The Human Question

These are dialectical inasmuch as they do not so much demonstrate their point as argue hypothetically, piggy-backing in a sense on claims made by atheists. If the atheist proposes that the problem of evil defeats theism AND argues that the multiplicity of universes diminishes the strength of arguments for theism based upon the anthropic principle, then...the theist may propose ad hoc that these alternate universes may have conscious life forms without evil & suffering, the preponderance of which weakens the argument for atheism.  Yes, this is ad hoc, but no more so than positing imperceptible universes.  The point is that a principled opposition to ad hoc arguments at least opens the door to some that the atheist may not desire to admit. But if the atheist objects that these alternate universes are more likely to have suffering too, then the theist may ask if there is (apart from any miracles) a natural connection between life and suffering.  If that is such that ...

Below is an excerpt from a letter to a bro, I think you make a great point and do so in very few words, and I appreciate that: 1. God does not seem (to you) to be just, given natural and man-made disasters 2. God instead seems ironic, given the same disasters. You make an excellent reply, and it deserves a reply.  Here is my initial attempt. God has indeed created a world in which disasters, both great and small naturally take place, but in doing so God has not been unjust. Could God have created a physical world in which no such disasters occur?  Perhaps yes.  In fact, it may be the case -- if we live in a multiverse -- that such a world may exist.  I don't know, nor do I think that anyone else who walks this earth can know. I do notice, however, that the world in which we exist... with all it's pain and sufffering... is beautiful when considered as a whole. I note, furthermore, that a world in which no such pain and suffering existed would be...

If you have a utilitarian understanding of God (as beholden to the principle of seeking the greater good for the greatest number), then a philosophical reflection on the problem of pain is capable of making you an atheist.  And as a matter of fact, a lot of pain related arguments against the existence of God rely upon a utilitarian understanding of good and evil.  But to make such an objection is to assume that the only or best reason for affirming God's existence is likewise utilitarian. Perhaps the uitilitarian/deist thinks that God made the world for God's pleasure, and has since left it alone (as in "been there, done that").  But such basis for theism, if it exists, would be a straw-man.  If you are a theist in the face of pain, it is because you have a non-utilitarian understanding of God: God wants you to be fulfilled in the exercise of your freedom by living that freedom in communion with Him.  God wants you to be childlike in your trust, but an adu...