Who?

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

[Aruntraveller]

Who?

A sort of Mary Poppins. Emma Thompson played her in a couple of films. Her catchphrase was: "

When you need me, but do not want me, then I must stay. When you want me, but no longer need me, then I have to go."

[Roses]

A sort of Mary Poppins. Emma Thompson played her in a couple of films. Her catchphrase was: "

When you need me, but do not want me, then I must stay. When you want me, but no longer need me, then I have to go."

Not something we have come across.