A lot of Christians I've talked to would respond with something like, "Why would you think there are objective moral goods or evils if there is no God?"

A lot of Christians I've talked to would respond with something like, "Why would you think there are objective moral goods or evils if there is no God?" — wonderer1

If there is a god, his morality is an alien one whereby his good is our evil. That is a very weird thing that would put god as some demiurge that is a force for chaos, and we become more moral than the petulant god who wants to see the chaos manifest. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, perhaps it is god who is the one who is missing morals. That is to say, at what point is "cosmic good" evil in its relation to "human good". If "cosmic good" means that all this X bad stuff has to happen to people to fulfill the god's vision, would that not itself be evil in relation to human good? If god's cosmic good does not in any way shape or form resemble or align with human good, how can we then call it good? When does cosmic good become so alien that it is beyond "good and evil" and is truly a Cthulu of indifference and incomprehension whereby morality would be unrecognizable? If it is so beyond human morality, perhaps morality doesn't come from god?

From an old thread "The Problem of Evil"...

The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship. — 180 Proof

A sadist, or a fiction…or an impartial force of nature, or is aware of and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend or is part of a pantheon…hardly just the two possibilities you mention.
I mean, its all made up so a decent exercise of ones imagination is all thats needed to show its not just sadist or bust.

:roll:

:up: well put. Psychopathic tendencies too. But see,
1 it’s out of an incomprehensible cosmic love. You can not fathom the good of the suffering in the big picture!
2 He created this as an opportunity…

And on and on and hosanna. That is to say apparently gaslighting seems to be the answer.

and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend — DingoJones

From the Elder Gods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos_deities ? Or just gaslighting answers. Is he this incompetent (pace George Carlin)? Careless? Certainly a morality that entails suffering isn’t anything recognized as good… it’s beyond (human) good and evil. From our perspective it’s everything bad about utilitarianism. We are certainly being used…

If there are no right and wrong answers to moral questions, how can we say god is wrong, bad, or evil?

I can see the point hiding underneath the question though. Even if there is no cruel god bringing us into this world of suffering, humans brought us here. If you feel it cruel for a god to bring us into this world, to be consistent you would have to say it was cruel for humans to bring us into this world.

And on and on and hosanna. That is to say apparently gaslighting seems to be the answer. — schopenhauer1

:up:

If there are no right and wrong answers to moral questions, how can we say god is wrong, bad, or evil? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Surely some will say whatever it is that God does, says, or commands is good and not evil, no? But the actions and outcomes say otherwise, at least from the human perspective.

The bigger question then is, "If a morality is alien to human sensibilities, what would make that justifiably moral?".

I can see the point hiding underneath the question though. Even if there is no cruel god bringing us into this world of suffering, humans brought us here. If you feel it cruel for a god to bring us into this world, to be consistent you would have to say it was cruel for humans to bring us into this world. — Down The Rabbit Hole

:smirk:

Yes. However, if we were to stick with god for a minute- what does a world with evil and mediocre outcomes reveal for its inhabitants (at least on Earth)? Have you ever noticed oddities in timing? An empty park that has one person in it that you collide with nonetheless? Things like this? There are oddities of life whereby the coincidences are higher than would be expected... One could weave a tale of a god who likes chaos and thrives in it.

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

I don't know of any objective measurement of the good/evil ratio of the whole universe. On the whole, it seems that our local planet is the only part of the cosmic system with any claim to moral accounts. And, those reports of Good vs Evil are entirely subjective & personal. Except, of course, for the broadcast news of the world, which tends to paint a bleak picture of suffering humanity and blighted ecosystem. From the moralizing media we get a concentrated dose of downers.

So my question to you (generic "you") is this : do you --- locally & personally & subjectively --- find the world to be more Evil than Good? By that I mean, is your personal experience of the world mostly Pleasant or mostly Unpleasant, or on average, Tolerable? In this question, I'm discounting the News Media, which mainly reports on the Bad Stuff : "if it bleeds, it leads"*1. And I'm also ignoring all of the 99.9% of the universe that seems AFAIK to be insentient, hence amoral. In that case, is our (1/10 of 1%) feeling-part-of-the-whole, mostly bad or mostly good, or on average, good-enough to make life worth living?

