God and Suffering (General)

by Mark , Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 19:44 (5826 days ago) @ dhw

Very sorry to have taken so long to respond. Other priorities, I'm afraid. - The first point is on the question of how there may be a link between free will and the general suffering in nature. I said: - The only world we know of in which free will is possible is the one we are in. Therefore it may well be the case that creatures with free will can only be made by evolution in a world which allows disease, floods etc. That is how there may be a link. - In response you suggest various pictures of God, all of which miss the point of what I am saying. I am not suggesting that God's knowledge is in any way limited. I am saying that it may not be logically possible to create persons except by a process of evolution in a world such as this. None of us have any experience of creating real universes. We are unable to demonstrate that any other means is possible. - You find it surprising that I can accept "with equanimity" all the past suffering in the world. Are you wondering why I am not raging against God? Is it my emotional state which concerns you? It helps to be dispassionate in rational argument, but that doesn't mean that I regard any past or present suffering as acceptable in itself. I entirely agree that much of this suffering demands "Why?" or "How can this be worth it?". I don't agree that it makes impossible belief in a loving God. And the maintenance of such belief does not imply any lack of concern for the suffering. - Finally, the matter of heaven. You think my congregation must be disappointed because you interpret me as denying an afterlife. I never said that. I spoke of a fulfillment of this creation, and I see resurrection to be a part of that. My point was that such a state is not independent of this world. If that were the case then your argument would be valid ... why not put us all there in the first place? We must understand this world as necessary for "heaven" to be reached. - I can understand your confusion about where Jesus is ascended to. You may ask the same question about people who have died. Where are they now if heaven is the end goal of this creation and it has a long way to go? The key point here is that a person who has died is not present in this universe. Since time is a property of this universe, and not even absolute here, it makes no sense literally to speak of "now" in relation to anything beyond this universe. It makes no more sense to speak of a literal temporal relationship with something beyond this universe than it does to speak of a literal spatial relationship. So if I say of someone who has died ... as I may well do ... "I trust he is now above in heaven", the "now" is as metaphorical as the "above". But the "is" is not metaphorical! - Such issues persuade some people to speak of an "intermediate state". But I am happy to be agnostic, you will be pleased to hear!