Originally Posted by Yoda
They're merely hypotheticals, though; I'm not suggesting we can prove it, or that it's necessarily true. But if we have no idea what causes something, I don't think we can exactly use it to invalidate the idea of a benevolent God. That's rather like the skeptic's version of the old trope about people invoking God to explain what they can't understand...invoking the absence of God to "explain" unexplained forms of suffering.
Yeah my bad, i went off into some 'talking aloud' theorising about how it might work - the idea of human influence on all diseases/infirmities (no matter how tangental) had never occurred to me. Wasn't meaning to suggest the absence of proof undermined the idea.
I think 'unexplained forms of suffering' seems a broad term there though. Are you talking about all diseases etc (& the absence of a complete cause & effect breakdown of their nature)? We've got a handle on some key elements at play in large numbers of diseases & infirmities etc - so 'partially understood' might be a better term
Originally Posted by Yods
Perfectly fair point, though the convenience is somewhat mitigated by it being inherent in the whole idea. That is to say, if God exists, it stands to reason that some things are going to be difficult to get our heads around. This may be convenient, but there's no conception of God that wouldn't include it, either.
Ay, seems true enough. The issue for a believer though, i would think, is in gauging best action. The picture of an ineffably benevolent God we're painting here suggests a fairly chaotic connection between moral actions and 'moral results'. Even with the guidance of a text like the Bible, the pursuit of apparently good actions could lead to suffering etc in others, if performed slightly at odds with the desires of this indefatigable creator. (Or perhaps even if in line with them, if I'm understanding your new take on the 'suffering promoting' aspects of God).
Let's describe a real life example just to ground it though. Say you don't 'pass by on the other side' when seeing someone in distress, aid them, but in handing them some form of help accidentally transfer swine flu to them, which in their weakened state kills them. Their kids survive but contract the flesh-eating MRSA bug in hospital from a kindly volunteer who, despite having washed her hands, was innocently carrying a tolerant strain in her nose and wiped her hand against it without thinking. Etc etc etc.
Would you feel you had done good in that circumstance? Done God's work?
You seem to be building up to the suggestion that you might have done. I am intrigued
Of course the problem for me here is that, although I've got no prob with the idea of a creator existing (the world lends itself to the idea in many ways), you're going to have to employ a 'perfect heaven' I suspect, to bring some of the 'traditional benevolence' back to the table. And you're also going to fall back on the broad 'God knows best' aspect too of course. Nothing wrong there from a theological perspective, it's just where the 'paradigm' clash really grinds for someone like me (given the true scantiness of 'a posteriori' backing for those realms of belief).
Originally Posted by Yods
This discussion has raised some new thoughts that I haven't much considered before about just what a benevolent God would really do. Most of us assume, conciously or otherwise, that a benevolent God would minimize suffering, at least insofar as it did not invalidate people's choices, but the more I think about it the more I feel otherwise. Not just in a "tough love" sense, but in a larger sense, as well. It's a bit hard to put into words, probably because it's not something I've thought much about yet.
With the 'increasing suffering' angle i can see where you might go. Lessons learned, 'beneficial' character building, testing of faith etc. (although I still question somewhat why a benevolent God wouldn't just zap us into ecstasy, say, rather than employ this whole free will facade, involving torment to the extent that it does. The fact that he hasn't leaves you believers in the position of having to
assume that all of this is part of the benevolence, prior to any other recourse to logic)
Originally Posted by Yods
You may be right, but I'd like to hear more. For the sake of argument: why wouldn't it work in both directions? Our conceptions about what are "normal" are understandable, but if we're talking about a God of limitless power, why can't we ask why our ceilings and abilities aren't higher? Presumably, He could have allowed us all to fly or heal quicker or make everyone an inch taller on average. If these things would increase our comfort or prosperity, is there any reason we shouldn't expect them from a benevolent God?
My bad again. I'd strayed from the theological framing again
. Sure, the absence of perfection could be viewed as a critique of the traditional benevolent God.
(My 'paradigm' kinda stops just at the principle that a creator could exist, based on observables, so i don't usually consider qualifiers like 'infinite power' etc. Have to keep reminding myself. I stayed on topic by using the 'ecstacy zap' question above though
)
In the nicest possible way tho 
). The 'inscrutable good' angle is a rather stonkingly huge get-out clause when it comes to examining good & bad in 'nature' & human actions though, it seems worth pointing out.
), and forgive my irritability, but this is maybe the third time someone's dropped into the middle of a discussion to try to make a point which is already under dispute or discussion of some kind, and always with the insinuation that they're blowing the doors of religion wide open or something.
... or maybe not 
Closed Thread
