Is it logically impossible for all of the following statements to be true. And if so, with which do you disagree?

1a. God is omnipotent.
1b. Omnipotence means being capable of bringing about any possible event, and being capable of performing any possible action.
2a. God is omniscient.
2b. Omniscience includes knowing what will happen in the future.
3. God loves everyone.
4. If you love someone, you will do everything in your power to prevent unnecessary suffering.
5. People suffer unnecessarily. (eg. a child born with a congenital disease causing it three days of pain before it dies - serves no apparent purpose).

oh, and...

6. God exists.


I expect discussion will be required to work out what it means for suffering to be "necessary" or "unnecessary"

Theodicy anyone? How does God, being good, and all powerfull, allow suffering?

If we are to assume that 6 is true, then we must assume that 5 (people suffer unnecessarily) is not. Perhaps suffering serves some ultimate purpose for which we are not aware at the time.
Of course, this is a very easy conclusion for me to make, sitting on my fat rearend and eating a twinkie in my airconditioned house, free from suffering by any measure

I have known people who experienced suffering, and it certainly is a character strengthing process.

Requiring 6 be true before even considering 1, they can not all be true. As Mrs. P has already pointed out the problem lies between 3 and 5. If a prerequisite for love is not allowing loved ones to suffer unnecessarily, then people either suffer for a purpose or not at all.


Still presuming the existence of God, and following the parameters of the discussion, God would allow suffering not out of apathy but out of necessity.

The hardest part about answering this question is the fact that I believe there is no answer we can understand. My best guess is that God must allow us to suffer because He gave us free will and the choices we make must have consequences. Even the innocent must suffer because of the free will of others which God has decided not to violate.

As for the question of a baby born with a congenital disease, is that suffering really greater than the amount of suffering a person who lives a full life must endure? Existentialists would say the child got off easy. And since the baby dies faultless, his or her soul must go straight back to God and to paradise. The suffering of the parents, on the other hand, may serve a purpose as Mrs. P pointed out.

I really thought I had a hot topic for debate here and everyone is telling me that if God allows suffering and God is all powerful then there has to be a reason for the suffering. Im going to play the devils advocate here in hopes of answering some questions I have. How about the holocaust, did God being good just allow that to happen? I only ask because Eli Wiesel in Night makes the rational arguments of the theist seem trite.

"Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my Faith forever. Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never." ( Eli Wiesel, Night)

Dont get me wrong I belive that God is good, I am just hard pressed for answers on this particular subject.

I disagree with #4. No, I do not do everything in my power to prevent my daughter's unnecessary suffering. If it is not a life vs. death situation, or a life vs. long-term disability one, I let my daughter make the decisions. She can experience the consequences. I can argue with her to take that raincoat or umbrella or to have that supper she is turning her nose up at, but nothing is accomplished. But getting thoroughly soaked by the rain or experiencing hunger when everyone else is satisfied validates my stance more than making her do something. Making a young person go to a college when s/he is neither ready nor willing is an exercise in futility.

God is smart enough to know when a person is too stubborn to avoid problems. He did not make paper dolls to move around some great board, he made people with free will. Free will is good, but with it comes benefitting and suffering as a result of our choices.

And #5. I don't disagree that people suffer unnecessarily. But I disagree with the perception that God is wanting people to suffer because of the consequences of their child's congenital defect. God set into motion cause and effect through the universe, if the child does not develop normally in utero, s/he will not magically be changed into a normal baby at birth.

A lot of times, suffering does cause us to develop patience, compassion, and a gigantic capacity to love and support even in horrible situations. But we have a choice in bad situations, to grow into wonderful people or to let our anger and bitterness twist us into grotesque, vengeful souls.

As far as the Holocaust goes, that was not the fault of the Jews at all. It was the fault of people who turned away from goodness and compassion and encouraged the expression of the dark side of free will.

Some day, many of us believe, there will be a judgment of all peoples. At that time it will be too late to ponder why we indulged the selfishness and forsook the higher thinking and selfless acts that were available to us. And whining that it is all God's fault will sound empty and meaningless, for we will know the truth.

[COLOR=green]For #6 to be true 3 and 4 cannot be true, assuming those who say yes to this are the bible-thumping conservative christians i suppose they are. For many christians the bible is wrongfully, in my opinion, taken as a historical book. If it is indeed historically correct then, 3 and 4 are not true. God obviously didnt love the people whom he drowned in the waters he thrusted toward earth. If he, in fact, did love them then why did he let them suffer? Martyrs of the christian type are also examples of people God obviously loved, due to their service to him, that he allowed to suffer.

Because we have free will. And because if there were no suffering, there could be no happiness. People gain strength and character from suffering-you can learn from it. Without the bad, we wouldn't realize the good. Without suffering and sadness, people wouldn't have happiness, because there would be no opposite emotion to feel in contrast.



That's not necessarily true. Of course God loved them, but they were corrupting themselves, doing what they wanted, and refusing to follow Him. I guess he felt the world was going in a bad direction quickly and wanted to start fresh. And because of the flood, we have the biblical character of Noah, who serves as an example of strong faith and trust in God. (We also have rainbows. )

The only thing I have heard that may make sense is that God allows someone to suffer to give the rest of us the chance to show our love for our fellowman by doing what we can to alleviate the suffering.
If that is the case, I suspect that He is very unhappy with us.

Apparently so considering it happened. That isn't to say, based on the parameters you gave us, that any of those who suffered did so unnecessarily.


A potentially good question outside the parameters offered at the start of this debate. Taking those into consideration, suffering can still take place so long as there is a necessity for it. The issue then might be whether we possess the ability to recognize that necessity or if that recognition is reserved only for an omnipotent entity.

If suffering is somehow a necessity for the fulfillment of a plan -- something often touted by Christianity -- then it can still exist even with a loving puppeteer pulling the strings.

I wouldn't say that God is a puppeteer. Just because He has a plan for us does not mean that anyone follows that plan (In fact no one can possibly follow it perfectly). The idea that some people have about God controlling everything that happens on Earth is one reason so many people ask the question this thread asks. God is not pulling the strings. He may lead a person one way, but ultimately it is that person's choice whether he or she goes the other way. Which is why consequential suffering is necessary, a choice isn't a choice unless you are allowed to follow it through.

That falls back to 2a and 2b:
The only way the future could be known is if the future is already preordained. In that case you're following an predestined path with only the illusion of choice. If God knows you're going to die on July 29th you can't very well make the choice to commit suicide on July 27th.

I think God sees all paths but it's up to us to choose which ones we take, ie "Free Will".

I think God is omnipotent, omniscient, loves everyone and has done everything in His power to prevent unnecessary suffering (John 3:16). God exists.

People suffer. I don't know why. I quess if we didn't have trials in our lives we wouldn't have compassion for our fellow man kind.

If that is the case and the future is preordained then that violates condition 1. If God can not change the future then he is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is already a shaky principle to begin with.

"Could an all powerful being create an object so heavy he couldn't move it? And if he could move it, then he would in turn fail to create such an object..."

One way or another omnipotence is a fallacy.

Either way, whether or not God is omnipotent or omniscient, he obviously does not use the power or knowledge he has to affect our lives in a direct way. Therefore, he must allow suffering because he chooses to allow us to have free will (vis a vis my earlier comment)

IMO, if 4 is true, then 6 can not be. If 6 is true, then 4 can not be. That may be a good question to ask yourself, which of those two do you believe more?

Ataal,

You wrote "if 4 is true, then 6 can not be. If 6 is true, then 4 can not be.

Yes of course, but how do you define necessary?

It depends on the person I would imagine. If you believe number 6 is more important, your definition of necessary has to come into question, does it not?

It depends on what you think 4 includes, 6 includes and how they are mutually exclusive (cant both be true). Right?