334
Why does God allow evil and suffering? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
87 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (15 children)

I'll break it down like this. Is all suffering necessary? Like do infants really need to get leukemia to achieve God's grand plan? Does he have the power to achieve his goal without giving infants leukemia?

It boils down to the fact that either he is not able to, and therefore not all powerful, or he is and chooses to give babies cancer anyway, and therefore not all good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago* (14 children)

    You seem to think that God is a micromanager which decide everything. It's not the Biblical God. This is explained by the myth of creation (yes it's a myth, but it's not because it's not historical that it's not meaningful). Evil and suffering wasn't in God's plan. What was in God's plan, was freedom for the Creation, which is not possible without an alternative: follow God's will, or not. The Creation chose to try an other way, and God cried. But he respected the choice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Evil and suffering wasn't in God's plan

    Did God create the universe? Did he know evil and suffering would occur before he created the universe? Could he have created the universe another way?

    If the answer to all 3 is yes, everything must be according to his plan. If the answer to any is no, you have to get rid of either all-knowing or all-powerful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    I say no to the last one. But that doesn't mean he's not all-powerful in the proper sense of the word, because he can't do impossible things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    I guess my next question would be why would it be impossible? I'll accept that he can't do logically impossible things, like make a square circle, but the idea that he could have made changes to nature is not logically impossible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    He can change nature. But not in a way that would preserve freedom and make nature obey all his wishes at the same time. That is the squared circle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I'm not talking about obeying his wishes, I'm talking about unnecessary suffering. Could he make a world with free will and no baby cancer?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    His wish is for the creation to be free of suffering. If he forced that, there wouldn't be freedom. And by freedom I'm not speaking about human agency, but the metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn't want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn't want

    Either God created that capacity (literally nothing can exist if he does not will it), or there are higher metaphysical concepts than God.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I wouldn't call logic a metaphysical concept. But yes, God can't go against it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    metaphysical capacity of the cosmos to be something God doesn't want.

    I mean that. So God is constrained by something other than logic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago

    No, this metaphysical capacity is the universe's, not God's. Freedom is the human form of a cosmological reality : the capacity not to be what God wants. God is the one who created the word that way, because he wanted a universe he doesn't control. Because if the universe can't not love God, then it can't love it. Love must be free.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    which is not possible without an alternative

    Oh? So he's not omnipotent then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'll cite myself one message higher:

    If your definition of omnipotence includes the ability to do the impossible, then, as a Christian, I have no problem saying that God is not omnipotent, but that is merely a matter of wordplay.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    The passive-aggressive "as per my last email" doesn't magically make that bs make sense. You do understand that, right?

    Omnipotence is defined as "unlimited power". god can't do X -> god is not omnipotent. Extremely simple stuff if you're not an apologist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •