If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that ?

In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god.

"I think God cannot create perfect humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow." — MoK

And what do you think are the problems with this view?

Humans and God share common traits — MoK

We can however have access to our past experiences, so-called flashbacks. — MoK

These statements suggests that your concept of God is too small. A being who is present in all times--past, present, and future; and in all places, knows all, and has unlimited power can't be contemplated using humanoid traits, like thrift or duty, or by comparing God's omniscience to our measly flashbacks.

An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? Or, why didn't God make people who were good from the start and stayed that way? And so on. We look at this unlimited being from our extraordinarily limited being's perspectives, and think we see God's mistakes. Highly presumptuous.

Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. It's just that if we want to CLAIM that god is unlimited, then we have to accept that we will never understand such a being, will never understand the Divine plan of Salvation, or anything else about God. We don't have to reject the existence of this unlimited God, but our severe limitations in understanding God put the ball back in our court.

In other words, our problems are our problems.

Perhaps there’s a reason to earthly suffering and is as it should be. Of course we cannot discern any more motive in his creation as we are creatures caught up in such a creation where suffering is inevitable and yet there’s happiness and joy to so perhaps these two opposites cannot exist without each other. How could we appreciate health without sickness or happiness without suffering ? Justice without injustice etc … Utopia while at first sounds amazing would be boring after a while without any challenges to be overcome.

An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? — BC

I think, BC, that this question reveals an even more disturbing question- what kind of god wants his creations to suffer?

This is where the Lovecraftian notion comes into play.. God's morals would have to be so far removed from what humans deem as moral, OR God would have to be so CLOSE to the whims of human sadistic glee, that it would be a disturbingly amoral God (from the perspective of anything considered normative ethics). If "Higher Morality" (God's morality) is so sadistically bad for its creatures, what does this say?

How would you know the concept of joy without suffering? How would you know what sunshine is without the rain, justice without injustice. These things don’t point to a sadistic god but to a creature that is simply beyond our discernment.

If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. — kindred

A perfect agent is God and not a human with all human limitations. Humans have to get through, evolve further, and grow to become perfect (if that is possible at all). Therefore, humans are not perfect yet. If God can create a perfect agent then God should only create God!

In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. — kindred

As far as I remember from the Bible Adam looks good in the eyes of God and not perfect. I don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't know what image means. Do you? In regards to humans, we know that humans are the result of evolution and humans were not created at once.

Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that? — kindred

Bad Karma from the past life.

In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god. — kindred

What do you mean by the perfect creator?

How would you know the concept of joy without suffering. How would you know what sunshine is without the rain, justice without injustice. These things don’t point to a sadistic god but to a creature that is simply beyond our discernment. — kindred

But if God was all loving and all knowing and all powerful, could he not create a universe whereby pure joy and satisfaction does not require his subjects to suffer? It seems a kind of weak tea to only have a universe work whereby suffering is necessary for joy. In fact, this is one of my main arguments against most forms of anti-pessimistic philosophy, but that's another thread..

And what do you think are the problems with this view? — Banno

I don't think that there is any problem with this view. If you think that there is a problem then please tell me.

What do you mean by the perfect creator? — MoK

The definition of god is of a being that is perfect in every way. All knowing all good all powerful. Perfect in all aspects.

Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. — BC

That's wisdom.

The trouble with making stuff up about god is that the story quickly becomes inconsistent. The way to treat those who claim to know stuff about god is to bring out those inconsistencies, displaying the irrationality of god-talk.

I don't think that there is any problem with this view. — MoK

And that is a problem. You are not critical of your own beliefs. It seems you are here to tell us what you believe, but not to listen or think about things in a new way. Not to do philosophy.

Challenge yourself.

Think of this analogy, rain (a bad thing) is required for plants to grow. Without rain the plants would wither and die.

Joy then would not really be joy without pain and suffering because it would not be appreciated for what it is.

I added the word "real" to the title of this thread in order to eliminate an ideal Heavenly realm from consideration. Some people, when faced with the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of personal or world events --- especially when bad things happen to good people --- will express the belief or hope that "everything happens for a reason"*1. And they don't seem to be concerned that the "reasons" & purposes motivating Cause & Effect are seldom obvious, and must be taken on faith. — Gnomon

There are several points to be made JUST here. The main one is that 'everything happens for a reason' is both true and NOT RELEVANT to this issue.

'Reasons' are, like any other choice humans make, mostly immoral. That is to say, EVERY choice is immoral to some degree, not being perfect.

