I'm not sure God is in a position to like or dislike anything, because it is omnipotent. God can love, or annihilate. Perhaps only finite powers can like and dislike, We can only like and dislike things that come to us from outside that are not under our control, or that we have only partial control over. Not sure though. — bert1
Yes, I'm aware of the dilemma. But human suffering is only evil for humans, not God. No skin off his nose. — bert1
But why wouldn't an all powerful/knowing god not be able to take on the perspective of a (or any given) human and see suffering from that perspective? — schopenhauer1
Now if god wants suffering, that is an interesting notion we must explore.. — schopenhauer1
I don't know, but maybe because in doing so it would cease to be God. If God isn't made of parts (as dogma has it) it has to do things wholly. So maybe God can take on the perspective of a human, but in doings so becomes human. I don't know. Theology is a bit guessy. — bert1
I think we can all agree that suffering can teach us things. It's the idea of "unnecessary" suffering that the philosopher objects to as if he can finely discern different sorts of suffering into "necessary" and "unnecessary." Who knows what is necessary for the soul. — BitconnectCarlos
Yes, I'm generally not a fan of the 'can do anything' version of omnipotence that just leads to paradoxes. — bert1
3 Even the term "necessary" in front of suffering is problematic, as that implies that God is limited by some sort of super-force (necessity) that he can't help but WANT to see played out (by his human subjects??). — schopenhauer1
4 And then human subjects- why does he NEED an audience/players to play his game? This goes back to necessity.. An all powerful/knowing/perfect god and NEED doesn't seem to fit unless we go back to my Point number 1.. — schopenhauer1
Why are we here? What is our goal? Possibly for self-development. Or improve the world. But I agree with Wittgenstein -- probably not to have the most blissful experience possible. So if the goal is self-development then suffering can be a tool towards that end. — BitconnectCarlos
I agreed with points 2 and 3. I would go back to Job on this one: As humans our perspective is incredibly limited. Some suffering is understandable and can be attributed to bad deeds, other suffering isn't. Ultimately, suffering is just another state of being. One among many. One can even experience bliss within suffering - see near death experiences. — BitconnectCarlos
can good for humans be at odds for good for God? — schopenhauer1
In the biblical worldview they are one and the same. A free will is a will aligned with God. If we become something else, say hedonists, then our "good" can differ from God's good. Thus the hatred of idolatry. — BitconnectCarlos
Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1
If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering.
Many times the abused identifies with the abuser- they deserve it. It's their fault. They should have done better.
Many times the abused excuses the abuser- it's their nature. Who are we to disagree. — schopenhauer1
The Bible says that women are property, that homosexuals ought to be put to death, that anybody who worships a false God ought to be executed, that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned at the gates of the city. Those ideas are absurd.
JS Spong
Of course many who defend such a malevolent deity will argue that humans don't have the capacity to judge god and that he has his own special wisdom or celestial discernment, which humans couldn't possibly understand. It's that kind of thinking, I suspect, which leads to mass murdering children because god says it's ok. — Tom Storm
1. Right but it's the need to see other people suffer, necessarily or not that seems interesting here. Why would an all good god care to see any suffering? The problem is any answer requires you to explain in a very human perspective. Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1
Yes, which is where the "dilemma" of two views of suffering come from. There is the viewpoint from humans (suffering is bad). There is the view from God (suffering is good). The job of apologists is to make the two views align (suffering SEEMS bad to us, but is REALLY good in the grand scheme of things that we can never understand). — schopenhauer1
So it's not that "God likes to see suffering" it's that the world has a certain general way of operating that occurs throughout the generations that ancient writers take note of. Now if you want to go and say "God loves that suffering!" or that suffering is "good for God" now you're engaging in your theology. You are going beyond the pattern recognition and engaging in your own theology when you say that this suffering is "good" for God or that God "likes" the suffering. — BitconnectCarlos
Even the standard theological reasons are rehashed human terms attributed to the deity. It's BitconnectCarlos' interpretation of a religious interpretation of suffering. — schopenhauer1
If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering. — schopenhauer1
Within the biblical worldview we all need to have a general trust in God. That doesn't mean that all suffering needs to be deemed as good. It could be punishment. But it all happens under God's purview. Job lays out the proper way to dealing with unexplainable suffering e.g. you can curse the day you were born, but you can't curse God.
Just because suffering happens under God's purview doesn't mean that he delights in it or wants to see it. — BitconnectCarlos
But there's more.. Then there is the gaslighting aspect whereby it isn't god that is making you suffer. YOU are making you suffer by not following God's commands. God has a plan, and divine command. You must follow this plan or suffer the consequences. This is just a sophisticated version of the whole "God lacks, therefore he wants this game of free willed people to see how good he is". This is problematic as it goes way back to point 1 here: — schopenhauer1
Among the first ways we know God is that we fear him. God is terrifying. Reality is terrifying. So cross your Ts and dot your Is. It's not "gas lighting" and until you understand this point this discussion is futile. If you act in certain ways your suffering may very well be essentially "on you." We must first accept that this world has rules and if you violate these you hurt yourself.
This really goes back to Adam and Eve but we see it over and over again. Certain things are permitted, others are not, and quite frequently doing that which is unpermitted carries consequences. — BitconnectCarlos
That is to say, the deity now looks all too human, like us. A king that has created his subjects and now wants them to see the manifest greatness of his creation, and if they don't recognize this, they will be cursed, damned, obliterated, laid waste... The ancients saw their own kings and projected their propensities onto their deity. This is how kings act, no? Why not the king of the whole universe? Just a bigger version of this.. And just like a king sometimes grants mercy for those who see that he is indeed the just and righteous ruler that he is (narcissistic self-fulfilling prophecy when fear is involved), then the king of the universe all the same grants clemency. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.