6 ms·

This is poorly thought through, as it requires a fundamental tenant: “If there is a God, he automatically has a duty to ensure there is no suffering, of any kin

This is poorly thought through, as it requires a fundamental tenant: “If there is a God, he automatically has a duty to ensure there is no suffering, of any kind, for any reason, from any cause, or he is not good.” No religion believes that. Every religion also has an explanation for suffering. Enough of the stupid cheap shots that were worn out centuries ago.

piva00 10mo ago
Every religion has a cop out for the fact the same God who is so gracious to save your life is also the God responsible for giving kids cancer. It's a cheap shot because those explanations are absurdly cheap in their logic on how a ultimately-powerful being is there to save us while also being the master of all suffering. > “If there is a God, he automatically has a duty to ensure there is no suffering, of any kind, for any reason, from any cause, or he is not good.” Yes? If there's an all-loving God then it also being the source of all suffering does say it's not good. Why would a morally good being with this power decide to give horrible diseases to innocent kids? Or take your job away, and force you to pray for it so you can get another? It's a bit sadistic. So again, if there's a God it doesn't care at all about us.
- gjsman-1000 10mo ago
  > It's a cheap shot because those explanations are absurdly cheap in their logic on how a ultimately-powerful being is there to save us while also being the master of all suffering. "It's a cheap shot because it's cheap" is not an argument, the logic is circular. > Why would a morally good being with this power decide to give horrible diseases to innocent kids? Or take your job away, and force you to pray for it so you can get another? It's a bit sadistic. If a parent tells you don't date somebody, they're a bad fit; and you do so anyway, and they were a bad fit; do you blame your parents for not locking you in their basement to prevent it? Permissive will versus active will is Philosophy 101.
  - piva00 10mo ago
    Read it again, I said: It's a cheap shot because the religious explanations to suffering are cheap, they are retconning a fundamentally flawed logic that is not possible to exist unless you invent a yet more convoluted reason. They still do not explain why the suffering can only be abated by being more pious, a good being wouldn't make you beg on their feet to show you deserve to be spared from the suffering it created. So again, if there's a God, it doesn't care. If your God exists and makes you have to pray for it to solve the suffering it created, it's a sadistic one.
    - gjsman-1000 10mo ago
      Your argument assumes that an all-powerful being that permits suffering must be the source of suffering and must be sadistic. Those are both specific metaphysical claims that require their own defenses. As one example: Do your parents, who allow you to suffer learning in school, not care about you? You're treating it as self-evident when there's nothing self-evident about it. The free will defense, soul-making theodicy, and skeptical theism all offer coherent responses. You don't have to find them convincing, but 'I don't buy it' isn't the same as 'it's logically impossible.'
      - piva00 10mo ago
        My parents aren't all powerful, it's not a remotely close analogous to the force supposedly responsible for everything there is. Soul-making theodicy uses one of those cheap cop outs: suffering is necessary because humans need to learn. Basically all defences use the cheap excuse "you don't understand because you are human", leaving no logical argument left for us to find and requiring just to accept that the all-loving being creates suffering for reasons we cannot know. Which, again, is sadistic.
        gjsman-1000 10mo ago
        At this point, I find it interesting that for never mentioning what religion I follow, and for merely suggesting that prayer may be beneficial; your reaction is stronger than if I had simply blamed speaking to crystals at 2 AM after 5 glasses of wine in an attempt to manifest a job. If I had even suggested going to a My Little Pony Convention in an attempt to do networking, you would’ve scoffed less, which hardly implies good faith even with yourself. Also, your arguments are hardly original. They are 2,300 years old, originating with Epicurus, older than both Christianity and Islam. Regurgitation of them with such certainty is Reddit 2013-era levels of uninspired; as though both religions did not address these arguments from their foundation. I also find it astoundingly arrogant, because it implies that religious people have never witnessed or endured intense suffering, lest it be self-evident.

piva00 10mo ago

Every religion has a cop out for the fact the same God who is so gracious to save your life is also the God responsible for giving kids cancer. It's a cheap shot because those explanations are absurdly cheap in their logic on how a ultimately-powerful being is there to save us while also being the master of all suffering. > “If there is a God, he automatically has a duty to ensure there is no suffering, of any kind, for any reason, from any cause, or he is not good.” Yes? If there's an all-loving God then it also being the source of all suffering does say it's not good. Why would a morally good being with this power decide to give horrible diseases to innocent kids? Or take your job away, and force you to pray for it so you can get another? It's a bit sadistic. So again, if there's a God it doesn't care at all about us.

gjsman-1000 10mo ago
> It's a cheap shot because those explanations are absurdly cheap in their logic on how a ultimately-powerful being is there to save us while also being the master of all suffering. "It's a cheap shot because it's cheap" is not an argument, the logic is circular. > Why would a morally good being with this power decide to give horrible diseases to innocent kids? Or take your job away, and force you to pray for it so you can get another? It's a bit sadistic. If a parent tells you don't date somebody, they're a bad fit; and you do so anyway, and they were a bad fit; do you blame your parents for not locking you in their basement to prevent it? Permissive will versus active will is Philosophy 101.
- piva00 10mo ago
  Read it again, I said: It's a cheap shot because the religious explanations to suffering are cheap, they are retconning a fundamentally flawed logic that is not possible to exist unless you invent a yet more convoluted reason. They still do not explain why the suffering can only be abated by being more pious, a good being wouldn't make you beg on their feet to show you deserve to be spared from the suffering it created. So again, if there's a God, it doesn't care. If your God exists and makes you have to pray for it to solve the suffering it created, it's a sadistic one.
  - gjsman-1000 10mo ago
    Your argument assumes that an all-powerful being that permits suffering must be the source of suffering and must be sadistic. Those are both specific metaphysical claims that require their own defenses. As one example: Do your parents, who allow you to suffer learning in school, not care about you? You're treating it as self-evident when there's nothing self-evident about it. The free will defense, soul-making theodicy, and skeptical theism all offer coherent responses. You don't have to find them convincing, but 'I don't buy it' isn't the same as 'it's logically impossible.'
    - piva00 10mo ago
      My parents aren't all powerful, it's not a remotely close analogous to the force supposedly responsible for everything there is. Soul-making theodicy uses one of those cheap cop outs: suffering is necessary because humans need to learn. Basically all defences use the cheap excuse "you don't understand because you are human", leaving no logical argument left for us to find and requiring just to accept that the all-loving being creates suffering for reasons we cannot know. Which, again, is sadistic.
      - gjsman-1000 10mo ago
        At this point, I find it interesting that for never mentioning what religion I follow, and for merely suggesting that prayer may be beneficial; your reaction is stronger than if I had simply blamed speaking to crystals at 2 AM after 5 glasses of wine in an attempt to manifest a job. If I had even suggested going to a My Little Pony Convention in an attempt to do networking, you would’ve scoffed less, which hardly implies good faith even with yourself. Also, your arguments are hardly original. They are 2,300 years old, originating with Epicurus, older than both Christianity and Islam. Regurgitation of them with such certainty is Reddit 2013-era levels of uninspired; as though both religions did not address these arguments from their foundation. I also find it astoundingly arrogant, because it implies that religious people have never witnessed or endured intense suffering, lest it be self-evident.