Your answer to that question, may shed some light on your general view of the moral status of the planet Earth, and by extension to the non-Earth universe. The reason I make the whole/part distinction is to determine if Nature herself is Evil, or if the personal feelings of a few humans make it seem so *2. If the life of a mosquito is abruptly snuffed-out by the hand of an unfeeling human, is that a moral tragedy?

If the Universe (Nature) is mostly malevolent, then the Culpable Cause of this ongoing disaster could be construed as morally Evil. But, if Nature is mostly benign, and conducive to sentient human flourishing, then "Mother Nature" could be construed as sufficiently Good for a general moral gold-star. If Gaia is the "god" referred to in the OP, should we view Her as Good, or Evil, or Neutral?

If Nature is morally neutral though, then who do we have to blame for all the adverse aspects of life in this merciless world, "red in tooth & claw"? Who makes all the free-will moral choices in this vale of tears anyway? Do the smiles of a satiated baby offset any of the bloody stuff? How do all such tiny little local Goods add-up in the total scheme of things in an unfinished work of creation : goodish or badish?

The bottom line of the Moral Accounting seems to rest on the question of Agency & Moral Choice. If individual moral agents are free to act selfishly or altruistically, then where should the blame be placed : on the creator of Free Choice or on the Choosers? Is "God" the author of confusion, or of order? Is FreeWill*3 a defect in a world system? Would a cosmos of automatons, be sufficiently Good Enough to warrant a gold star for the designer of a perfectly balanced system of insentient mechanisms?

On the other hand, if know-nothing Nature-as-we-know-it is nothing more than an interlude in an eternal series of physical accidents, who are we to blame for the misfortunes that will-free human puppets call Evil? Is the god-postulate merely a hypothetical scapegoat for our individual measures (feelings) of Good vs Evil? Do robots have feelings, or gods? . . . . . Just asking. :smile:


*1. News Bias :
Basically, if there’s violence, conflict or death involved, it gets top billing. Nowhere is this more true than in television news, which coined the expression, “If it bleeds, it leads.”
https://newsliteracymatters.com/2019/11/11/q-what-does-if-it-bleeds-it-leads-mean/

*2. Hamlet's Dungeon :
"Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison". -----Shakespeare, Hamlet
Note --- The phrase means that one's subjective perspective is locally & personally biased.

*3. FreeWill : The ability (or illusion) to make moral choices. Assuming that human animals are not totally determined by the laws of physics (hot vs cold), but also by metaphysical laws of morality (good vs evil).

From an old thread "The Problem of Evil"...
The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

This particular argument has always struck me as intellectually dishonest. Is there no God or is God evil? You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

A sadist, or a fiction…or an impartial force of nature, or is aware of and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend or is part of a pantheon…hardly just the two possibilities you mention.
I mean, its all made up so a decent exercise of ones imagination is all thats needed to show its not just sadist or bust. — DingoJones

You put it better than I would have. Now I don't have to comment. Thanks.

Does it need to be a Big Omni type of god? Let's admit that we know nothing of life on other planets, and so not assume that one god is in charge of the who she-bang. Let's consider a god of this planet alone. Does that have a single entity, or can it have facets? Does it have to be a patriarchal god on the Judeo/Christo/Muslim model? None of those stand up to close scrutiny; if there is a creator-god who designed the operating systems of this planet, it's nothing like the god of the old or new testament.

It is entirely disinterested and amoral. The whole system is set up more like a laboratory experiment than the nursery Christians would like to believe in. If there is such a deity, it neither loves nor censures, saves nor curses: it simply watches how this scenario plays out. Perhaps it's making sketches or computer simulations in the planning of the ideal world it plans to create, in which case, this is just one of many alternative designs. Or it might be a training video for student gods. Then again, it may be no more than an entertainment.

A rare feat, thank you sir. Sadly, worth only an eye roll from he whom it was directed at. Whatya gonna do? *shrug*

If the Universe (Nature) is mostly malevolent, then the Culpable Cause of this ongoing disaster could be construed as morally Evil. But, if Nature is mostly benign, and conducive to sentient human flourishing, then "Mother Nature" could be construed as sufficiently Good for a general moral gold-star. If Gaia is the "god" referred to in the OP, should we view Her as Good, or Evil, or Neutral?

