You should explain this

Well I wasn't asking about people nor the bible's propositions.

I was asking if you think someone who brings children into the world causes innocent suffering and thus evil.

Can I take from your statement "judgment calls on net benefit to ourselves, the world, and our children" that you believe that creating children can be good even though innocent suffering will result?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I should explain this or what? Am I going to hell?

Assuming you are asking a question, I don't understand the POE. I find it a silly construct on many levels. One level is that people allow themselves a "net" analysis, for instance when bringing children into suffering but would say God can't exist if he created this world where suffering exists.

I understand that one response to the foregoing is to say "God is supposed to be all good but I'm not claiming to be all good." But I think that is an evasion as the acts are similar: God created a world where suffering exists and a Person having a child is causing suffering to exist. How do you claim that the former act is evil and the latter act is not?

Another level where I have a problem is that most POE advocates would object to a god that would interfere in human action by, for instance, by prohibiting people from doing anything that that causes suffering. For instance by stopping a violent criminal and wiping his mind clean before he assaults someone (or, for instance, causing people to no longer desire sex). Stated another way, an all good God would not have allowed human choice. So is human choice evil?

The counter thought experiment is to ask a POE believer: if you had the power to extinguish the universe and thus ensure that there would be no more innocent suffering, would it be good to extinguish the universe?

Another level on which the POE is silly to me is that the POE posits an all powerful god, yet strips god of that power. An all powerful god can rectify any suffering that occurs, thus, solving the supposed POE.

So to me it seems the POE begins by positing something beyond human comprehension, and then argues against the proposition on the basis of human comprehension.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

It was an innocent question - I don't see the connection between the POE and the decision to have children or not, I don't see this as an issue for believers nor non-believers

The connection seems obvious, even if it is superficial.

If you object to the goodness of God (or, more accurately, to the existence of a good God) because suffering exists, isn't everyone who brings children into existence guilty of perpetuating suffering?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It may be obvious, however except for the rare nut job no one takes that position, that is, neither believers nor atheists believe the world is evil so I'm not having children. The only POV I can imagine would be someone who believes we are living in an evil-founded simulation.

that is, neither believers nor atheists believe the world is evil so I'm not having children.

Exactly the point, though, isn't it?

Like I said, it's a superficial comparison. But a lot of times people talk about the world as if it's some ongoing nightmare overflowing with nothing but suffering when talking about the problem of evil- how could a good God possibly create something this awful! In reality, the world and existence in general is pretty awesome, despite the reality of suffering.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yes, but you should be asking about the bible's propositions because my original statement that you had a problem with was: the bible defines God away. It seems to me that you want to come up with an H- definition of God here. Sure, I can deal with the issues of your personal definition in due time, but can we stick to what I said long enough so it doesn't get all confused?

But aren't you coming up with your own definition of God as well or choosing one to use? Even within the Christian tradition, God is defined differently, using the same texts. Reading the works of the mystics like Meister Eckhart & Thomas Merton will lead you to a totally different understanding of God than someone like a Joel Osteen, Jerry Falwell, etc. Some define God as something "out there and omniscient" as you seem to be doing, but others define God moreso as being in an event, a force. Barth described God as something that was like an explosion in the encounters of what we know. It's just not so simple and as easily dismissed in looking at one mindset -- which, sadly, is probably the most simplistic mindset of religion -- and thinking one understands a fullness of the tradition or can equate it all as equal.

People do tend to oversimplify God (it's hard not to), but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is mostly unanimous in its belief that God is all-good and all-powerful. More complex, deeper, nuanced beliefs about God do not solve Christianity's problem of evil.

That said, it's only a problem for the Christian belief system- it doesn't begin to address the existence of "God" in general.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

True with the oversimplification. Concepts of the immortal cannot be adequately captured with mortal thinking, hence the reason why these are conversations that, quite literally, span the centuries as opposed to items of closed discovery and resolution.

I'd say that one must really define "all powerful" before making the leap that it's a nearly unanimous belief. There is the tricky difference between stated theological belief and practiced ecclesiology and "all powerful" seems to differ between theology and ecclesiology, not unlike my earlier post referencing Hell and stated belief but practiced disbelief.

But, yes, the conversation about the existence of a god in the first place is something yet different altogether and not so easily defined even within one tradition.

Honestly, I think "all-powerful" is fairly straightforward and relatively easily understood, as well as being a constant across Christian belief. God can do all things, nothing is impossible for God.

A more fruitful discussion when it comes to the problem of evil would probably entail defining and understanding the concept of "all good."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You can always choose a religion that doesn't require an omniscient and omnipotent creator. Or one that doesn't believe in free choice.

Thank you.

"All powerful" may be straightforward in its most simplistic sense -- that god is something "out there", we're here, and god can see everything before it happens & do whatever it wants -- but it's a highly problematic definition in many ways. Mostly, it presupposes a fairly fixed type of being for god, but then the deeper problems are with the interaction of god and humanity.

But in the end we could spend a ton of time debating or philosophizing this stuff and actually do absolutely nothing. The problem with philosophy & theology are when they only philosophize and theologize, but do nothing. The Pope just spoke about this & uninvolved church attendance. And he's correct -- right theology without right living in the community of humanity is just empty noise.

So to that end, my 3 year old is getting up and I'm gonna go make Elsa & Anna (Frozen movie) cookies with her and get to the business of right living.

No.

