Why is there suffering?

[Guest Guest]

"Kearny Christian" just posted a link on another topic to what looks like a very poor excuse for a book, in which the two authors claim to prove and explain the existence of "God" to a certainty. The authors are a joke but one question they claim to address is an excellent one: If "God" exists, then why is there suffering?

The usual excuse from Christian apologists is that it's all Adam and Eve's fault, these two mythical first-people who never existed are to blame not only for all human suffering but for all the animals suffering, too. Not only is that not a good or reasonable explanation, it's palpably ridiculous. An almighty god wouldn't have to throw the hissy-fit of all hissy-fits just because the first two people ate of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil (a metaphor if ever there was one). You can take the obvious way out and say the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor, and should not be taken literally, but then how do you explain suffering in the universe of an omnipotent and omniscient God? There is no reasonable answer to that question that maintains a literal interpretation of the story.

Consider another explanation for the story. Primitive men struggled to survive every day, never knowing when some incurable illness would hit or a bear would attack or another tribe would level the entire village. They saw suffering all around them and asked why; and because they wanted an explanation so desperately, they made up this story, not stopping long enough to think that its pieces don't fit together. They didn't have the time.

Suffering is a natural part of a world that arose by fits and starts from entirely natural means. It's exactly what you would expect in a world that wasn't consciously designed by a superior being, but instead took form through natural processes designed by absolutely no one.

Which explanation for the genesis of the story makes more sense, and is more likely to be true? There really is a god who condemned not only humans but all the animals to a lifetime of suffering, followed by death; or someone made up a story, just as people have been making up stories ever since there have been people?

[Guest Guest]

So what's the problem, Kearny not-so-Christian, a/k/a 2Stupid4Words? Answer too obvious for you? Maybe if you pretend the problem isn't there, it will go away.

[Guest 2smart4u]

So what's the problem, Kearny not-so-Christian, a/k/a 2Stupid4Words? Answer too obvious for you? Maybe if you pretend the problem isn't there, it will go away.

There's suffering because white-guilters, racists and other less intelligent people voted for an incompetent, inexperienced community organizing POS.

[Guest Guest]

There's suffering because white-guilters, racists and other less intelligent people voted for an incompetent, inexperienced community organizing POS.

Why was there suffering before that?

Why will Bill O'Reilly die some day?

Or do you just come here to be a jerk?

[Guest Guest]

There's suffering because white-guilters, racists and other less intelligent people voted for an incompetent, inexperienced community organizing POS.

Can't be. God cleansed the earth with a great flood, remember? Don't tell me God went to all that trouble, drowned all those people, and it didn't work.

Got an answer for that one, moron?

[Guest Guest]

There's suffering because white-guilters, racists and other less intelligent people voted for an incompetent, inexperienced community organizing POS.

You see, that's your problem, 2dim. You have nothing to say. All you can do, and all you do, is make stupid remarks based on nothing but your fantasies. And they aren't even good fantasies. They're nasty.

[Guest Guest]

2dim,

Bit by bit by bit, you keep providing evidence that you are an authoritarian with not the slightest concern for the truth. Your only interest is in proving that you are right, which is why you just made a point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You do it all the time. In your eyes, you are never wrong - the organizing principle for the whole universe and all of reality is your opinion - so you'll say anything to keep up the wall that you think insulates your opinions from attack. But in reality, you just prove the other person's point every time you do it.

[Guest Guest]

2dim,

Bit by bit by bit, you keep providing evidence that you are an authoritarian with not the slightest concern for the truth. Your only interest is in proving that you are right, which is why you just made a point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You do it all the time. In your eyes, you are never wrong - the organizing principle for the whole universe and all of reality is your opinion - so you'll say anything to keep up the wall that you think insulates your opinions from attack. But in reality, you just prove the other person's point every time you do it.

Give it up J.O. you're making a fool of yourself.

[Guest Guest]

There is suffering because life is a product of natural forces, not conscious design by a god powerful enough to create an entire universe out of nothing. Life as a product of natural forces is the only way suffering can be explained intelligently.

[Guest Guest]

"Kearny Christian" just posted a link on another topic to what looks like a very poor excuse for a book, in which the two authors claim to prove and explain the existence of "God" to a certainty. The authors are a joke but one question they claim to address is an excellent one: If "God" exists, then why is there suffering?

The usual excuse from Christian apologists is that it's all Adam and Eve's fault, these two mythical first-people who never existed are to blame not only for all human suffering but for all the animals suffering, too. Not only is that not a good or reasonable explanation, it's palpably ridiculous. An almighty god wouldn't have to throw the hissy-fit of all hissy-fits just because the first two people ate of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil (a metaphor if ever there was one). You can take the obvious way out and say the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor, and should not be taken literally, but then how do you explain suffering in the universe of an omnipotent and omniscient God? There is no reasonable answer to that question that maintains a literal interpretation of the story.

Consider another explanation for the story. Primitive men struggled to survive every day, never knowing when some incurable illness would hit or a bear would attack or another tribe would level the entire village. They saw suffering all around them and asked why; and because they wanted an explanation so desperately, they made up this story, not stopping long enough to think that its pieces don't fit together. They didn't have the time.

Suffering is a natural part of a world that arose by fits and starts from entirely natural means. It's exactly what you would expect in a world that wasn't consciously designed by a superior being, but instead took form through natural processes designed by absolutely no one.

Which explanation for the genesis of the story makes more sense, and is more likely to be true? There really is a god who condemned not only humans but all the animals to a lifetime of suffering, followed by death; or someone made up a story, just as people have been making up stories ever since there have been people?

Why don't the so-called Christians who keep yapping about holiday trees and pseudo-science want to talk about this? Will they ever see how transparent they are?

[Guest Guest]

"Kearny Christian" just posted a link on another topic to what looks like a very poor excuse for a book, in which the two authors claim to prove and explain the existence of "God" to a certainty. The authors are a joke but one question they claim to address is an excellent one: If "God" exists, then why is there suffering?

The usual excuse from Christian apologists is that it's all Adam and Eve's fault, these two mythical first-people who never existed are to blame not only for all human suffering but for all the animals suffering, too. Not only is that not a good or reasonable explanation, it's palpably ridiculous. An almighty god wouldn't have to throw the hissy-fit of all hissy-fits just because the first two people ate of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil (a metaphor if ever there was one). You can take the obvious way out and say the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor, and should not be taken literally, but then how do you explain suffering in the universe of an omnipotent and omniscient God? There is no reasonable answer to that question that maintains a literal interpretation of the story.

Consider another explanation for the story. Primitive men struggled to survive every day, never knowing when some incurable illness would hit or a bear would attack or another tribe would level the entire village. They saw suffering all around them and asked why; and because they wanted an explanation so desperately, they made up this story, not stopping long enough to think that its pieces don't fit together. They didn't have the time.

Suffering is a natural part of a world that arose by fits and starts from entirely natural means. It's exactly what you would expect in a world that wasn't consciously designed by a superior being, but instead took form through natural processes designed by absolutely no one.

Which explanation for the genesis of the story makes more sense, and is more likely to be true? There really is a god who condemned not only humans but all the animals to a lifetime of suffering, followed by death; or someone made up a story, just as people have been making up stories ever since there have been people?

The only "response" to this was 2Stupid4Words blaming all human suffering on President Obama.

Come on, God babblers. Admit it. You can't answer this question. There is suffering because no one created the universe, or life. They are products of nature, which doesn't care about any of us individually. That's the only reasonable explanation for suffering.