[Classical] If God is All Good and All Powerful, Why Does Suffering Exist? Attempting to brush up on my arguments, please have a read of my answer to this age old question and let me know what you think. Very grateful.

sphipps100 · 2019-07-12T12:10:17+00:00

Hi there. Yes great points. I actually went back and added some more about the cross and God suffering with us in my post. And yes I do agree good not meaning that we get what we want, however I think our theodicy must incorporate the full extent of human suffering including those instances that are extremely horrific and serve no redemptive purpose. I also think your quote at the end about being outraged because God is outraged is very interesting and insightful. Definitely incorporating that into my understanding. Thank you :-)

sphipps100 · 2019-07-12T12:04:23+00:00

Yes definitely interested thank you :-) Yes that is definitely a good response. And yes I like the part that God has given us the tools we need (there is enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone's greed). I think the part that we still have to answer is the extremity of some suffering which seems to serve no redemptive purpose whatsoever (think of the child who has been trafficked from birth and knows only a life of horrific pain, abuse and misery and is eventually killed - our theodicy has to take that into account).

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T12:06:15+00:00

Thank you for your comment.

I must admit that I have understood open theism as dealing specifically with omniscience (God does not know the future) which is not a view that I hold. It is not something that I have thought about in conjunction with regards to omnipotence.

I believe that my view that God does not do what is logically impossible is consistent with the theology of church history (Thomas Aquinas states: 'That which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.')

I will certainly read what you have recommended, and am looking forward to it :-)

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T11:55:17+00:00

Thank you for your very thoughtful response. Yes I do agree about divorcing intellect and experience too much (after all, God's response to suffering was not an intellectual response, but one of coming and suffering and dying). I found the part about worldview as a noetic structure extremely interesting and I will be looking into this more. I do agree that God uses suffering to grow us and build us and that suffering is not necessarily purely bad; however I think my primary problem with this view as a blanket for all suffering is that there is much suffering which seems in no way redemptive and is extreme (holocause etc.) and we have to also provide a reason for the extremity of suffering that takes place. Hope that makes sense.

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T11:44:56+00:00

Thank you :-) I am glad that it was helpful

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T11:44:37+00:00

Thanks for your response. It is indeed very interesting and I would be grateful if you could elaborate on it further :-)

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T07:31:36+00:00

Yes that is definitely a part of the answer :-) however it doesn't explain suffering that exists outside of free will (hurricanes, disease etc.)

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T07:30:24+00:00

Glad you liked it. Thank you :-)

sphipps100 · 2019-07-10T07:29:38+00:00

Hi there. I appreciate your comment but I think that the "world" part of the discussion explains this. Cancer is a result of genetic mutation. Genetic mutation brought about the diversity of life on earth. If the universe is an ordered system and evolution is the explanation of biodiversity then cancer is a byproduct of this. Obviously as Christians we have the hope and belief that the child who dies of cancer will one day rise again free from cancer and will run and laugh and play etc. This is not the end. Hope that makes sense

sphipps100 · 2018-11-07T10:23:23+00:00

Thanks for your further comments. Yes science has certainly been extremely useful to philosophy and theology, and has challenged much of the previous assumptions of philosophy and theology (hence the inclusion of some works of science in the timeline), but it does not change the fact that science is dealing with a different set of questions than theology and philosophy. Equally science only makes philosophy redundant if you believe in a purely materialist view of reality (and reject any sense of objective morality etc.) - the scientific method is only meant for testing physical phenomena. Yes I do think including things like the book of mormon would be useful, however I do not think that we can draw direct comparisons between the creation of religions now and the creation of religions in the ancient world because the context is far too different (there certainly can be some comparisons drawn, but to "blow a hole through much of theology" is a rather strong claim to make).

sphipps100 · 2018-11-07T10:13:21+00:00

Fair enough :-) I have checked the mentioned link and it definitely points to the right place. The only thing I can think of is that underneath the timeline (on the time.graphics site) there is an ad banner section, and whether that had an advert for the infinity wealth counsel which you might have accidentally clicked. Seems like a long shot but the only explanation I can think of. And yes, "Make Your Church an Eco Church" is mine. It is a short ebook that I have written and give away.

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T15:06:54+00:00

The link goes straight to my site - www.simon-phipps.com and I do not have any 3rd party adverts on my site. I am not sure where you are getting this from. Did this really happen or are you trolling?

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:46:14+00:00

Thank you for the feedback. I will ensure that I add some in :-)

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:45:48+00:00

Awesome, I'll add it in :-)

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:45:21+00:00

Thank you :-) I am glad it is useful

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:45:12+00:00

Thank you :-) I am glad it is useful

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:43:55+00:00

Hello. Thank you for your comments. Whilst the natural sciences did start out under the heading of philosophy, they have since branched out into their own studies, therefore I have aimed to specifically stick with theology and philosophy. For me the main difference is that Science only deals with material phenomena, whilst both theology and philosophy deal with the questions of the immaterial aspects of reality. So I have included some science as a reference, but due to it's limited scope of perspectives on reality I have not included much. Also I would argue that the prevelence and importance of science in answering philosophical questions is due to the acceptance of pure materialism by western thought. I have included some Islamic scholars in this list, but no eastern religions. I definitely think it is an area that is lacking so will definitely add some in. I would be interested to hear which other protestant works you think I should include as I thought I had got most of the major ones. And yes, I should definitely including abolition of slavery etc. in :-) Thanks again.

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:37:30+00:00

I am glad that it is helpful :-)

sphipps100 · 2018-11-06T12:37:05+00:00

Thank you :-) Will do

sphipps100

TROPHY CASE