Just like so many issues in philosophy you can get the best indication of the type of person you are dealing with based on their general response to such a question. But all these answers impinge upon the singular general question of 'is morality objective?' Those who answer 'yes' too easily are often fear-centric (order driven). Those who answer 'no' too easily are desire-centric (chaos driven). And those that answer in detail are wiser (more balanced). Note that just answering in depth with excuse after excuse for an apologist point of view either way IS NOT wise, but, can be camouflaged as such.

Also, as another issue in this paragraph, the assertion that 'bad thing happen ...' is not quite accurate either. If a weakly moral partner leaves a relationship or a tenuous social issue cascades within reality to conflict, that is not actually bad. We would almost universally take the Pragmatic shortcut and incorrectly name it 'bad'. But that is not wise. Of course, again, wisdom, is a rare quality, and most people are not wise and would indeed take such situations as 'bad'.

{Cue Monty Python's 'Always look on the bright side of life ... (whistles)}

The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". — Gnomon

I love this take. Even the way you write it about someone else writing about it SEEMS to be saying that 'fair' means something akin to NOT 'good for you', but MORE LIKE 'easy and perfect for you'. I think it is safe to presume, to infer, that most people will interpret the statement or idea that way. And THAT is the problem.

The truth that is objective, (ha ha), shows us that the fairness is only in the allocation of universal truth equally to all. How then can anything not be 'fair'? It's all fair by definition. Each maker of a choice has the same moral duty to live up to. That is fair, of course.

But that AVOIDS the real issue. The real issue is how hard each choice is to make. And if a choice is hard and there is a right answer (and an objectivist believes that there is a right answer), then usually in any situation the chooser is NOT wishing for understanding so much as they are wishing for EASE. That wish in and of itself is immoral.

My own belief is that morality is clearly objective. This universe would literally disintegrate in relatively immediate time if morality were subjective. And if that is true, we SHOULD all want to suffer hard choices to earn wisdom and grow by making the right choices, even so.

Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". — Gnomon

And THAT specific delusion is morally repugnant to me. Acting or choosing in the name of GOOD, is ... evil, if you do it for any reward other than the sake of the perfect moral GOOD within any moment. That means that clearly, ANY AND ALL transactional efforts towards morality are highly immoral.

All reward and punishment is immoral. This is my belief. The only reward or punishment that happens morally in the universe is the reflective result of the choice and that is immediate as the choice is made. In other words the universe and objective morality make it (life and choice) such that in the act of making it you either reward yourself with genuine happiness by aligning with objective moral truth (the GOOD) or you fail and by degrees and then by those same degrees suffer genuine unhappiness therefore. The only 'punisher' is you yourself. That is quintessentially fair. So, duh, it's a fair universe.

Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. — Gnomon

No, indeed not. The concept of karma is deeply silly. It again assumes an immoral transactional nature to actions and choices. I suppose if one approaches the moment of now, of choice, as an asymptote, a limit, then that is still ok. That would mean what I already outlined above. The reward or punishment (still somewhat transactional) happens immediately.

But, this to me is not quite accurate AS IN I mean to say that because of the immediacy and more to the point the OBJECTIVE nature of morality, there is no 'bartering', which would characterize a transaction. Instead, choice is non-transactional and objective even as it is immediate. So, if you follow, the concept of karma to me is nonsensical overall and immoral in its suggestion.

Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. — Gnomon

No, that is incorrect. Such a conclusion can only be drawn if one is blatantly incorrect (subjective) and transactional in outlook (again incorrect). I guess an easy way to say this is that such a person has NO IDEA what fairness really is.

As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". — Gnomon

Again, this is incorrect faithless subjective nonsense.

The universe clearly IS DEEPLY and INHERENTLY interested in your (moral) success. The whole universe is NOTHING BUT an objective theater for simulation (experience). Within that theater you choose. Nothing else is happening but choice. All choices are punished or rewarded by the nature of the universe, the system. And the only punisher or rewarder is YOU, because what is moral, what is GOOD, what is perfect, is objective. It does not change.

Thus, because things ARE fair, you may then earn wisdom and grow, progress, towards the GOOD in understanding and action (choice). If this was not ALL true, there would be no point to anything and indeed, as mentioned, matter cohesion itself would fail and the universe would cease to exist.

What convinces us of this tempting lie you suggest here is that we are above all aimed at ease. Interest in and preference for ease is effectively the sin of laziness.

We are tempted to believe in a subjective universe because that 'eases' (not really) the pressure on us to choose wisely. If morality is not objective then we are just hapless victims and our choices make no difference. But objectivity is empowerment. Blame is healthy! But don't be a clown and blame the universe and disempower yourself. Blame yourself.

If we get into the right habit, of blaming ourselves (for literally everything), we are then empowered to choose and encouraged, DESPITE ALL FORMER FAILURES, to try again to make things better. I know which side I am on. Fair universe, choice matters, and it's all you.

Tied to this idea is the unity principle. That is the classical 'we are all one' idea. Literally, you are me and I am you. So, indeed EVERY choice in the universe is YOUR fault, finally. You are not JUST a representative of the godhead, but the godhead itself.

For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional? — Gnomon

I would define this conclusion, as constructed, as blatant sophistry of a very low order.

Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", — Gnomon

You should change your mind. The mind and all fear constructs are prisons, limits, by definition. They NEVER arrive at perfection. Only by balancing the transcendence of desire and the being of anger into fear, is moral choice made wise.

All things DO work together for the GOOD. But it's so damn hard to reach the GOOD (perfection) that both the unwise Pragmatist and the unwise Idealist turn away exhausted by the effort. It is not called perfection lightly. The wise understand the exponentially increasing effort required to be wiser and wiser than the mean in society and amid humanity and ALL.

I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. — Gnomon

Philosophers are not only divided. Taht rather implies a duality. Instead it is a multiplicity of infinite variation of failure.

Essentially ANY sliver of difference between objective understanding (reality) and subjective wishes or fears (delusion) is a lie, comforting though it may be. Logic is a prison on one very large DUALISTIC side of that multiplicity. If you want equal halves of failure to choose perfectly, then choose your camp in life, the fear and order side, or the desire and chaos side. And then to convince yourself that you are even more erudite and correct, waffle back and forth pretending towards balance, rather than actually BEING in balance.

Logic is just fear. All thought is fear. That is an order side failure of moral choice. Pragmatism as a whole arises from that flavor of failure.

Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when. — Gnomon

And see then how Plato was waffling. And then how modern science waffles.

But the truth is still objective and that is orderly, finally. So the orderly INCLUSION of chaos by law is still lawful. Wisdom is NOT easy. It's the hardest skill there is.

I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question. :smile: — Gnomon

Nonsense! Politeness, as most often portrayed colloquially, is an uncommitted position. It is THE quintessential waffling mistake, an immoral choice.

Peace is finally delusional. Conflict is eternal and ubiquitous. The struggle IS AS IT SHOULD BE.

That means though that it is POLITE to be in synch with this truth and struggle, get involved, 'Participate', as Joseph Campbell would say. In fact, a wise person will cause suffering intentionally to be moral. That suffering is distinct from other forms of suffering in this one way: that suffering is NECESSARY to allow yourself and others the opportunity to earn wisdom. Evil is properly defined as a choice for UNNECESSARY suffering. And then we have a whole new debate!

Anyway, my two coppers are just a tiny penny rolling up the walls inside. You have to look for the ghost of real cause and real effect. It's only you again, the chooser.

Think of this analogy, rain (a bad thing) is required for plants to grow. Without rain the plants would wither and die.

Joy then would not really be joy without pain and suffering because it would not be appreciated for what it is. — kindred

Right, that's how it works in this universe, let's say. But I am not arguing that this universe (at least for the sake of this argument) doesn't work like that. Rather, I am arguing why an a loving/perfect/powerful/knowing god would not create a universe that doesn't need suffering in order to "feel" the relief from suffering, or joy.

Arguably, even this conception of joy needs suffering is off. Schopenhauer proposed that joy/satisfaction/happiness is actually negative in nature. That is to say, it always works as simply a relief from the normal suffering of dissatisfaction. But this brings us far afield.

It’s a good question I mean it’s like asking whether a Utopian society is possible. I don’t know, it may be but I bet it would be boring.

Every citizen in such a utopia would be happy, there would be no suffering, no death, no injustice, no disease, no poverty, perfectly possible given God’s omnipotence.

Yet such a society would be impoverished in other aspects for if they did not know what the opposites of happiness or what suffering or disease were such citizens would be ungrateful and they would lack the experience of ever having experienced sorrow or unhappiness. These are all palettes of human emotion: happiness sadness pain joy etc, without them the palette would be small indeed and unable to paint a human being in all aspects of existence.

Therefore whilst suffering is not necessary it’s needed for a fully fledged human being to exist.

