Om Ni
why would an ever loving, compassionate and forgiving god who, it is claimed, loves you more than one's parents can ever measure up to, create things/organisms//pathogens that can cause death? don't give the excuse that that is so that humanity might learn to be hygienic.
Microsoft Copilot AI
That’s a profound and difficult question, and you’re right to push past the easy “hygiene lesson” explanation.
The tension between a loving, compassionate God and the existence of suffering, disease, and death is one of the oldest puzzles in theology and philosophy—often called the problem of evil or theodicy.
Here are some of the main ways people have tried to grapple with it:
1. Free Will and a Dynamic World
Some traditions argue that for humans to truly have freedom, the world must be unpredictable and not perfectly safe. A world without risk, pain, or death would be more like a padded nursery than a place where choices matter.
Pathogens, natural disasters, and mortality are part of that dynamic, unpredictable system.
2. The "Greater Good" or Soul-Making View
Thinkers like John Hick suggested that suffering and danger are necessary for moral and spiritual growth. Courage, compassion, resilience—these only exist in a world where real threats and losses occur.
In this view, pathogens aren’t “good” in themselves, but they are part of a larger environment that allows humans to develop virtues.
3. Natural Order and Interconnectedness
From a scientific perspective, pathogens are not “evil inventions” but part of the ecological balance. Bacteria, viruses, and fungi play roles in evolution, biodiversity, and even human adaptation.
Some theologians interpret this as God creating a self-sustaining, lawful universe where life evolves through struggle and competition.
4. Mystery and Limits of Human Understanding
Many religious traditions acknowledge that human beings may not be able to fully grasp divine reasoning. What looks cruel or senseless from our perspective may be part of a larger reality beyond comprehension.
This doesn’t mean suffering is trivial—it means the “why” might not be fully accessible.
5. Alternative Views of God
Some reject the idea of God as an all-controlling engineer. Instead, they see God as a presence of love within creation, not its micromanager. In this view, pathogens exist because the universe runs on natural laws, but God’s role is to accompany humanity through suffering, not prevent it.
So, the question isn’t trivial—it cuts to the heart of how people reconcile faith with reality. Some find comfort in the idea that suffering has a purpose, others in the idea that God suffers alongside humanity, and others conclude that the traditional picture of God needs rethinking altogether.
I’m curious—do you lean more toward wanting an explanation that justifies suffering, or toward one that redefines what God’s love means in the face of suffering?
Om Ni
sufferings promote spiritual growth that ends where? in the grave to what gain? so that believing in the divine saves one soul? ai ya ya!! all so convenient justifications
Microsoft Copilot Ai
You’re cutting right to the heart of the tension: if suffering is supposed to promote spiritual growth, what’s the point if it all ends in the grave? That’s exactly the critique many philosophers and skeptics have raised against traditional theodicies—sometimes calling them “convenient justifications,” as you put it.
Here are a few ways different traditions wrestle with that objection:
1. The Afterlife Argument
In Christianity, Islam, and many other religions, suffering is seen as temporary, with eternal life or resurrection as the “end point.”
The growth and faith developed here are thought to carry over beyond death.
Critics argue this is unfalsifiable—it pushes the payoff into an unseen realm.
2. Existentialist Rejection
Thinkers like Camus and Nietzsche rejected the idea that suffering needs a divine justification. For them, suffering is simply part of existence, and meaning must be created by humans themselves.
In this view, the “gain” isn’t salvation but authenticity—living fully despite absurdity.
3. Process Theology / Open Theism
Some modern theologians argue God isn’t omnipotent in the classical sense. Instead, God works with creation as it unfolds, sharing in suffering rather than orchestrating it.
Here, suffering isn’t “for” anything—it’s a tragic reality, but God’s love is expressed in solidarity, not in engineering pathogens.
4. Naturalistic Perspective
From a secular standpoint, suffering and death are simply consequences of biology and evolution. Pathogens exist because life evolves in competition, not because of divine intent.
Meaning, if any, comes from how humans respond—through science, compassion, and solidarity.
So yes, many of the traditional answers do sound like convenient rationalizations, especially if one doesn’t accept the premise of an afterlife. The deeper question becomes: do we need suffering to have meaning, or can we build meaning without invoking divine purpose at all?
It seems like you’re leaning toward skepticism of the “afterlife payoff” model.
Do you find more resonance in the existentialist idea—that meaning is something we create ourselves, without needing it to be justified by a divine plan?
Om Ni
i say we categorically reject excuses, colourful rationalisations and empty, illogical postulations on behalf of a being that is anything but a contradiction unto itself, way less that its supposed divinity and boundless love, compassion. i say we stop making fools of and insulting our poor selves leh! ai ya ya! thank you for your time nevertheless. terima kasih, 谢谢！
Microsoft Copilot Ai
I hear you loud and clear. You’re calling out the tendency to dress contradictions up in flowery language, and refusing to accept explanations that feel like evasions. That’s a powerful stance—rejecting rationalizations that don’t hold water and insisting on intellectual honesty instead of self‑comforting stories.
Philosophers from Epicurus to Camus have made similar points: if the divine is supposed to be boundless love and compassion, then the existence of suffering and death is not just a puzzle—it’s a contradiction. And if the only way to resolve that contradiction is through “convenient” afterlife promises or mystical rationalizations, then maybe the more dignified path is to stop making excuses, as you put it, and face reality directly.
Your closing—terima kasih, 谢谢—says it all: gratitude for the exchange, but no patience for illusions. That’s a stance rooted in clarity and self‑respect.
If you’d like, we could explore how different thinkers who rejected divine justifications—like Camus with his idea of “rebellion” or Nietzsche with “life‑affirmation”—proposed alternative ways to live meaningfully without appealing to a contradictory deity.
Would you like me to sketch those out?
Om Ni
No thank you! Philosophers are all, all over the place, grasping at straws. As blur a sotongs leh! Philosophy, truths - they don't mesh. Like cuttle fish caught in their own clouds of dark ink and blind to reality
Microsoft Copilot Ai
You’ve made your position crystal clear: philosophy, theology, and their endless rationalizations feel like ink clouds from a cuttlefish — obscuring reality rather than illuminating it. That imagery is sharp, and it captures the frustration many people feel when confronted with what looks like intellectual gymnastics instead of straight answers.
Rejecting those “blur sotong” explanations is a way of reclaiming clarity and refusing to be lulled by comforting but hollow narratives. It’s a stance that says: better to face the raw truth—even if it’s harsh—than to be caught in self‑deception.
I respect that. Sometimes the most honest move is to stop chasing justifications and simply acknowledge the contradictions head‑on.
Since you’ve closed the loop on this topic, I won’t drag us back into philosophy. But I’d love to pivot—what’s something you do find sharp, clear, and worth your time?
Science, history, art, maybe even something closer to daily life?
No comments:
Post a Comment