Are you up to the challenge? — Noah Te Stroete

What's the challenge?

You’re not fooling me. With all atheists it starts out as personal. Only after finding reasons to hate God do they then rationalize that there is no God. — Noah Te Stroete

So, what's the rationale of "gratuitous suffering", then?

No idea man.

Are you really concerned about some hypothetical fawn in a forest, or are you in pain? — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I'm really concerned about the typical response to these questions. Being quietism, mysterium, and esoterics.

Not really. Where there is no intent, purpose, or plan there is no needless suffering. It's just suffering. Causality. Needless suffering is meaningful. Causality is meaningless. — creativesoul

So, there's no point to it then? I mean, if we can call it as "gratuitous suffering", then the presupposition is that it was in excess to some rationale. Yet, God remains silent, so what's the rationale here?

Remove all intent and purpose. Look at what's left. — creativesoul

Tough luck? Is that the appropriate response? Or that the world is a nasty place? Is that what you meant?

A gross oversimplification possibly; but, the thread can be distilled into the sentiment, that if suffering is natural (in the sense that a burning fawn in some forest was just plain unlucky), then why can we ascertain the possibility that it suffered needlessly?

Or I'll state this otherwise.

If the fawn burning to death is considered a 'natural' death, then there's something to say about the world we reside in, in terms of a cruel God.

It seemed like he was saying God is omnibenevolent. But i think in fact he was saying that people conceive of God as that but the fawn burning shows this is not the case. — Coben

All I'm saying can be distilled into the ethos, 'But, why God'? The concept of God as all-loving doesn't really mesh with the concept of a fawn dying through a fiery death.

You have claimed to have suffered. Do you hold a point even after I told you, hell associated with risk is feasable, because of your own weakness? Or are you just ignoring others? — Qwex

Sorry, not getting your point here. Are you saying that suffering is just, just because God made it a reality? Kinda stupid if you ask me.

I don't really know everything, hence the topic.

I seem to amiss with regard to notions about gratuitous pain and suffering. The burning of the fawn seems pointless or trite, or is there some purpose to this senseless suffering that it had to go through?

You ought use a few more "many Americans" or "some Americans" in your screeds, Wallows. — Frank Apisa

OK, Frank. That seems fair. Apologies.

All I’m saying is that you don’t know anything about God’s intentions. — Noah Te Stroete

His intentions are irrelevant. They reveal themselves with the working of the world at hand.

If what you're saying amounts to, "God works in mysterious ways," then there isn't really much to talk about and we might as well sit in silence with regards to the topic, then?

It seems that you’re judging the ‘goodness of God’ by a limited perception of value structure. — Possibility

I don't see value in pain and suffering. This sort of ties back into one of my old threads, about the inherent worth of suffering, if there is any. I don't think God suffers along with the burning fawn, or does He? One might even be inclined to agree that God is quite cruel. Or if you care to address the issue raised here:

Does God's omniscience have any coherent logical explanation for this occurrence of gratuitous pain and suffering? — Wallows

Can one even ascertain the notion of gratuitous pain and suffering with respect to notions of God?

I agree. Globalism and war mongering are big problems. — christian2017

What's the issue here, in your view?

That we do these things, is known. But, the why's are never really addressed.

I agree with you. It sucks. — christian2017

It sucks, because it shows America as power-mad and driven to go to no end to exploit whatever facet of humanity towards this goal, or just sucks that we do these things?

Do you mean the gymnastics involved in explaining away such obvious problems? — Coben

Yes, I meant that sorry. Since this is an evidential claim, of a helpless fawn burning in a forest on fire, it seems that we're left with no recourse; but, to say that something is wrong with some of the attributes held by God.

My response is that there is a problem. It doesn't disprove God's existence. But there is a problem. — Coben

Yes, well, what does that say about the mental gymnastics we play when presented with such things as God's omnibenevolence if we can come up with such examples as simple as this one?

The point is, you presume knowledge - one way or another - of something you absolutely have no knowledge of, and further, about that which a lot of smart people have concluded nothing can be known. And that's a problem. — tim wood

But, the point is that is this some kind of joke we play on ourselves if God's omnibenevolence can be negated with such a simple example?

I don't know. Did it fit? — TheMadFool

Not, really. The contradiction remains as stated. So, do we address the premises of the contradiction?