An omniscient and omnipotent god both knows the outcome and has the ability to control or contain it. If that god is also benevolent, then there should be no suffering. And you can't argue that this omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god is utilitarian and judges the outcome based on whether, over all, benefits outweigh the suffering. Because this god is omnipotent, which should mean that it has the ability to eliminate the suffering part of the equation.

A human isn't omnipotent or omniscient. So it's possible that a human can recognize the so-called problem of evil and still believe that the child he or she brings into the world will have an overall positive life. That person might actually think that because of his or her parenting skill, station in life, means and resources, etc., that bring a child into the world will be an overall net benefit. The parent may be wrong, but hey, he or she's not omniscient.

As I said, the analogy is superficial. It's not wholly without merit, though.

You didn't really answer the question, though: Yes, it's true that humans aren't omniscient or omnipotent. And yes, it's true that a person might believe or hope that his child's life will be, on balance, positive. But isn't that person still responsible for the suffering the child will inevitably experience in the course of that life?

I think people are being a little hasty to jettison any consideration of the net positive of our universe, too. Who says that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have to create a universe without suffering in order to bring about the best possible creation? If there were no sentient beings in the universe, there would be no suffering at all. Would that be more or less benevolent on God's part? Are you sure that allowing some degree of suffering doesn't maximize the positive that is possible in creation?

Is all suffering a negative? Is it like a cosmic balance sheet, with any suffering at all throwing the entire ledger into meaninglessness?

To return to the parental analogy, aren't there situations in which a parent will allow for his child to risk suffering in order to increase the child's happiness ultimately? Isn't it true that trying to shield the child from suffering altogether stunts development? Maybe some suffering isn't really a cosmic defect, but merely a condition appropriate to our nature, without which we could not be fully what we are.

The problem of evil is real, and not easily answered by considering one aspect- there are many different approaches to it, and many challenges to reflect on.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Would you have god take away people's ability to choose their actions? Specifically the actions that cause others to suffer?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Nevermind. (in other words, I stand corrected.)

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

But isn't that person still responsible for the suffering the child will inevitably experience in the course of that life?

Depends on what you mean by responsible. What level of responsibility or accountability does someone have if they lack the mens rea.

Who says that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have to create a universe without suffering in order to bring about the best possible creation?

Well, if a god were omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to create a universe that didn't have suffering and was the best possible creation?

I agree that not all suffering is negative. And yes, parents will allow their kids to go through trials for their betterment. But that's not even comparable to the kind of suffering that goes on in the world.

My point, and I say this as a nonbeliever, is that the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient god is overplayed and is not required by Christianity or the Bible. When I was a believer, I viewed those characterizations as hyperbole -- that the God of the Bible was really, damn powerful and smart, more so than any thing else out there (Marduk, Baal, etc.). Not that he was truly all powerful and all knowing in a literal sense.

Depends on what you mean by responsible. What level of responsibility or accountability does someone have if they lack the mens rea.

Who lacks the mens rea? You know what the world is like. You know nobody makes it through without suffering, even in the best possible circumstances. If you know your offspring will undoubtedly suffer, are you or are you not responsible for that suffering if you choose to procreate?


Well, if a god were omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to create a universe that didn't have suffering and was the best possible creation?

Maybe? That's the issue, right? And I'm saying, maybe not. A universe that didn't have what we consider suffering would also lack much- most, probably- of what we consider good, right?


My point, and I say this as a nonbeliever, is that the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient god is overplayed and is not required by Christianity or the Bible.

Ehhh . . . It's pretty well established in the Bible, and has always been integral to Christianity. Additionally, those characteristics are often arrived at by philosophical reasoning. It's the benevolent part that can be a hang up there.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't believe in god, so I don't know what I would have something I don't believe in do.

There are religions that don't believe in free choice. And, in fact, I believe it's more commonly referred to as "free will," which is a slightly different concept.

The apologetic reconciliation I've heard between omniscience and free will (or choice) is often with a comparison to how a parent will know how his or her child will react under certain circumstances. While the child is still free to make a choice, the parent knows the child so well that the choice can be anticipated. Only with this god, the knowledge is perfect.

Another analysis would be chaos theory, except that god has the ability to still predict or know what the result will be.

With regard to whether this god should restrict people's choices knowing the resulting suffering, perhaps he thinks that free will is more important than suffering, or that the cost of suffering is worth free will.

It's pretty well established in the Bible, and has always been integral to Christianity. Additionally, those characteristics are often arrived at by philosophical reasoning. It's the benevolent part that can be a hang up there.


I'll agree that it's integral to mainline Christianity, for the most part. I don't agree that it's well established in the Bible.

The apologetic reconciliation I've heard between omniscience and free will (or choice) is often with a comparison to how a parent will know how his or her child will react under certain circumstances.

I think there isn't really as big of a conflict between omniscience and free will as people sometimes think. Knowledge is not control.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Moving on then...

One of the issues with even the "net good" concepts of God is that "net good" is a really, really low hurdle to get over. Vladmir Putin could make the argument that he is saving lives by carpet bombing Aleppo -- a net good. The torturers from the Spanish Inquisition could argue that a short stint of torture here on earth -- designed to help you understand the benefits of confession and belief -- easily outweighed the eternal torment that was waiting for you in the hereafter. When MLK makes the statement "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", theologians would need to reply "Well, actually...".

I'm not sure that this is a satisfactory approach either.

And it's not all tied to mankind and his/her decisions. You go out in the wild and basically all animals consume other animals in order to live. It's the way of the world.
Heck, lionesses often begin eating gazelles while they're still alive... balls first! That's having your innocents suffer, I'll tell you what.