Utopian society is possible. I don’t know, it may be but I bet it would be boring. — kindred

Not in a universe that was perfectly attuned such that being happy and not suffering wasn’t boring. Seems odd to trade boredom for suffering and not reconcile the two :chin:

Every citizen in such a utopia would be happy, there would be no suffering, no death, no injustice, no disease, no poverty, perfectly possible given God’s omnipotence. — kindred

Uh oh, then not all loving and all good :sad:

Yet such a society would be impoverished in other aspects for if they did not know what the opposites of happiness or what suffering or disease were such citizens would be ungrateful and they would lack the experience of ever having experienced sorrow or unhappiness. These are all palettes of human emotion: happiness sadness pain joy etc, without them the palette would be small indeed and unable to paint a human being in all aspects of existence.

Therefore whilst suffering is not necessary it’s needed for happiness to be appreciated. — kindred

Ah yes, but then we are back to two things:
1) god CANT create a universe where humans can have this knowledge without suffer

2) god is a sadist who wants to see his victims learn a lesson, very humanlike this god is :brow:

These statements suggests that your concept of God is too small. A being who is present in all times--past, present, and future; and in all places, knows all, and has unlimited power can't be contemplated using humanoid traits, like thrift or duty, or by comparing God's omniscience to our measly flashbacks. — BC

I don't know all the attributes of God. I think that humans are not perfect so they don't psychologically have access to all the possible attributes including attributes of God. We have instinct. We can think logically. We have the impression of intuition. I don't know what wisdom is but people talk about it. People talk about meaning too but I don't think that any human has ever experienced it yet. And so on. To complete I don't think that God has access to the future since the future is not decided yet.

An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? Or, why didn't God make people who were good from the start and stayed that way? And so on. We look at this unlimited being from our extraordinarily limited being's perspectives, and think we see God's mistakes. Highly presumptuous. — BC

Without suffering no organism can evolve. So suffering is an inseparable aspect of life. Why God didn't create a perfect agent? God couldn't since a perfect agent by definition is God.

Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. It's just that if we want to CLAIM that god is unlimited, then we have to accept that we will never understand such a being, will never understand the Divine plan of Salvation, or anything else about God. We don't have to reject the existence of this unlimited God, but our severe limitations in understanding God put the ball back in our court.

In other words, our problems are our problems. — BC

Yes, our problems are our problems but that does not mean that God is not in charge.

1) god CANT create a universe where humans can have this knowledge without suffer — schopenhauer1

Knowledge of something and the experience of something are two very different things.

Take for example a sweet tasting beverage like orange juice or Coke. The knowledge of how it tastes like is not the same as actually tasting it.

Of course god is capable of creating a universe (or at least a planet) without suffering yet how could you appreciate the beauty of it. If all you tasted is milk and honey how could you truly appreciate that compared to starvation?

god is a sadist who wants to see his victims learn a lesson, very humanlike this god is :brow: — schopenhauer1

Brings me back to my first point, gods objectives are not easily discerned by man. You paint a bleak picture of human existence ignoring the countless joys (ie music) that is expressed by the human condition. Sure there’s suffering too, whether that’s balanced heavily on way or another is irrelevant because the human condition is meant to experience opposites perhaps as god intended. And whether you’re grateful or ungrateful about that is personal opinion but the world is not as bleak as that there’s rays of sunshine after the rain, remember that.

f course god is capable of creating a universe (or at least a planet) without suffering yet how could you appreciate the beauty of it. If all you tasted is milk and honey how could you truly appreciate that compared to starvation? — kindred

Then back to my points earlier about a god that can’t create a universe where joy and no suffering exist. God wants this universe to have suffering. And he could make a universe without it. That’s all the info you need.

Who says he hasn’t. It just so happens that we live in a world with suffering but also with joy.

Back in the garden of Eden it was such a world without pain and suffering but you wanted the knowledge of what an apple tasted like, only way to do that im afraid is to experience it which is to try it and taste it. Our fault really, but that’s the price you pay for knowledge.

How could we appreciate health without sickness or happiness without suffering ? Justice without injustice etc … — kindred

We experience the good things in life in parallel with the bad things, not in a sequence of contrasts. The good and bad things come and go in our lives, sometimes at the same moment. One day we are robbed, but we enjoy robust health. One day we win $1000 at the casino but a week later we feel very depressed. One day we we feel very happy but the killing in Gaza goes on. One day we are diagnosed with cancer, and two weeks later our body is sliced open, causing great pain. One month later we feel great, lose $1000 buy lottery tickets, our cancer is cured, the cat runs away, and we discover our daughter is turning tricks.

