Causes of Suffering

[no1tovote4]

The untimely deaths of by now billions of innocent people
as the result of disease and natural calamity such as flood,
famine, and eathquake is enough evidence for me to feel
that the case against God has been proved.

I can't see how that would prove the case against God. Explain to me your logic. I have yet to see a verse in the Bible that says the God has promised to intervene to save every person's meat body.

Now, I don't believe in God this way but it simply isn't evidence to say, "Bad things happen, therefore God doesn't exist!" when there was never even one promise from the Deity that there would never be suffering or death.

 

[no1tovote4]

If God is the creator of the universe, then He
created the causes of untimely death, and is
responsible for each death.

The problem here is not taking the rest of what God stated, only one tiny portion. Death here is of the body only, the soul continues and therin lies the fallacy of this argument. You do not die, only your meat body dies.

I said in an earlier post I did not remember my
own grief at my brother's death because I was
too young, and in fact I have been spared extreme
grief for my entire life.

That is good for you, I remember the grief when my father died... I do not attempt to use it to explain away God though. (All this when I do not believe in the Deity...)

 

[USViking]

I can't see how that would prove the case against God. Explain to me your logic.

There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so.

God has the power to prevent all suffering.

God has failed to prevent suffering billions of times

Therefore God has failed to do what is morally imperative.

I have yet to see a verse in the Bible that says the God has promised to intervene to save every person's meat body. Now, I don't believe in God this way but it simply isn't evidence to say, "Bad things happen, therefore God doesn't exist!" when there was never even one promise from the Deity that there would never be suffering or death.

Therefore there is nothing wrong with me
shooting someone, as long I never made
a promise not to shoot them?

Come on.

 

[USViking]

The problem here is not taking the rest of what God stated, only one tiny portion. Death here is of the body only, the soul continues and therin lies the fallacy of this argument. You do not die, only your meat body dies.

I do not accept your premise that there
is any such thing as a soul.

Even if I were to, it would not cancel the
suffering caused by a case of smallpox, both
to the patient, and to the patient's loved ones.

That is good for you, I remember the grief when my father died... I do not attempt to use it to explain away God though. (All this when I do not believe in the Deity...)

My own sorrow at my father's death was mitigated
by the appreciation of his long and mostly happy life,
the most important part of which was the love he
shared within our family.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I am not sure I would attribute free will to the
animal world, but that is irrelevant to the issues
of this thread.

They choose to survive which requires adapting to their environment.

This does not make sense. We did not “choose”
to evolve with a vulnerability to malignacies,
or disease-carrying microbes.

We choose to survive, as do the malignancies and microbes.

Our vulnerability is solely the choice of God,
who by “staying out of the development process”
abrogated His responsibilty to His creation.

All life is vulnerable to something. That's the plan.

I take it, by the way, you are not a proponent
of Intelligent Design.

I don't assign a "one-size fits all" label to my beliefs.

You are agreeing with me in holding God responsible
for suffering, disease, and death.

About as much as I would hold the creator of the automobile responsible for all automobile related deaths.

What ethical diety would allow disease or disaster
to strike at all? You do not think God is unable to
prevent them, do you?

One who believes it is necessary to the plan. As I stated before......I believe how we handle the suffering molds us into who we are and who we will become.

If He loved us then it would be incumbent on Him
to intervene to prevent any suffering by us, just as
it would be incumbent upon human parents to prevent
any suffering by their children, if it is within their
power to do so.

I do not agree with either scenario.

No, it is not all from choices made. Such diseases as smallpox,
typhoid, typhus, the plague, cholera, flu, etc., etc., etc. are in no
way, shape or form the result of any choices made by human
beings whether you believe in evolution or scriptural creation.

You missed my point. I do not choose to look at life just from a humanistic point of view and that the creator only has an obligation to humans. All life forms were created to live and perpetuate their species.........and how those life forms adapt to their environment is a survival choice. We, as humans, choose to consume other life forms to survive........should the creator step in and intervene and keep us from consuming other life forms to ease their suffering? Is that the plan for life on Earth........or is the plan for no pain or suffering a plan for another time and place?

Nor was the malignancy which took my brother’s life.

I am sorry for your loss. My sister has been fighting her malignancy for three years now. It's a constant battle for survival between her and it.

 

[kurtsprincess]

There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so.

Where does this moral imperative come from?

From mankind........who doesn't want to suffer......trying to apply it to the creator of the universe? Hmmmmmmmmm......... once again mankind trying to change the plan to suit their own desires, rather than seeing the whole and how all the parts are integrated into a master plan.

Callling it a moral imperative feels, to me, like a choice is being taken away.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I do not accept your premise that there
is any such thing as a soul.

What name do you, USViking, call the energy that inhabits the body and animates it?

Even if I were to, it would not cancel the
suffering caused by a case of smallpox, both
to the patient, and to the patient's loved ones.

Why do you think life has to be a series of "quid pro quos"? Do you believe that for every joy you experience there will be an equal balance of grief?

