Why God allows pain...

[Andiferous]

Here's where the problem lies:

Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'

There is pain and suffering in the world because people don't go to God for help? I've not taken my car to a mechanic for repair for many years - not because it hasn't needed any repair, but because I do all the repairs myself.

There's a subtext to the conclusuion of that argument, one which imposes guilt on to people - pain and suffering is caused by people who don't turn to God. The argument says, effectively: "Our game of make-believe is only any good if everyone plays - if you don't play then the consequences are your fault." This message of guilt-in-love's-clothing has been putting me off religion for several decades now.

Yes, it's very manipulative and there are many subtexts at play. I find this particular bit really upsetting given the horrible things that happen to people regardless of their faith. I mean, just take a look at Haiti. An alternate reading might be that faith numbs the pain, as if religion were a kind of anesthesia for the suffering of this world. Either way, it makes me feel a little sick to think about.

Firstly, I'm not making an argument. I'm just summing up the argument.
Secondly, when is the last time you've seen your barber?

I mean everyone, not you. The problem of Evil/suffering is a bad argument. The point of the argument. Or rather the true conclusion you're supposed to draw from it is x god can't have this trait and that trait logically thus x god can't exist. The argument is first off, failed, because if i can conceive of just one god that can fit that description the argument fails even though, Secondly, the argument is all together invalid, and Thirdly there is a fallacy in the argument.

Not going to argue either way right now, as it tends to be a weak argument anyway, and has been twisted and dumbed down for a parable by someone with an agenda.

 

[borrofburi]

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:
'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised barber.
'I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!'
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.'

'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'

non-sequitur. As others have pointed out (curse you brettpalmer!), we have demonstrable evidence that people who have long hair and beards who go to (and pay) a barber will have shorter hair and beards; we have demonstrable evidence that people who are sick and infected with parasites and viruses who "go to god" do *not* have less infections. Hence, either god allows them to continue suffering in a manner indistinguishable from his non-existence, or god does not exist.

I see Aught3 and Andiferous already did the super-barber vs cosmic-super-daddy comparison. In reality, the non-believer-barber's analogy still holds: there are horrible messes of hair out there, therefore it is wise not to believe in the existence of an omnibenevolent-omniscient-super-barber.

The problem of Evil/suffering is a bad argument. The point of the argument. Or rather the true conclusion you're supposed to draw from it is x god can't have this trait and that trait logically thus x god can't exist. The argument is first off, failed, because if i can conceive of just one god that can fit that description the argument fails even though, Secondly, the argument is all together invalid, and Thirdly there is a fallacy in the argument.

Oh? What's the fallacy? I mean, you wrote a lot of words, so I had a little bit of trouble deciphering, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the problem of suffering fails entirely; the only way I can see this is if you redefine omnibenevolent.

 

[Aught3]

The problem of Evil/suffering is a bad argument. The point of the argument. Or rather the true conclusion you're supposed to draw from it is x god can't have this trait and that trait logically thus x god can't exist. The argument is first off, failed, because if i can conceive of just one god that can fit that description the argument fails even though

Even though you've shown a contradiction in the nature of the particular god you wanted to disprove? The problem of evil is not a disproof of all gods just certain ones.

Secondly, the argument is all together invalid, and Thirdly there is a fallacy in the argument.

Here's a version of the PoE, I'd be interested to know why it is invalid and where the fallacy lies.

A (1): Allah exists.
A (1a): Allah is omniscient.
A (1b): Allah is omnipotent.
A (1c): Allah is omnibenevolent.
A (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be Allah, as it would be possible to perceive of a greater being.
P (2): Gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering exists.
P (3): An omniscient being would be aware of the existence of gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering.
P (4): An omnipotent being would be able to eliminate gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering.
P (5): An omnibenevolent being would desire to eliminate gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering.
C (6): Gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering does not exist. (from 1,3,4,5)
C: But gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering does exist. (from 2)
C (7): There is no being that is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. (from 2,3,4,5)
C (8): Therefore, Allah does not exist. (from 7,1d)

 

[Andiferous]

Just a little gratuitous rewriting:

Barbers aren't the cause of hair growth (if God exists, Gods the reason why our bodies require so much maintenance at such a high cost) and barbers are not omnipotent. I suppose what you are saying is that God made pain and suffering so he could sort the souls that fit his ridiculous requirements from those who don't, whether that be unreasonable faith, or in the case of miracles an unknown "God works is mysterious ways". I'm just saying that makes no sense, especially if you're assuming there is a perfect God.

