If there were no God


Actually, we created this in the sense that we brought evil into the world through our original sin. Of course God creates all time and space, so unltimately it serve His purposes. We were made to become Love, and we can do so now, through and in Jesus Christ, each of us having this one second chance not to remain in what would have been a hell, had we not been granted death. Animals are part of nature and give their lives over to nature that it may grow, flourish and diversify. Whatever individual suffering they may experience, suffering and pain strictly not being synonymous, came as a consequence of our decision to place the self, other than God, Divine Love itself, at the centre of the garden that represents our relationship with all that is. The damage done at the beginning occurred where each individual now emerges as part of the eternal Now and therefore affects all time and space. We as the crown of creation, being the reason why this universe was brought into being, to know and glorify God, made our mark on all of it.

Something like that.


The Christian has prior reasons to identify God’s goodness.

So there is no reason why a Christian must identify every particular evil or suffering and attempt to prove the “greater good” that flows from such evil.

We know from philosophical reasoning that God is Goodness itself.
We know from Revelation that God is Love. From this is follows that we do not need to know the purpose of suffering in every case.


And if that were true … in what way would it invalidate all this pain and suffering as evidence of lack of goodness?


I understand your Q now.

Then lemme ask this first:

How do you propose we quantify what pain and suffering is enough to disprove God (in the sense of probability - “evidence”)?


What is pain and suffering? Why does it really hurt when it is merely a different set of impulses in the brain than let’s say, those of the visual cortex, or the pleasure centres? Why do we care? What is the lost reality, which would make this an offense to experience?


I’m afraid that’s the only option I have.


Then we need to correct that.

When we speak about God, we do not use language in an univocal way — but an analogous way. So for example, when we say God is a Mind, we do not mean that God is intelligent in the same manner that humans are.


It’s a little tortuous to constantly type: ‘As far as I am concerned…’ whenever an atheist makes a statement on a Catholic forum. But you can be absolutely sure (as far as I am concerned…) that when someone says that there is no absolute moral code, you can mentally prefix that statement with the aforementioned clause.

Which makes it subjective.


So when you say God is good, He is not good as we would understand it. If He is goodness itself, it’s goodness, Jim. But not as we know it.

Right. Got it.


Interesting, but I propose a bit presumptuous. Suffering led me to being an ex-Christian.


And so on a merely human level, we more readily say that allowing or causing unpleasantness (in the form of pain or whatever) is not “good.”

But God is the ultimate foundation of all that is, including all realities that would allow for unpleasantness (e.g., pain), say biological evolution, for example. We can’t just consider God as one extra being or creature in the Universe. A lot of the objections against God (including his goodness) mistake God for just another hypothesis or explanation within the Universe, on par with competing scientific theories (for example). Rather, God is the Ultimate Reality – existence itself. That makes God so very, very different than anything of our daily experience.

It is through Divine Revelation (which is not against reason, but transcends it) that we better understand God’s goodness.

Christ on the cross is a good starting point.


feed_me - Precise and to the point. All it needs is a thorough reflection on such as physical temporality, time, eternity, cause and effect, and existence, to come to the conclusion that there is ‘something’ that is acaused in nature, and not constrained by the ‘laws’ and ‘natures’ of ‘it’s’ creations. That this ‘acaused being’ is both outside of, and inside/supporting of/allowing/permitting, the realms and being of ‘His’ creations. The ‘Always was, Always is, and Always will be’.


Except the word “always” presupposes time, which you deny. So your sentence is a meaningless jumble of words.


If God is omnipotent and absolutely good, I would expect absolute goodness in all His works. So a good measure of pain and suffering would be, let me see, zero? Above zero would seem to show a lack of absolute goodness.


That razor that the nice Mr. Occam uses now and then would come in hand here.


Dunno. That’s too deep for me. And probably too deep for the antelope as the lion rips its throat out.


Ergo the classic conundrum: would a good god allow us free moral agency?


Should a good god stop you from harassing it’s followers?


I don’t argue about free moral agency and the consequences thereof. I argue: would a good god create animal life that depends for its existence on killing other animal life?


I don’t see a compelling reason to think it can’t. Obviously your labeling carnivorous animals as “bad” on that basis seems a bit subjective, don’t you agree?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.