Why does God allow suffering? Red pill part 1

Poor red pilled

 

who cares about red pill, green pill is the way to go

 

Underground Pill = Best Pill?

 

Are you really going to speak for God as to why it allows suffering?

 

Pills in all colours of the rainbow and the debate over the genitalia of an omnipotent spiritual being mentioned already. As a wise man once said: “I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."

 

And yet everybody believes themselves to be a part of this 1%

 

I'm just going to left this here for those that think god is male.

 

suffering allows us to grow indivijually

 

Funny of you all to think god has even a concept of what suffering is...

 

I was always of the mindset that the answer to the problem lies in the arena of love. As God is love and makes us creatures who are free to love (or not, since love can only be love if offered freely), unfortunately humans also make many choices contrary to love - contrary to God, contrary to fellow human beings, and contrary to themselves (e.g., addictions, among many other examples). This I understand as the beginning of sufferings and its ongoing experience in human generations. But, it never was intended to be that way. Yet, having evolved that way, even suffering can be embraced with a loving motivation (especially on behalf of another - like when one might labor to ease another person's suffering) to make it at least more bearable but also somewhat redemptive and noble in human existence.

That's all! No pills, not propaganda, no part 2.

Best wishes!

.

 

the worlds a fucked up place. my only beef is when innocent children get molested, raped, killed etc. when i hear of shit like that. it makes me not believe in a god or divine plan.

 

"I prove supernatural claim using my interpretation of 1960s rat study"

lmao

Sorry, not to dismiss the whole post, but I'm literally dismissing the whole post. Let's prove something logically... but how... AH YES, behavioral science, which is literally just speculation based on qualitative observations caused by hypothetical, unobservable traits. Behaviors and social interactions among animals, let alone humans, are so poorly understood that we could hardly call this a "science" at all.

This is gonna be good. I suspect that the only thing to be revealed is your lack of ability to interpret data.

You assume that a world without suffering is well-represented by the rat study. This consequently assumes that we would be able to identify what a world without suffering would even look like, which we can't. If a utopia is well-represented by an abundance of food and water and lack of natural predators, then aren't prisons and insane asylums also utopias?

Does that mean it is impossible for God to create a world without suffering? I guess that rules out the existence of the Christian god, since he's supposedly omnipotent. Or if he could create such a world, but made us so that we must suffer, then he can't be omnibenevolent. You are proving too much.

How could you possibly know what rats find desirable? Or do you genuinely find it desirable to have infinite food and water, but be trapped in a test lab? Or do you genuinely think that being trapped in a lab with nothing but food, water, and other animals is desirable?

Yeah, it would be horrific to be used as a test subject for your entire life. #animaltestingismassivelygay

Again, when was this utopia I've never heard about? And if utopias always end up shitty for us, then are they really utopias? I wouldn't want to have the job of explaining that.

Again, how are these civilizations akin to utopias if they decline? Wouldn't a utopia be a civilization that doesn't decline? You keep asserting qualities about utopia, but all of the examples you cite are of things that aren't utopias. It's like saying "non-utopias are shitty, therefore utopias don't work". X = 4, therefore Y = 21.

I didn't ask. But you're right, there is no evidence because wtf is perfection? Was Rome perfect? Or the British empire? Not for the non-Romans, that's for sure. Gandhi was probably more than a little pissed. And you realize people can get murdered and raped in peacetime? First you redefined "utopia" to mean "infinite food and water", and now it is apparently equivalent to "long time peace". None of these definitions preclude suffering, whereas a supposed utopia would.

And if your whole point is that "utopias aren't utopias," then I have no words. You can't just say "utopias aren't utopias. Here's an example of a utopia. Jk, it's actually not a utopia. Red-pilled." That would be nonsensical.

Yeah I guess cancer victims are the lucky ones after all. (sarcasm) I like how you threw the "perhaps" in there, implying that you are just guessing. I didn't know "answering this question logically" involved guesswork?

Let me see if I follow this. No suffering --> lose sympathy/empathy --> lose sense of humanity --> therefore, suffering is justified.

You are correct that sympathy/empathy depend on suffering, since sympathy is the ability to understand or internalize another's suffering and empathy is the awareness of another's suffering. You are also correct that they would be reduced (in fact, these emotions would be impossible) in absence of suffering. You are, however, incorrect in assuming that a world without suffering, sympathy, and empathy would be inferior to a world with these things. How could you possibly know this? First, if you believe the absence of sympathy/empathy would result in us suffering, then such an assertion would be contradictory for obvious reasons. If not, then you must at least admit this: sympathy/empathy are useful to us because they help us identify and reduce suffering. But since it would be impossible to identify or reduce suffering in a utopia, then there would be no need for such emotions.

Furthermore, if you want to place value in our "humanity" - which depends on our ability to experience sympathy/empathy - then you must 1) explain why this is valuable in the first place (are people with antisocial personality disorder not human?) and 2) admit that you also value suffering as a consequence. To value suffering would result in a very strange ethical framework (recall my facetious remark about cancer being a good thing).

Again, this is incoherent so I won't even scrutinize it.

Ah, so "we just can't stand it" wasn't the logical answer? Great, let's hear the logical one then.

Well, I certainly hope so. Either way, I'm satisfied. But it sounds like you're already hinting that you might evade your task of making a descriptive statement about God.exe

Again, how do we know what the "best circumstances" look like?

Okay, so to remind you, the question was: "Why does God allow suffering?" And your conclusion seems to be that we are the ones who create suffering. So now we can just ask, why would God create humans that create suffering? We haven't actually gotten anywhere. Though, to your credit, you did answer the question. Yay!

​

Suppose I infect a society with a virus that turns people into cannibals, and they ask me, "why do you allow cannibalism?", to which I reply, "you are the ones creating the cannibalism", would I be answering the question fairly? Well, no - I would be lying. So now you have to face the dilemma of choosing between two undesirable gods:

1) The God who has no control over whether we suffer, and is thus not maximally powerful, which contradicts most people's definition of God
2) The God who could arbitrarily decide to end suffering but chooses (and chose) not to, and is thus not maximally benevolent or loving, which similarly contradicts most conceptions of God


Rethink this. Bluepill gang 4 life.​