Does God cause suffering??

[MacRS4]

Another point - imagine being that deity and knowing full well that you could enact this wondrous place... but in doing so you know that you would have to cause a significant amount of pain and suffering.

Would you do it? Or would you hold back because of the suffering?

You can make that smaller. You know your children will suffer and die (I'm cringing writing this - as a father it's an impossible and painful thing to comprehend) and yet you still choose (well, most of you ) to have them?

You'd hope the joy would outweigh the suffering wouldn't you? I guess it's all a question of scale.

 

[Aedus]

For one there is very little detail there. So again I would doubt that we are getting the whole story. Yes it is being spun as religiously motivated but they also quite explicitly state "other reasons". Except it was the religious ones that were singled out.

In a grand scale of overall non-compliance then such isolated incidents are to be expected as they do occur for homeopathy etc. But that hardly is religion specific. Again in a long medical career in mainly paediatrics I have never seen or heard of such a case. Non-compliance is rife of course for a variety of reasons but not such as these isolated incidents from the US as you have linked there.

What are your thoughts on the other points I raised?

There is some more details, there's another case here:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc3.html

I'm not sure if the kid died or not, but maybe a bit of reading for you. (I was too lazy to read it all)

On the first other point you made, would you rather have more suffering now, and hardly any suffering in the future? Or some suffering for an un-foreseen time? People will be doing it in the childs best interests, but then again there is cases where parents go completely over the top. But there's a massive difference between suffering then death, or suffering and a better life afterwards.

 

[wannabedamned]

Hmm, we must be learning from different books lol.

My recollection was not a death tree, or death fruit. It was forbidden sacred fruit, and they were cast out of Eden by God for eating it. So they were not warned against eating it for safety reasons. Rather as a test, and its one they failed. And because they failed, The were made to suffer.

 

[icysniper]

I'm sorry but your analogy doesn't fit the Biblical account.

God didn't force-feed Adam and Eve death-apples. He warned them about the death-apples, and told them not to eat them, because they'd die.

He could just as easily have told them "don't jump off this cliff here, you'll die when you hit the rocks at the bottom."

He didn't throw them off the cliff or kill them by any other direct action. He simply said "this here tree will kill you. better not eat from it".

yeh and then the devil came along and tempted them, God would surely know about this as he is omniscient, so he knew that they would suffer for eating it, why did he not intervein, even to warn them further???

 

[Troezar]

Do you mean the question of whether god causes suffering? Because in that case no, we're not assuming anything. The fact that people believe in some sort of god has implications, thus forming a basis for the question.

Yea, if we're talking about adam and eve then we're making assumptions. But that's not really the point of the thread's question..

The whole point of the question by the OP seems to rest on the existence of God. No God equals no question and therefore nothing to contemplate, discuss or debate...which begs the question why am I discussing this?!

 

[helpimcrap]

god doesn't cause suffering. Go's subjects cause suffering in their misguided readings of what he allegedly said through people etc.

So no - god aint all that and shouldn't even be important enough to be blamed!

 

[MacRS4]

You don't seriously believe the Adam and Eve story is literally true do you? So we're all directly related to A&E? What about Cain & Abel? Where did they come from? From A&E right? So who did Cain & Abel mate with?

The Bible is rarely taken literally when it's studied mainly due to the time periods associated with the passages. Most of the stories seem to relate to 'getting a message across' often for people who are illiterate. Best way to do that is by story.

If you look at Creationism for example, as a 'story' it's a basic way to describe evolution with the days - bear in mind you don't know how long the days are....

 

[wannabedamned]

You don't seriously believe the Adam and Eve story is literally true do you? So we're all directly related to A&E? What about Cain & Abel? Where did they come from? From A&E right? So who did Cain & Abel mate with?

The thread is asking GCSE Religious Study questions. Answering with anything other than Adam and Eve, Would result in a bad mark.

I believe in historical events in the Bible, But i believe in nothing to do with the 7 days of creation or adam and eve.

 

[Glaucus]

He didn't throw them off the cliff or kill them by any other direct action. He simply said "this here tree will kill you. better not eat from it".

And with out that option there is no free will.

It all comes down to.

Is free will evil, or necessaries. With free will God can not intervene.

 

[Alex74]

The whole point of the question by the OP seems to rest on the existence of God. No God equals no question and therefore nothing to contemplate, discuss or debate...which begs the question why am I discussing this?!

Ok, assume no god.
=> there are a lot of people believing in gods which dont exist.

That doesnt mean that such beliefs don't have any effect in our society. If group A believe that some dude in the sky created them 20,000 years ago decide that their beliefs are so superior to that of group B and enslave them under some divine right of superiority, then that amounts to suffering.

In my example I'm explicitly defining a causal link and yes it's an extreme example, but my point is that the concept of 'god' has consequences in our society. That's why this thread as gone on for so long, because there's real discussion from all perspectives to be had on the subject. From the most militant athiest to a devout believer.

 

[Gackt]

Not the kind of evidence that you would like. I can't arrange for you to see a dead person be brought back to life whilst you watch.

The evidence I work on is a firm belief that the Bible is accurate when describing God's abilities and past actions.

So you have no evidence then.

Thus it is important for me to have faith in the authenticity and accuracy of the Bible as a whole.

How fundamentally illogical. You try to apply logic to your arguments, but then revert back to the fallacy that is faith. Your extremist views are flawed.

 

[philip2009]

Yes God causes appalling suffering for many in society, but like a good politician bribes enough people to keep quiet about it that nothing will ever change - if you haven't guessed that already.

 

[Xordium]

/snip

I guess my point is as thus. You have highlighted a few cases where a parent's religious convictions have caused further suffering to the child. From this we could draw two things:

1/ The parents caused the suffering as it was their choice
2/ God gave the parents free-will so maybe he is accountable for their actions.

However, this is kind of irrelevant to what I have seen as a paediatrician. That being when all is said and done, and in light of the links you have given, I have never ever seen such a case or even one close to approaching it (I have seen some crazy homeopathic ones mind you).

However, I have seen on multiple occasions the situation where parents, whom had no religious conviction whatsoever, pursue avenues that should really never have been explored. They caused more suffering because "they knew" to not go to any lengths to keep their child alive, with the associated increased suffering, would cause a definite end. It was their direct lack of religious belief that increased the suffering. In light of the frequency of me witnessing this compared to the non-existence, in my experience, of religious belief causing further suffering (beyond the JW blood scenario) then I can only conclude that on balance of religious conviction (and therefore god maybe) causes less suffering. At the very least this scenario should not be used as a argument against it.

(I do find it hard to believe I have argued for religion twice now in a week)

 

[wannabedamned]

Yes God causes appalling suffering for many in society, but like a good politician bribes enough people to keep quiet about it that nothing will ever change - if you haven't guessed that already.

It's where Saddam Hussein went wrong... If you're going to be a genocidal dictator. make sure to write a good book!!

 

[semi-pro waster]

Why does it have to be the case?

I'm saying that it doesn't have to be the case that you can create a falsifiable hypothesis, that is to say one which meets scientific criteria. Are you asking why I'm saying that? If so it's because a god is (usually) by definition outwith the bounds of the norm and not bound by the ordinary rules of the physical world, since they are metaphysical beings.

Also references on those attempts would be awesome .

Maybe I should simply have said that if anyone had managed to create a falsifiable hypothesis that they'd be the most famous person in the World, imagine if you could come up with such a test and bring to an end the question once and for all... Since we don't seem to have such a test it seems reasonable to assume that it hasn't been created yet.

As my understanding of hypotheses goes, one presents a theory, which is either substantiated to some pre-determined degree of certainty or implied to be false given that same degree of certainty. Now obviously I'm not going to go and say,
Hypothesis: "There exists god".

No, one has to be more specific. For example, as seems to be the pathological example, the christian trinity.

One possible flaw is that the hypothesis is so inconsistent. The bible, again for example, being a book of different perspectives of what were supposedly the 'same events' is itself contradictory. How can we form a logical hypothesis based on that?

And that's pretty much the point, you cannot form a logical hypothesis based on something that does not necessarily have to obey a logical framework. My fundamental problem with your original point is that you have taken observable evidence as a prerequisite for proof of a god - there's no reason that a god should conform to what we would require in terms of proof for a scientific theory. The reason for this is simple - science is not and never was designed to determine the existence (or otherwise) of a god.

 

[Xordium]

And that's pretty much the point, you cannot form a logical hypothesis based on something that does not necessarily have to obey a logical framework. My fundamental problem with your original point is that you have taken observable evidence as a prerequisite for proof of a god - there's no reason that a god should conform to what we would require in terms of proof for a scientific theory. The reason for this is simple - science is not and never was designed to determine the existence (or otherwise) of a god.

+1

Covered here very recently http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18137614

 

[FoxEye]

Hmm, we must be learning from different books lol.

My recollection was not a death tree, or death fruit. It was forbidden sacred fruit, and they were cast out of Eden by God for eating it. So they were not warned against eating it for safety reasons. Rather as a test, and its one they failed. And because they failed, The were made to suffer.

I should state that I called it a death-apple to convey it's effect upon being eaten

The actual tree mentioned in the Bible is "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad". Hence why they only realised they were naked after they ate from it.

It was only a 'death-apple' in the sense that God warned them they'd die if they ate it. Which they did, tho not immediately.

 

[FoxEye]

You don't seriously believe the Adam and Eve story is literally true do you? So we're all directly related to A&E? What about Cain & Abel? Where did they come from? From A&E right? So who did Cain & Abel mate with?

There's plenty of reason to take it literally. Later passages explicitly state that we're all descended from A&E. Multiple times in multiple books of the Bible.

The assumption is that A&E were significantly biologically different from ourselves, such that in-breeding was not detrimental. In fact is was 100% necessary of course.

Let's not forget that A&E and their immediate offspring lived for hundreds of years. They must have been superior to us physically, and this must also have manifest itself in being able to have healthy children with their close relatives.

 

[MacRS4]

I'm going to drop out of this now, other than to say the idea that A&E were different from us, and lived for 100s of years....is poppycock and doesn't fit in with any known science.

What about Neanderthal? What about dinosaurs? So we didn't evolve from apes then?

 

[FoxEye]

I'm going to drop out of this now, other than to say the idea that A&E were different from us, and lived for 100s of years....is poppycock and doesn't fit in with any known science.

What about Neanderthal? What about dinosaurs? So we didn't evolve from apes then?

Well it's straight from the Bible. If you're going to debate A&E, why would you ignore what the Bible says about them?

Call it poppycock if you like, but I didn't just make it up