God, the argument of unnecessary suffering

INTRODUCTION “He” will sometimes be used as a generalization for both “she” and “he”. I will introduce four more definitions that are not incompatible with any definitions given in R1 by Pro; God is also Wise (i. e. , He does things for a reason/wisdom), Just, the Creator and the Ruler of everything. Please note that this topic is very complicated and I believe (and will give some examples to show) that we have to consider some other factors in order to make a fair judgment. REBUTTALS God and unnecessary suffering P1: If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering exists C: Therefore more likely God does not exist P1: If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not exist Unnecessary vs. Necessary Many actions are unnecessary if only the moment at which that action takes place or even a future of some years is considered. For example, planting trees, educating children (for parents), studying for about 15-16 years (end of undergraduate education), investments etc. etc. Note that there are different kinds of great sufferings (mental, physical, economical etc. ) in doing the abovementioned actions for those who willingly do them. Then suddenly each of them becomes necessary when further future is considered, when; the trees start giving fruits, children start helping their parents and provide their own needs by themselves after successfully graduating and finding good jobs, investments start giving positive results etc. etc. , respectively. As you see, the factor considered here is further future. If one doesn’t consider it, all the above actions become unnecessary and they all become necessary when this factor is considered for each of them. Similarly, if we only consider the life until death, there are many unnecessary sufferings, I admit! But if we consider the afterlife, where suffered people (even animals according to Islam) are given opportunities for revenge (i. e. , taking back what once was taken from them) or things that make them very happy and satisfied, so that they don’t regret any suffering came to them; then none of those sufferings remain unnecessary anymore. Remember definitions given in R1 for unnecessary and necessary suffering! This assumption of afterlife is completely reasonable, possible, and compatible for God who is Omniscient, Just, loving, morally perfect, and Omnipotent! Prevention P1 is assumed to be true, because if God (as defined in R1) exists, then He would prevent unnecessary sufferings. Preventing a suffering is not always the only good (i. e. , necessary) thing to be done. Sometimes sufferings give rise to better results, at least, worthy of those sufferings. The above examples can be considered here. In addition, there are some goods that can only be gained by undergoing some sufferings e. g. , training, studying, thinking, working etc. . Remember: “No pain, no gain! ”[1] Q: God is Omnipotent and He can give those gains without any pain. A: Although He can, giving equal gain both to those who deserve it and to those who don’t is not reasonably fair. Q: God is Omniscient, he knows who deserves something and who doesn’t, no need for Him to test them. A: Although He knows and there is no need for Him to test them, people may not know and they may need to be tested to be convinced about what they really deserve. For God not to give people things they don’t deserve just because He knows they don’t deserve it is less reasonable thing to be done than doing so after testing them. Because people may object and think that they actually deserve those things. Therefore, letting them show what they really deserve and then giving them those things is a more reasonable/wiser way. This way those people who don’t receive a gain won’t object that they were treated unjustly. Note that afterlife also should be considered here! In short, only not preventing a suffering from happening doesn’t necessarily make that suffering unnecessary. =>These refute P1. P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering exists As I said before, I admit that suffering exists. Let’s see if any of them is unnecessary. When we look at the examples given by Pro, we can see that he considers death as the biggest suffering. As explained under rebuttal to P1, when afterlife is considered, death is no more an unnecessary suffering. But still I would like to concentrate more on this premise, because it contains many emotional sides, such as the examples provided by Pro, to which materials discussed above are not sufficient to be emotionally, not factually, convincing. Note that no unnecessary sufferings exist when afterlife is considered. Q: God is loving and morally perfect, how can He let such sufferings to happen? A: What would you think of a man who cuts or makes another person to cut a hand of his son when his son hasn’t done anything bad? A loving and morally good or a bad father? Bad, isn’t it? But what if in his son’s hand was gangrene? A loving, patient, and morally good father, isn’t it? As it is seen, an action can be good or bad depending on some other factors such as conditions and reasons. Therefore, preventing a suffering may sometimes give result to bigger sufferings. Let’s compare illnesses and dying people, especially children, with above example/analogy. Illnesses Would it be better if there were no illnesses at all? For me, yes! But what about doctors? By not preventing illnesses, God provides sustenance to millions of doctors and other personnel of hospitals. Would anyone give money to doctors if they didn’t become ill? God makes others give money willingly/unwillingly to doctors by sending them illnesses. There are also other factors that make doctors give money to others etc. Q: They wouldn’t become doctors etc. , if there were no illnesses. A: What would they become then? -Teachers? Studying is also a suffering. What if God prevented studying? -Policemen? Crimes are also pains and sufferings for others. What if crimes were prevented directly by God? -Etc? Etc. Etc? Death Would it be better if nobody died? If nobody died, then we wouldn’t find a place to stand. Overpopulation, limited resources, looking after your grand-grand-grand-…-fathers/mothers, becoming so weak that you can do nothing at all are only some issues that we would have to deal with. When we consider these issues, we understand how necessary death is. However, an afterlife with no death is a complete solution to problem of death of this life. Q: OK, death is important. But God is Omnipotent; he could make death without any illness or any painful cause. A: We hope we will live longer, if we pay attention to accidents, dangerous things etc. and this way we can get flavor from our life. Otherwise the idea of dying any moment would not let us truly get flavor from anything. Just imagine that our death comes with no prior cause. Illnesses or other causes may be considered as warnings of death. Death of Children If afterlife was a place with no suffering and pain for good people, at least for not-bad-ones, then death of children (who are at least not-bad-ones) would mean that they will be away from all the sufferings and pains of this life. If God is Just, then He will resurrect dead people, in order not to make their sufferings unnecessary. And it is not difficult at all for Him to create afterlife / resurrect dead people, since He is Omnipotent. Then He will surely create afterlife, since He is Omnipotent, loving and morally perfect. In short, when an afterlife is considered, there would be no unnecessary sufferings in this world. => These are sufficient to refute P2! RESULT: Since P1 and P2 are refuted, then C: More likely God does not exist is refuted! CONCLUSION The materials I provided above are sufficient to show that Pro’s arguments in R2 don’t establish the proposition that “God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false”. I look forward to Pro’s reply. SOURCES[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...