If Nature is morally neutral though, then who do we have to blame for all the adverse aspects of life in this merciless world, "red in tooth & claw"? Who makes all the free-will moral choices in this vale of tears anyway? Do the smiles of a satiated baby offset any of the bloody stuff? How do all such tiny little local Goods add-up in the total scheme of things in an unfinished work of creation : goodish or badish?

The bottom line of the Moral Accounting seems to rest on the question of Agency & Moral Choice. If individual moral agents are free to act selfishly or altruistically, then where should the blame be placed : on the creator of Free Choice or on the Choosers? Is "God" the author of confusion, or of order? Is FreeWill*3 a defect in a world system? Would a cosmos of automatons, be sufficiently Good Enough to warrant a gold star for the designer of a perfectly balanced system of insentient mechanisms? — Gnomon

First, this was a hypothetical "If there was a god". I am not sure "Gaia" as a standin for simply "Nature" counts. So that is a bit moving the target to an insentient non-intentional, phenomeon.

And yes, it is an interesting question as to "Free Choice". Let us assume that God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. Is creating beings that have a free choice for bad a good thing to create? Certainly the omniscience and omnipotence would mean that he wanted this scenario to take place, or neither of those are particularly true about the deity.

But I think the bigger point is the "gold star" remark. That is to say, how utterly human to make the universe about a game of right choice. We are saying that God is basically just watching a game of "who figures out the right moves?". How small-timey and suspiciously human! But it goes beyond that...

People don't just make "evil moves", but also choices that were less optimal. Maybe they had a bad heuristic. Maybe that had a good heuristic but it still led to bad outcomes. None of this is very favorable to a just deity.

Also the assumption that a utopian universe would be somehow itself "inauthentic" is also a bias to the situation we have now. I see two utopias really:

1) Schopenharian utopia. God could have created a world whereby there was no "need" for anything. All of creation was perfectly fulfilled in everyway so that it was like a nothingness Nirvana state of non-being. No lack of anything. No need for anything. This can only be imagined from afar, as we don't know what that really is as people living in a universe that is certainly not this state.

2) Common utopia. God could have created a world whereby we still had needs, but they could be met whenever we wanted. We could turn the dials to make it harder if we get bored, turn it back if we want to go back to easy mode. There is no suffering in the "want" sense of the word. We still "lack" but those desires can be fulfilled easily, without tension. Everyone is harmonious in their actions. There is no struggle.

But then here we come again to the "all too human" aspect that struggle is somehow "what makes us human and what makes life worth it". I contest this fully and wholeheartedly as being a gaslight-y kind of answer. That is to say, if you can't beat them, join them. That is to say, obviously, if we don't kill ourselves, we have to accept that this world with it's struggles has to be good enough. The struggles instead of being "an evil" are incorporated as "necessary" to make us "grow" or to make us "appreciate the good", etc. But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful?

Which then brings us back to the original question of what if god's morality is simply alien to ours?

If you had the ability to create a universe without suffering, but you created it with suffering instead because "You want to see how the game works out", I would count that as immoral. But you can always say, god's morality is "beyond good and evil" in the way humans know it. In that sense then, if god's morality is so separate and alien to the familiar ones we know, how can we justify that it is "good" and not something amoral, or immoral or anything else? In other words, is an alien morality ever commensurable with human morality?

n other words, is an alien morality ever commensurable with human morality? — schopenhauer1

We can only judge from our own perspective, according to our own standards. So can the aliens. In the sense that we can't judge the god's decisions as right or wrong, nor can the god reward or condemn us by any rules we understand. The god idea is based on a morality given to us by the god. Without that, there is no point in gods: you're right back to saying nature or fate or something equally impersonal.

We can only judge from our own perspective, according to our own standards. So can the aliens. In the sense that we can't judge the god's decisions as right or wrong, nor can the god reward or condemn us by any rules we understand. The god idea is based on a morality given to us by the god. Without that, there is no point in gods: you're right back to saying nature or fate or something equally impersonal. — Vera Mont

So suffering is justified as long as a deity is causing or allowing it?