This seems more like trying to fit the characterization of God's omnibenevolence to the pertaining situation. One can always say, that God works in mysterious ways; but, that doesn't get us much afar, does it?

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't suppose there's an afterlife for the matter, or anyone or any being judging us after our stay on this rock.

In what sense?

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal. — Maw

Not only that; but, he's defying the expectations of the right and the left!

But!@1 Chomsky said this and that!

And what do you know about that? — tim wood

Well, I know the main attribute being omni-everything. So, there's that.

A contradiction is a logical problem and not a moral problem per se. — TheMadFool

Is that always true?

Whose character? — tim wood

God's character?

Decide, leap. If g/God can burn the fawn, then you've got no guarantees. More fool you if you thought you did. Except for those you give yourself. — tim wood

OK, so the point here is that God's actions are indefensible. So, then we plead ignorance or esoterics with regards to His character.

Otherwise, what should we abandon to make the situation less troublesome?

Whose clarity? I like clarity myself - and it cost me money to learn it. But here's a challenge: go back to your OP and try to see if anything in it is clear. — tim wood

OK

Folks claiming g/God is both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent are unwittingly dealing in paradoxes that Christian thinkers worked out a long time ago. I.e., exhibiting ignorance. — tim wood

Then you got the point? Since the point is indefensible by definition, then what are we left to do?

Assume, and you can demonstrate anything. Usually not worth the effort. There's a thread titled IRAC, about a way to rite posts, give the OP a read; it's not very long. — tim wood

Not that I assumed you would agree; but, if this is the simplest case possible to demonstrate the problem of evil, if any such exist, then you can see why I would assume this to be one where I would want to present it to the public, for sake of clarity?

The fawn burned. The reasons might be interesting. — tim wood

Yes, the fawn burned. And since we're going to assume that this is hard evidence for the problem of evil with respect to God, in as simple a case possibly stipulated, then no reasons for the goodness of God can be provided, can they?

Yet, we both understand the import of the burning fawn here.


Therefore, you also understand that anything is moot about God at this point, including yours.

It makes every sense in every world in which it occurs. — tim wood

Maybe the fact that it happened, then yes, we can all agree as to that. But, the ontological import is the same in any possible world, no?

What makes you think that justifying the fawn's suffering is necessary - or even possible? I'll buy that the fawn feels pain. Suffering? Ehh. Not so sure. And not even worth questioning or doubting, except when someone wants to make illegitimate use of it. I'm thinking you are very confused about boundaries. — tim wood

Maybe I'm confused. But, if we reduce the notion of the problem of evil to such a simple case (let's assume it's the simplest case imaginable), which leaves open room for doubting God, then doesn't that imply either/or two things, being that of which either God doesn't exist or we simply will never be able to understand Him?

I certainly don't mean to put the kibosh on your OP, but it does suggest that we all have to learn which questions are the best one's to ask ourselves and each other. — 3017amen

Well, if we simplify things, then a burning fawn makes no rational sense in any possible world or one where a God resides.

Let me try and use a mathematical analogy. Think of this as some epsilon-delta derivation of a point f(x) on the plane. x is the burning fawn, and no lower bound exists. Therefore, f(x) is the incoherence of/for which to maintain the goodness of God?

E) What is your conception of g/God such that any conception of h/Him by you would not be fundamentally flawed? — tim wood

None...

Therefore, one can either plead ignorance or simply retire from entertaining any notions/premises of A,B,C - in regards to trying to justify the fawn's suffering.

Christian apologetics. — 3017amen

But, the position is indefensible. So, what's the point of getting apologetic on this account?

I don't know what you are getting at.

I'll repeat the point of this thread in standard form.

A) God is omnibenevolent.
B) A fawn burns in the forest.
C) Any person can see that this was a case of gratuitous suffering, if not then why not?
...
D) Either God is not omnibenevolent or our conception of him is fundamentally flawed.

For whom are you speaking? — tim wood

Anyone who knows what suffering is?

Your faith in His omnibenevolence. Is the state of your faith a criterion even you would want? — tim wood

No, that's not my point. Regardless of whatever I believe, if I can spot suffering in such a simple case, then so can anyone else?

Well not being omnibenevolent is not the same as being cold and distant. God could be mostly good but makes certain sacrifices for his plan or mysterious ways etc. — DingoJones

Yes, that is also a common response. But, what alternatives are we left with when presented with the most simple of evidential evidence towards denying the goodness of God?