We don't need bad thing to experience good things, and conversely, we don't need the good things to experience bad things. Both of them "just are". There is gladness, good health, and joy. and there is depression, sickness, and misery.

When I am in great pain, how good I felt a week ago doesn't help. When I feel on top of the world, last month's sadness doesn't hurt me.

If "Higher Morality" (God's morality) is so sadistically bad for its creatures, what does this say? — schopenhauer1

That we're wrong. That's baked into the description, really. If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong.

Do either of you think that we can make the world fairer? Do you think we ought? — Banno

YesI think we can. I think it’s up to us though to first decide what’s unfair or unjust. Most of us can agree though so that’s good.

That we're wrong. That's baked into the description, really. If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong. — AmadeusD

So I guess it’s the supposition. What if a god likes seeing his subjects navigate various forms if suffering like a game? From the human pov, that could be questionable. Is something good because the gods will it or the gods will it because it’s good? If X is not X then something is off perhaps.

↪John McMannis, ↪LuckyR Do either of you think that we can make the world fairer? Do you think we ought?

Can we? Sure, we already have. It's a laudable goal, thus I support continuing down that path.

If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong. — AmadeusD

Why?

Ship to lighthouse: ‘Change your heading!’

If God's morals differ from ours, we are necessarily wrong.
— AmadeusD
Why? — Banno

Yes, I've often wondered why too. I guess if your definition of god holds that god is necessarily the foundational source of all that is good then there's the answer. But when you read some religious works like The Koran or The Bible, God is more of a bellicose, vain Trump-like figure, an incompetent mafia boss who seems to think genocide is a solution to problems he created.

I like to drop in a Latin phrase every now and then too, but it's helpful to provide a translation or English definition, especially when one's Latin gem is NOT common knowledge (like et cetera). — BC

'Sub specie aeternitatis' is a technical phrase coined by Spinoza and it can be translated as "under the perspective of eternity". According to him, the 'world' could be contemplated in two ways:

- sub specie temporis (under the aspect of time): this is the 'usual' way we contemplate the world, from our limited perspective. Our perspective is, however, partial and our knowledge is incomplete. This 'partiality', according to Spinoza, causes feelings of anxiety, grief, loss (i.e. mental suffering) etc because we do not understand the 'great scheme'. We also believe that the events are not inevitable, according to him.

-sub specie aeternitatis (under the aspect of eternity): this is the 'higher' way of contemplating the world. According to Spinoza, this kind of way of 'seeing' the world could be attained by philosophical reflection*. Once this insight is obtained, everything in the world is seen in relation to the whole and, instead of interpreting the world as a collection of separately existing entities (substances), the 'world' is actually seen as an unique substance, an unique entity, which is absolute and eternal. All particular things in the world are seen as 'modes' of the Substance (i.e. God), not individual substances themselves (in the first Part of the 'Ethics' he argued that a 'substance' must be eternal, ontologically and conceptually independent). At the same time, all the 'modes', our finite mind included, are seen in a way eternal, not because they are eternal in themselves but they participate in the eternal Being of God/The Substance - that's why he says: "The mind is eternal in so far as it conceives things from the standpoint of eternity" in Part V of the 'Ethics'. Since the mind is seen as eternal, it is also in a sense free from death and therefore, and for a mind that understands this, it becomes fearless and free from suffering (i.e. 'salvation' as he understood it). Also, any kind of judgement that arise from the 'lower' perspective is transcended. So the world is neither just or injust, neither imperfect nor perfect (at least as we usually understand the terms)

*This kind of thought that a 'higher' way of contemplating/knowing/understanding the world wasn't introduced by Spinoza. Nor Spinoza was particularly 'original' in his metaphysics. Parmenides for instance IMO argued for more or less the same metaphysics and the same view that a 'higher perspective' is salvific/liberating. Spinoza, however, was maybe original in his conviction that philosophical reflection could lead to 'salvation'.

Anyway, as I said, I was presenting Spinoza's thought (as I understood it). I was actually a Spinozist in 2011-2013, but now my views are quite different. For instance I am neither convinced by his metaphysics (especially I quite disagree with his complete denial of any kind of free will) nor by his convinction that philosophy is 'liberating'. I do find his views fascinating and they did left a strong impression in me.

edit: @Gnomon, I think that this post might be of your interest too.

Then back to my points earlier about a god that can’t create a universe where joy and no suffering exist. God wants this universe to have suffering. And he could make a universe without it. That’s all the info you need. — schopenhauer1

What if, something like Christian universalism is true? Do you think that in this case suffering is still unacceptable if God exists?