So suffering is justified as long as a deity is causing or allowing it? — schopenhauer1

Exactly! What's the great big glaring role-model? Jesus - and to a lesser degree, all the martyrs, compared to which the self-flagellation and mortification of medieval monks pales to insignificance. Similarly, the passage rituals of African and Australian peoples have their deities' blessing, as do the Aztecs' self-cutting and piercing. Torturing enemies is fine; setting their towns on fire is lauded; throwing one's own children off towers is demanded, and when it comes to the first-born of Egyptians, he sends an angel for maximum efficiency. (As for the non-humans, modern gods just don't care what happens to them.)

:roll:

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

I can imagine a much worse life than I have. So a pure sadist isn't plausible to me.

What I do find plausible is the 'demiurge' sketched by Darwin. Where that motherfucker came from I cannot say. No one can, in my view, cuz they's always another why. But so much makes sense in that Darwinian framework. Demystified Schopenhauer, basically.

Graveleaping sex (in squirts of lost time) and graveleaping knowledge.

↪T Clark :roll: — 180 Proof

First, this was a hypothetical "If there was a god". I am not sure "Gaia" as a standin for simply "Nature" counts. So that is a bit moving the target to an insentient non-intentional, phenomeon. — schopenhauer1

Sorry! I was just riffing on the God/Nature notion. :yikes:

Also the assumption that a utopian universe would be somehow itself "inauthentic" is also a bias to the situation we have now. I see two utopias really: — schopenhauer1

As I see it, both of those Utopias were anticipated by the late Jewish/ early Christian notions of Heaven. But why would God make the hopeful future Heaven contingent on winning a piety competition in the here & now Earth? Apparently, the current occupants of Heaven are the Angels, who function more like immaterial email clients for God than as freewill agents, who must constantly battle their material bodies for moral control. Which "world" is "inauthentic" (tantalizing illusion) : the tangible material terran abode, or the invisible immaterial angelic realm? Do your "two utopias" play each other in football? :nerd:

Which then brings us back to the original question of what if god's morality is simply alien to ours? — schopenhauer1

I tried to address, in a blog post, that poor excuse for an argument in The Book of Job, that whatever God does is true & good, despite what fallible humans might feel about their plight*1. From that perspective, God is the moral native, and humans are the aliens.

*1. God's Inscrutable Plan : blog excerpt
A popular excuse for the Problem of Evil ─ that the world is unfolding according to God’s Plan, which is beyond human understanding ─ is merely a diversion, advising us to "suck it up" and accept the bad with the good, while hoping for a better deal in the next life*. Ironically, the old "mysterious ways" theory belies divine benevolence, implying that what’s good or bad for me is irrelevant to God. The faithful must accept the fact that they are pawns in the Lord’s chess match with Satan. The hidden meaning of the "my ways are not your ways" Plan is explained most clearly in Calvinism : The Creator intended for only a few “elect” humans to go to heaven; and the majority, including innocent babies, are destined to suffer & die & then burn in Hell for eternity. What kind of divine plan is that? . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html

If you had the ability to create a universe without suffering, but you created it with suffering instead because "You want to see how the game works out", I would count that as immoral. — schopenhauer1

Some thinkers resolved that dilemma by dividing responsibility : Old Testament = Jehovah vs Satan ; Gnosticism = Sophia vs Demiurge. But that evades any satisfying ultimate buck-stopper. So, my initial tentative conclusion to that cosmic moral quandary was to assume that the First Cause of our temporary universe was not a moral agent, but more like an amoral Principle of Change (Prime Mover ; Cosmic Causal Energy?). However, since I cannot ignore the physical signs, revealed by Science, of an evolutionary tendency toward the gradual emergence of material complexity & mental sentience & moral ethics, I still have to assume that the Big-Bang-act-of-creation had some purpose behind it (LOGOS)*2. And maybe Humanity collectively can contribute to the improvement of the Game of Life. Therefore, lacking any direct revelation from the Prime Actor, I must admit that I have no idea what that end-game goal might be. Some have guessed that G*D is gestating little limited gods in He/r image. But why? Does G*D have a motherly instinct? All I can say right now, is that it's an open question --- ripe for philosophical exploration. :smile:

PS___My BothAnd philosophy advises us puzzling humans to just suck it up, and accept the good with the bad. But at the same time, still work toward a more moral Utopian culture on Earth. Ain't that what Morality is all about?

