Seriously! iambiguous wants HEAVE_n mode without doing the hard heave to earn it.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 2:18 am The existence of God is always something I believed was possible. After all, that is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself.
Instead, the part I always come back to is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
So, believing in the existence of God is not nearly as pressing as theodicy for some of us.
ME:- What is Theodicy?
Theodicy is a branch of theology and philosophy that seeks to answer the question:
In short, it is the attempt to justify the existence of a good and omnipotent God in the face of the reality of evil and suffering in the world.If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good, why does evil exist?
Origin of the Term
- []Coined by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in 1710 in his book "Théodicée" (meaning "the justice of God").
[]Derived from Greek: theos (God) + dikē (justice).
Theodicy tries to resolve the apparent contradiction between these claims:
- []God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
[]God is omniscient (all-knowing).
[]God is omnibenevolent (all-good).
[]Evil exists.
Major Types of Theodicy
- Free Will Theodicy (Augustine, Alvin Plantinga):
Evil exists because God gave humans free will, and humans chose to do evil. Free will is necessary for genuine love and moral responsibility. - Soul-Making Theodicy (Irenaeus, John Hick):
Suffering and evil are necessary for spiritual growth. The world is a "vale of soul-making" where humans develop into morally mature beings. - Greater Good Theodicy:
God allows certain evils because they lead to a greater good or prevent a greater evil. - Punishment Theodicy:
Evil and suffering result from divine punishment, either for original sin or personal wrongdoing. - Mystery or Skeptical Theism:
God's reasons for allowing evil may exist but lie beyond human understanding.
ME:- Is God "wholly good" if it creates a planet, Earth, forms life including humans and allows the planet to have natural systems of cause and effect, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis?
This is a profound question—central to the problem of natural evil in the philosophy of religion. To analyze whether God can still be considered “wholly good” if He creates a world with natural disasters, we can break it down into a few key perspectives. I'll format this in a phpBB-style layout as well:
Question:
Is God “wholly good” if He creates Earth with natural systems like earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis that can cause suffering and death?
Key Distinction:
There are two types of evil traditionally discussed in theology:
- []Moral evil: Caused by human actions (e.g., murder, theft, war).
[]Natural evil: Suffering caused by natural events (e.g., earthquakes, diseases, floods).
Possible Responses:
- Free Process Theodicy
Some argue that a stable, law-governed universe—where causes lead to predictable effects—is a necessary condition for life and moral responsibility. For example:
Thus, God allows such systems to function freely, even if they can cause harm.A world without tectonic activity would likely not have continents or a stable climate over geologic time. Volcanoes recycle nutrients. Plate tectonics shapes ecosystems. Without these, no life at all might be possible. - Soul-Making Perspective
Natural disasters create opportunities for human courage, compassion, and solidarity:
Suffering from nature can play a role in moral and spiritual development—individuals and societies grow through facing adversity. - Greater Good Defense
Some theologians argue that the existence of natural evils is justified because they are part of a system that brings about a greater good which we may not fully comprehend. - Limit of Human Knowledge (Skeptical Theism)
It may be that God's reasons are beyond our grasp:
Just as a child may not understand a parent’s tough decisions, humans may not understand divine reasons for allowing suffering. - Critique of Divine Goodness
From a more skeptical or atheist view:
This challenges either God’s power, His goodness, or even His existence.If God is truly omnipotent, He could have created a world with all the benefits and none of the disasters. Allowing suffering through natural systems seems incompatible with perfect goodness.
Whether God is still “wholly good” in light of natural evil depends on one’s underlying assumptions:
- []If we accept that moral growth and cosmic order require some risk and suffering, then God's goodness may be intact.
[]If we believe a truly good God would prevent all suffering, then the presence of natural evil challenges that goodness.
iambiguous, what a boring world would we have if there were no diseases, no challenges of 'acts of God', not even a broken arm..that form of "heaven" would truly be boring. We would not need doctors, we would not need to learn how to predict natural disasters...indeed, we'd all be bored out of our brains.
ME:- In answer to your conclusion, I'll put it to you that God can limit suffering below the threshold that Christ set. Also, if there were no diseases, no challenges of 'acts of God', not even a broken arm..that form of "heaven" would truly be boring. We would not need doctors, we would not need to learn how to predict natural disasters...indeed, we'd all be bored out of our brains. Thus, if God allows natural disasters but limits suffering below the pain threshold that He endured, can we now consider God "wholly good"?
Your Proposal (Restated):
God can allow natural challenges like disasters, disease, and injury as part of a dynamic and meaningful world. However, if He limits the intensity of suffering to remain below the threshold experienced by Christ (the worst permissible suffering), then God's moral character remains unimpeached. In fact, this limit serves both moral and existential purposes—avoiding a sterile, "boring" existence while preserving divine goodness.
Formalized Argument:
- []P1: A world without suffering, danger, or challenge would be static, boring, and lacking in meaning, growth, or purpose.
[]P2: God allows natural processes (e.g., disasters, disease) to preserve the meaningful structure of creation.
[]P3: God limits the magnitude of suffering to be no greater than the threshold of suffering He Himself endured in Christ.
[]P4: A being who shares in the worst suffering and imposes no more than what He Himself bore shows ultimate moral empathy and restraint. - C: Therefore, God can still be considered “wholly good” even while permitting natural suffering.
This view cleverly merges:
- []The soul-making theodicy (adversity shapes virtue),
[]The Christocentric model of suffering (God enters suffering), - And a limit condition (suffering is finite and bounded by divine empathy).
Your answer: No, because God has set the limit by personally experiencing and not exceeding it for others.
Theological Implication:
This echoes Hebrews 4:15 (KJV):
And 1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV):"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
These suggest divine sympathy and calibrated trial—not arbitrary infliction."God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able..."
Final Answer to Your Question:
Yes—if we accept that:
- []God allows natural adversity for the sake of growth, meaning, and participation in the divine narrative,
[]And that suffering is capped by what God Himself was willing to endure,
then God can be considered "wholly good" in a world with natural evil.