...
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.'
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'


The barber looked puzzled and asked his customer:
"But if god exists, why did he he give you long, dirty hair, and and untrimmed beard? Did you ask for it?"
The customer shrugged and swat at a flea. "No. But god works in mysterious ways."
The barber then turned to god and shot him a dark look.
"You realise this is your fault, don't you? You've made these people scruffy, they all blame me and question my existence, and now I'm losing business. The economy was bad enough before you came along."

 

[Durakken]

The problem of Evil/suffering is a bad argument. The point of the argument. Or rather the true conclusion you're supposed to draw from it is x god can't have this trait and that trait logically thus x god can't exist. The argument is first off, failed, because if i can conceive of just one god that can fit that description the argument fails even though

Even though you've shown a contradiction in the nature of the particular god you wanted to disprove? The problem of evil is not a disproof of all gods just certain ones.

Secondly, the argument is all together invalid, and Thirdly there is a fallacy in the argument.

Here's a version of the PoE, I'd be interested to know why it is invalid and where the fallacy lies.

A (1): Allah exists.
A (1a): Allah is omniscient.
A (1b): Allah is omnipotent.
A (1c): Allah is omnibenevolent.
A (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be Allah, as it would be possible to perceive of a greater being.
P (2): Gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering exists.
P (3): An omniscient being would be aware of the existence of gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering.
P (4): An omnipotent being would be able to eliminate gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering.
P (5): An omnibenevolent being would desire to eliminate gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering.
C (6): Gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering does not exist. (from 1,3,4,5)
C: But gratuitous, naturally-caused suffering does exist. (from 2)
C (7): There is no being that is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. (from 2,3,4,5)
C (8): Therefore, Allah does not exist. (from 7,1d)

Aught I have to ask you what you mean by Omnibenevolent. Are you using it as a replacement for all good? It looks like you are.
I also have to point out... This is not the PoE. It is a modification of it, but still fails.

Also toss out Omniscient. It does not contribute to the argument. Omnipotent covers Omniscient. At the moment I don't care to explain why.

 

[Aught3]

Aught I have to ask you what you mean by Omnibenevolent. Are you using it as a replacement for all good? It looks like you are.
I also have to point out... This is not the PoE. It is a modification of it, but still fails.

Also toss out Omniscient. It does not contribute to the argument. Omnipotent covers Omniscient. At the moment I don't care to explain why.

Yes, essentially omnibenevolent means all-good. It comes from two of the names of Allah: Ar-Rahmān (the all-beneficent) and An-Nāfi (the source of good).

On omniscience, one could argue that god might be able to do something about the excess suffering but is simply unaware that it is going on. It might not be completely necessary but I think I'll leave it in for clarity.

Anyway, you were saying something about a possible fallacy?

 

[Durakken]

Aught I have to ask you what you mean by Omnibenevolent. Are you using it as a replacement for all good? It looks like you are.
I also have to point out... This is not the PoE. It is a modification of it, but still fails.

Also toss out Omniscient. It does not contribute to the argument. Omnipotent covers Omniscient. At the moment I don't care to explain why.

Yes, essentially omnibenevolent means all-good. It comes from two of the names of Allah: Ar-Rahmān (the all-beneficent) and An-Nāfi (the source of good).

On omniscience, one could argue that god might be able to do something about the excess suffering but is simply unaware that it is going on. It might not be completely necessary but I think I'll leave it in for clarity.

Anyway, you were saying something about a possible fallacy?

Omnibenevolent means "the disposition to do good in all areas." It does not mean "all-good"

But that's besides the point... Define good now.

The fallacy within the PoE is that the PoE says a god cannot be good and omnipotent because a god that can act and doesn't is malevolent. not-Malevolent is not good and not-good is not evil. People replace the words and it's changed over time from what the original argument was. This argument you presented doesn't have it because you consistently used the word good. Good however is not defined...

and unless you can define a good that is absolute that is not based on a god then the argument fails, no matter what you do.

 

[Aught3]

The fallacy within the PoE is that the PoE says a god cannot be good and omnipotent because a god that can act and doesn't is malevolent. not-Malevolent is not good and not-good is not evil. People replace the words and it's changed over time from what the original argument was.

I see what you are saying. When someone tries to claim that a god who is not omnibenevolent is automatically malevolent it doesn't seem to follow. But for the version presented above it's sufficient to say that a god who is not omnibenevolent, is not omnibenevolent and that tautology forms part of the disproof.