*2. God's Inscrutable Plan : Part Two
. . . . . But what if the sages of the past wove their fictional narratives from the wrong assumptions? Idealistic Priests imagined that a perfect deity could only create a perfect world. Ironically, with paradise at the beginning, the story could only develop downward into decay and decadence. Hence, cynical playwrights caricatured the gods as self-absorbed and indifferent to human suffering. To them, humans were pawns in a heavenly Game of Thrones. On the other hand, modern science has replaced the stagnant cycles of Greek Fate with a history of progress from Chaos to Cosmos in a logical series of steps. Current models of Evolution have constructed a plausible sequence of advancements from extreme simplicity to the amazing organic complexity we see today in our scopes and neighborhoods.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

I think there's an underlying psychological and social factor lurking here. In old-time religion, I don't know if there was ever an implicit understanding that the world ought to be, or could be, purged of illness, suffering, death, and unfairness. The world was 'a vale of tears' and Heaven 'a better place'. The underlying promise in Christianity was that faith would deliver you to that higher place at life's end for once and ever more. Worldly trials were like tests of character - 'God sends these things to try us', my highly religious paternal grandmother would say. The world was not expected to be perfect, although a Christian ought always try to do good and to help assuage the pain of others.

But the expectation of modern culture is that the world ought to be safe. As there is no other world, nor anything to look forward to beyond this life, then a pain-free existence is the best that can be hoped for. Looked at from that perspective, the world we see is obviously defective, inequitable, arbitrary and cruel. That fosters what I call the 'hotel-manager theodicy'. 'Hey, who's in charge here! Can't you see people are suffering!? What kind of manager would allow this? He must be a total jerk!'

I think the two perspectives are incommensurable. The religious understanding simply doesn't make sense from the perspective of naturalism (although that is also something that was understood in Biblical religion with 'the wisdom of the Cross' being understood as 'folly to the world'.

From another perspective, that of Advaita Vedanta, the sole source of suffering is taking the unreal for the real. We suffer because we are deeply attached to the illusory dance of māyā, mistaking illusion for reality. Only by awakening to the reality of Brahman can we realise unending bliss. However, that too is largely incommensurable with both old-school Christianity and naturalism.)

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

It seems an obvious inference to make, although I would not use the word 'evil' - it's too loaded. Bracketing those supposed 'omnis', we might also posit from this observation of our lethal, broken world that any god responsible is limited and flawed - perhaps it means well but creation has its own ideas...

But frankly the world, with all its chaos, ugliness and suffering also seems exactly the kind of world you would have if there were no deities responsible or in charge.

Needless to say, there are number of games we can play to rationalise this situation - both as atheists or theists.

The salient question for me seems to be a different one - what kind of world would we expect to see if there were gods?

If there are no right and wrong answers to moral questions, how can we say god is wrong, bad, or evil? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Surely some will say whatever it is that God does, says, or commands is good and not evil, no? But the actions and outcomes say otherwise, at least from the human perspective.

The bigger question then is, "If a morality is alien to human sensibilities, what would make that justifiably moral?". — schopenhauer1

The outcomes are merely not to our taste. I don't see a basis for saying that they're wrong, bad, or evil.

There could also be a God who commands what is good and what is bad, which we are not privy to. Who are we to demand for God to give us answers. It's not like we can say it is wrong for God not to give us answers.

Our perspective is irrelevant either way.

Yes. However, if we were to stick with god for a minute- what does a world with evil and mediocre outcomes reveal for its inhabitants (at least on Earth)? Have you ever noticed oddities in timing? An empty park that has one person in it that you collide with nonetheless? Things like this? There are oddities of life whereby the coincidences are higher than would be expected... One could weave a tale of a god who likes chaos and thrives in it. — schopenhauer1

It does feel like the world is conspiring against me every now and again. But over the course of a lifetime extremely rare events are going to happen.

If the creator is all-knowing, their actions are hard to forgive. However, if the creators were just reckless, or even just naive, there is room for forgiveness.