This argument you presented doesn't have it because you consistently used the word good. Good however is not defined...

and unless you can define a good that is absolute that is not based on a god then the argument fails, no matter what you do

I'm not certain that I do need a definition of good that is not based on god. The argument is based on premises provided from a theistic worldview and shows them to be contradictory. If I do need a rigorous definition of good for this argument it would be 'what is morally right and beneficial in promoting well-being and reducing suffering'.

 

[Durakken]

The fallacy within the PoE is that the PoE says a god cannot be good and omnipotent because a god that can act and doesn't is malevolent. not-Malevolent is not good and not-good is not evil. People replace the words and it's changed over time from what the original argument was.

I see what you are saying. When someone tries to claim that a god who is not omnibenevolent is automatically malevolent is doesn't seem to follow. But for the version presented above it's sufficient to say that a god who is not omnibenevolent, is not omnibenevolent and that tautology forms part of the disproof.

This argument you presented doesn't have it because you consistently used the word good. Good however is not defined...

and unless you can define a good that is absolute that is not based on a god then the argument fails, no matter what you do

I'm not certain that I do need a definition of good that is not based on god. The argument is based on premises provided from a theistic worldview and shows them to be contradictory. If I do need a rigorous definition of good for this argument it would be 'what is morally right and beneficial in promoting well-being and reducing suffering'.

You need to define an absolute good not based on a god, because based on a god then anything the god does is good, and relative then you simply say from god's perspective it's good. That's without arguing that any god that would exist with those traits would have the same conception of us as we have of things we imagine... and as such it's all good or neither good or nor evil... basically to say that this god isn't logically possible is to say there is an absolutely good and evil and it applies equally to transcended, real, and imagined beings.

In other words... that's a huge argument that I don't know of any argument for it that is accepted as even valid... And I doubt that even if you could make a valid argument for it that anyone would believe it.

 

[Aught3]

I think what you are saying is that God might have a different definition of good from us. If whatever God does or allows to happen is good, then you get in the situation of calling slavery, genocide, rape, natural disasters, etc. 'good' and because God is good he causes these 'good' things to happen. First, this is simply definitional word-play. All that's happened is that evil has been redefined to mean 'good', these are useless definitions. Second, there is another option: God could do things because he recognises them as good. In other words, God could reference an outside standard of goodness and bring it to us through his actions. Third, if it is the case that, for God, it is 'good' to inflict pain and suffering then he is not benevolent towards us. In Abrahamic mythology the being that believes pain in suffering is 'good' is called Satan/Shaytan. All you've done by inverting God's understanding of good and evil is to turn him into Satan and shown that an omnibenevolent god cannot exist.

 

[Durakken]

I think what you are saying is that God might have a different definition of good from us. If whatever God does or allows to happen is good, then you get in the situation of calling slavery, genocide, rape, natural disasters, etc. 'good' and because God is good he causes these 'good' things to happen. First, this is simply definitional word-play. All that's happened is that evil has been redefined to mean 'good', these are useless definitions. Second, there is another option: God could do things because he recognises them as good. In other words, God could reference an outside standard of goodness and bring it to us through his actions. Third, if it is the case that, for God, it is 'good' to inflict pain and suffering then he is not benevolent towards us. In Abrahamic mythology the being that believes pain in suffering is 'good' is called Satan/Shaytan. All you've done by inverting God's understanding of good and evil is to turn him into Satan and shown that an omnibenevolent god cannot exist.

I'm saying that a god has the same definition of good as us.

good = beneficial to me

Or in this case 'beneficial to god' because god is the me we are talking about in this argument.

Given a god's perspective anything that happens in the world is either good for it, or neither good nor bad.

this covers both relative good and absolute good based on a god...The only remaining good is an absolute one not based on a god. This type of good is not sufficiently argued for... therefor the premise for the PoE falls flat and fails.

 

[Aught3]

good = beneficial to me

Well I disagree with your definition, good is more like what is beneficial to all. The more subjective view of good means that acts can be both good and evil from certain perspectives.

If I was only acting in ways that were beneficial for me but harmed other people I would not be called beneficent, benevolent, or good. I would be selfish, immoral, and maybe even evil. Doing evil to other people is directly in contradiction with the trait of beneficence and doesn't fit the definition of omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence implies good from all perspectives or, at least, doing the greatest good possible. Since a god that only does good for itself does not fit the traditional traits of the Abrahamic god, this line of argument does not save God or Allah from non-existence.