But why would God make the hopeful future Heaven contingent on winning a piety competition in the here & now Earth? Apparently, the current occupants of Heaven are the Angels, who function more like immaterial email clients for God than as freewill agents, who must constantly battle their material bodies for moral control. Which "world" is "inauthentic" (tantalizing illusion) : the tangible material terran abode, or the invisible immaterial angelic realm? Do your "two utopias" play each other in football? :nerd: — Gnomon

Well yeah. I just call this small time stuff. Make a universe to watch a game of "will they won't they?". Eh, seems so pedestrian. It's one step away from a divine rom com. That's pretty human-like to me. I think it belies the humanness of it all. It was the Neoplatonic influence that took the Greco-Roman idea and made God a remote transcendental thing that emanated to the physical realm through. That made it seem "holier and more ethereal", less everyday Joe.

And maybe Humanity collectively can contribute to the improvement of the Game of Life. Therefore, lacking any direct revelation from the Prime Actor, I must admit that I have no idea what that end-game goal might be. Some have guessed that G*D is gestating little limited gods in He/r image. But why? Does G*D have a motherly instinct? All I can say right now, is that it's an open question --- ripe for philosophical exploration. :smile:

PS___My BothAnd philosophy advises us puzzling humans to just suck it up, and accept the good with the bad. But at the same time, still work toward a more moral Utopian culture on Earth. Ain't that what Morality is all about? — Gnomon

Why must we do anything? If we ceased, what does the God lose really?

Current models of Evolution have constructed a plausible sequence of advancements from extreme simplicity to the amazing organic complexity we see today in our scopes and neighborhoods.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html — Gnomon

I'm not sure "complexity" has to equal "amazing". We love to pat ourselves on the back, don't we?

I can imagine a much worse life than I have. So a pure sadist isn't plausible to me.

What I do find plausible is the 'demiurge' sketched by Darwin. Where that motherfucker came from I cannot say. No one can, in my view, cuz they's always another why. But so much makes sense in that Darwinian framework. Demystified Schopenhauer, basically.

Graveleaping sex (in squirts of lost time) and graveleaping knowledge. — plaque flag

Isn't it funny that if we are having a "good time", we tend to forget those who aren't? You might be "ok" at the moment, but others certainly aren't. And who knows, maybe the wheel will turn and YOU will not be ok. And then you won't be going on about how it's not that bad.

The outcomes are merely not to our taste. I don't see a basis for saying that they're wrong, bad, or evil.

There could also be a God who commands what is good and what is bad, which we are not privy to. Who are we to demand for God to give us answers. It's not like we can say it is wrong for God not to give us answers.

Our perspective is irrelevant either way. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I just don't see morality being so invariant that cosmic suffering is ever justified. As I said, if you were to create a world with suffering, for whatever reason, I would always call that immoral. It doesn't matter if it's all for some cosmic end goal, utopia, or whatnot. It would always be wrong. Is it good because god wills it, or does god will it because it's good? I clearly don't take the former as anything resembling morality.

It does feel like the world is conspiring against me every now and again. But over the course of a lifetime extremely rare events are going to happen. — Down The Rabbit Hole

It is interesting how there seems to be something fuckn with you sometimes.. Makes ya wonder.

If the creator is all-knowing, their actions are hard to forgive. However, if the creators were just reckless, or even just naive, there is room for forgiveness. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Indeed.

. Worldly trials were like tests of character - 'God sends these things to try us', my highly religious paternal grandmother would say. The world was not expected to be perfect, although a Christian ought always try to do good and to help assuage the pain of others.

But the expectation of modern culture is that the world ought to be safe. As there is no other world, nor anything to look forward to beyond this life, then a pain-free existence is the best that can be hoped for. Looked at from that perspective, the world we see is obviously defective, inequitable, arbitrary and cruel. That fosters what I call the 'hotel-manager theodicy'. 'Hey, who's in charge here! Can't you see people are suffering!? What kind of manager would allow this? He must be a total jerk!' — Quixodian

Yes, and is this not something a human would think of? It's pretty odd to be the "will he/won't he" character in someone's moral drama and to punish and reward accordingly.