 

[Durakken]

good = beneficial to me

Well I disagree with your definition, good is more like what is beneficial to all. The more subjective view of good means that acts can be both good and evil from certain perspectives.

If I was only acting in ways that were beneficial for me but harmed other people I would not be called beneficent, benevolent, or good. I would be selfish, immoral, and maybe even evil. Doing evil to other people is directly in contradiction with the trait of beneficence and doesn't fit the definition of omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence implies good from all perspectives or, at least, doing the greatest good possible. Since a god that only does good for itself does not fit the traditional traits of the Abrahamic god, this line of argument does not save God or Allah from non-existence.

Doing only things that benefit one's self benefits society because society benefits the individual. Likewise doing things that benefit a god would be most beneficial as it means the entire universe benefits as the universe to god is an imagined reality.

The problem you are going to keep having is that you haven't adequately defined your words and you keep on using words that do not mean what you think they mean.

What do you mean by "benefit all" Do you mean all humans? all life? all sentient beings? reality? gods? Who do you include in your all? And even when you consider that you end up with everything in reality is part of a god and therefor whatever is beneficial to a god is beneficial to all reality.

This is the whole reason it fails unless you can argue absolute good without basing it on a god.

if a god exists...
#1 Relative good means that the argument is out right stupid and has no merit, but also means that absolute good based on god would be in effect.
#2 Absolute good based on a god means that no matter what happens in our reality and how we might view it whatever a god says is good is good.
#3 Absolute good not based on a god means that there is an ultimate code of what's good and whats bad.

Now if you argue #3 you must also argue what this code of good says about imagined beings. In other words to defeat #3 you must say that thinking anything harmful is evil, and just as evil as doing those harmful things.

If you're not willing to argue both of those points (#3 and that there are thought crimes) and make a good argument for both of them then the PoE/S fails.


The whole point of the PoE is to first assume there is a god and then say that if there is no logical way that a god can have x traits (omnipotence and not-malevolent in it's original form) than that god can't possible exist. I'm saying there is a logical way for every variation I have heard to exist and you can illustrate it by putting yourself in the god position which we do frequently. If you can't say "Me imagining a person getting tortured makes me an evil being" you can't make make PoE work and if you can say that I'm fairly certain most people would agree you need psychiatric help.

 

[Squagnut]

While I've said all I have to say about the topic, I want to know how you think this makes any sense at all:

Doing only things that benefit one's self benefits society because society benefits the individual. Likewise doing things that benefit a god would be most beneficial as it means the entire universe benefits as the universe to god is an imagined reality.

If I habitually mug old ladies and steal their money, that benefits me. How does it benefit society?

If a god is omnipotent, how can anybody do anything that will benefit that god?

 

[JustBusiness17]

Has this been mentioned yet:

Sadism is pleasure in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon another person, while masochism is pleasure in receiving the pain.[1] These practices are often related and are collectively known as sadomasochism as well as S&M or SM. These terms may be used clinically, in psychotherapy, to describe mental illnesses, psychopathology or counterproductive coping mechanisms. Additionally, these terms may describe consensual practices,often sexual, but not necessarily so,within the BDSM community.

 

[Durakken]

While I've said all I have to say about the topic, I want to know how you think this makes any sense at all:

Doing only things that benefit one's self benefits society because society benefits the individual. Likewise doing things that benefit a god would be most beneficial as it means the entire universe benefits as the universe to god is an imagined reality.

If I habitually mug old ladies and steal their money, that benefits me. How does it benefit society?

You assume you are not getting caught and punished. The reason it doesn't benefit you though is that if we as a society allow you to do this and you persist in doing it everyone in the society will begin to do this and society will fall apart and you lose out in the overall. You need to broaden your views.

If a god is omnipotent, how can anybody do anything that will benefit that god?

You know, I find it amusing that people leave out all understanding from their description of god. You can have all the power and knowledge in the cosmos and it really doesn't matter if you don't understand any of it ^.^ but we don't have to go that far out to point out that an all knowing and all powerful being for almost all definitions means within our reality. A lot of people have said if we found out that our universe was created by another sentient life that sentient life would be god... a notion i don't agree with but all the same it is enough to argue that for something like 99% of all the god concepts one could argue against with the PoE fit into this bracket of "...within our reality" types.

Not to mention i think a lot of people are clueless when they make such an argument. If you had all the power to do anything and all the knowledge you wouldn't do anything because you're perfect. I watch movies I've seen before and know everything about and I enjoy them proving the knowledge does not have anything to do with why one would do something and I create universes and enjoy exploring within them in my mind though technically I am omnipotent and omniscient and all that other good stuff within that reality I still find it fun to do. Why would a god that is sentient not find it fun?

 

[Mafiaaffe]

The think is if you go to a barbershop and ask for a haircut, you will get your haircut. But going to the church, praying or other religious rituals will protect nobody from having accidents.

 

[borrofburi]

if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the problem of suffering fails entirely; the only way I can see this is if you redefine omnibenevolent.

First, this is simply definitional word-play. All that's happened is that evil has been redefined to mean 'good', these are useless definitions.

Yah, I saw that coming. The only answer to Epicurus is definitional wordplay, usually one that plays with what it means for "god to be good"; mayhaps allowing rape, earthquakes, destruction, parasites, infestations, child starvation, and generally pain and suffering around the globe while simultaneously being indistinguishable from no-god-at-all is what it means for god to be "good", but at that point I think you've sufficiently defined "good" into being an entirely useless definition and not at *all* what is mean when theists claim their god is "good".

In a debate, the obvious counter to such a theist is: "so according to you, a 'good' god allows rape, botflies, starvation of children, earthquakes that harm thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people and is indistinguishable from no god at all?" The indoctrinated theist might not see the cognitive dissonance in that, but the average fence-sitter will.

 

[Durakken]

if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the problem of suffering fails entirely; the only way I can see this is if you redefine omnibenevolent.

First, this is simply definitional word-play. All that's happened is that evil has been redefined to mean 'good', these are useless definitions.

Yah, I saw that coming. The only answer to Epicurus is definitional wordplay, usually one that plays with what it means for "god to be good"; mayhaps allowing rape, earthquakes, destruction, parasites, infestations, child starvation, and generally pain and suffering around the globe while simultaneously being indistinguishable from no-god-at-all is what it means for god to be "good", but at that point I think you've sufficiently defined "good" into being an entirely useless definition and not at *all* what is mean when theists claim their god is "good".

In a debate, the obvious counter to such a theist is: "so according to you, a 'good' god allows rape, botflies, starvation of children, earthquakes that harm thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people and is indistinguishable from no god at all?" The indoctrinated theist might not see the cognitive dissonance in that, but the average fence-sitter will.

What I have argued is not word play. What I am doing is figuring out what the hell you are talking about because you are not using the proper definition of the words you are using for the most part and several of the words as shown have several meanings

To say that, "We win because our words are incoherent and lack proper definition" is asinine at best. To say that "your definition allows this so therefor I'm right' is idiotic because I'm using your definition. The only way you get out of this problem is to, like I said, have an absolute definition that is not reliant on a god that is not relative and doesn't include thought crimes to make what a god does to be called evil.

So while there is a "semantic argument" there which completely invalidate your entire argument to begin with I also am putting forth a logical conclusion of both side of the argument. Both sides end up with you being wrong. One side rests on invalid premises and the other side is valid and sound but you refuse that.

 

[Squagnut]

You assume you are not getting caught and punished. The reason it doesn't benefit you though is that if we as a society allow you to do this and you persist in doing it everyone in the society will begin to do this and society will fall apart and you lose out in the overall. You need to broaden your views.

Yes, I assume I'm not getting caught and punished - that's why I choose easy targets. Everybody else in society may find mugging old ladies to be outrageous and unacceptable - it doesn't follow that simply because I get away with it, people will copy me.

You know, I find it amusing that people leave out all understanding from their description of god. You can have all the power and knowledge in the cosmos and it really doesn't matter if you don't understand any of it ^.^ but we don't have to go that far out to point out that an all knowing and all powerful being for almost all definitions means within our reality. A lot of people have said if we found out that our universe was created by another sentient life that sentient life would be god... a notion i don't agree with but all the same it is enough to argue that for something like 99% of all the god concepts one could argue against with the PoE fit into this bracket of "...within our reality" types.

Not to mention i think a lot of people are clueless when they make such an argument. If you had all the power to do anything and all the knowledge you wouldn't do anything because you're perfect. I watch movies I've seen before and know everything about and I enjoy them proving the knowledge does not have anything to do with why one would do something and I create universes and enjoy exploring within them in my mind though technically I am omnipotent and omniscient and all that other good stuff within that reality I still find it fun to do. Why would a god that is sentient not find it fun?

Very interesting. Now would you like to have a go at answering my question, which was "If a god is omnipotent, how can anybody do anything that will benefit that god?"