 

[USViking]

They choose to survive which requires adapting to their environment.

We choose to survive, as do the malignancies and microbes.
All life is vulnerable to something. That's the plan.

I question the premise that the will to survive is
in any meaningful sense a choice, and it certainly
does not apply to malignancies and microbes, which
are not in any way sentient.

Even if it is a choice, you have made no case for
relieving God of responsibility for his own choice
to stand by and do nothing while his creatures suffer
as the result of his plan.

The difference between our positions seems to be
that you consider God’s plan to be beyond reproach,
while I consider it to be wicked on account of the
suffering built into it.

I don't assign a "one-size fits all" label to my beliefs.

OK.

About as much as I would hold the creator of the automobile responsible for all automobile related deaths.

The creator of the automobile cannot control the lives
of a single autombile operator. God can control the lives
of every being in His creation.

One who believes it is necessary to the plan. As I stated before......I believe how we handle the suffering molds us into who we are and who we will become.

Addressed earlier.

I do not agree with either scenario.

You hold God to a lower moral standard than we
hold ourselves, even though presumably He is
the author of these standards. I find this baffling.

You missed my point. I do not choose to look at life just from a humanistic point of view and that the creator only has an obligation to humans. All life forms were created to live and perpetuate their species.........and how those life forms adapt to their environment is a survival choice. We, as humans, choose to consume other life forms to survive........should the creator step in and intervene and keep us from consuming other life forms to ease their suffering? Is that the plan for life on Earth........or is the plan for no pain or suffering a plan for another time and place?

I believe I saw your all your points, and answered them,
including what you say above.

I am sorry for your loss. My sister has been fighting her malignancy for three years now. It's a constant battle for survival between her and it.

I am very sorry for your sister’s suffering,
and for her family and friends. I hope she
recovers soon.

 

[USViking]

Where does this moral imperative come from?

It is a premise, a self evident truth, which surely
applies to all humans in at least their relationships
with each other.

From mankind........who doesn't want to suffer......trying to apply it to the creator of the universe?

Yes. As I said in my last post, I find it baffling
that God should be exempt from standards He
has set for us.

Hmmmmmmmmm......... once again mankind trying to change the plan to suit their own desires, rather than seeing the whole and how all the parts are integrated into a master plan.

My point all along is that the master plan violates
obvious moral standards, and that God, its sole Author,
is culpable for the violation.

Callling it a moral imperative feels, to me, like a choice is being taken away.

“Imperative” means here something which should be done.
Human beings do not always chose to do the right thing.
Nor does God.

What name do you, USViking, call the energy that inhabits the body and animates it?

My understanding is that all matter consists of
concentrated, or congealed energy: e = mc2.

How does the existence and nature of energy
demonstrate the exisitence of the soul?

Why do you think life has to be a series of "quid pro quos"?

I do not. I used the expression above “Even if I were to…”
It was the other poster who was arguing on the basis of
quid pro quos: at death our bodies are lost while our
souls survive.

Do you believe that for every joy you experience there will be an equal balance of grief?

No, some people experience a tiny fraction of joy
or grief compared to other people. I myself have
been among the most fortunate.

 

[no1tovote4]

There is a moral imperative to prevent suffering,
if one has the power to do so.

God has the power to prevent all suffering.

God has failed to prevent suffering billions of times

Therefore God has failed to do what is morally imperative.

I disagree, often without suffering there is stagnation. There is a far larger picture to view, especially from one in the position of Deity. Ending all suffering could possibly negate the reason for the physical universe, that we learn to be what we were intended to be, as a whole not just as an individual.

Therefore there is nothing wrong with me
shooting someone, as long I never made
a promise not to shoot them?

Come on.

There is a difference between the picture you present. God didn't kill your brother, it was a circumstance of the physical world in which we live. Your brother continued in another existence that we haven't the knowledge of.

It is more than possible that some suffering in this small physical existence better prepares you for the next existence where there can be larger challenges for your next step in learning....

Since we cannot know everything about all of existence attempting to judge on the same basis is simply erroneous and gives far more import to single meat existence that cannot be the major goal of the Deity, it is simply illogical to assume that is the goal without knowledge of the end result.

 

[no1tovote4]

I do not accept your premise that there
is any such thing as a soul.

Even if I were to, it would not cancel the
suffering caused by a case of smallpox, both
to the patient, and to the patient's loved ones.

And therein lies the fallacy of this argument. You argue that the existence of a supernatural being cannot be because I do not believe in the existence of a soul. Thus you can simply negate the vast number of reasons that can be the reason for such suffering without ever listening to why they do not disprove the existence of the Deity that you question.

If you are arguing the existence of the Being then you must take the whole of the picture, just saying "I don't believe in that so you can't bring it up." is a fallacy of logic.

My own sorrow at my father's death was mitigated
by the appreciation of his long and mostly happy life,
the most important part of which was the love he
shared within our family.

Mine was amplified by the fact that it came early and without warning to me. There were others who knew that my father was dying but for some reason kept this from me. I found out when I had to go to the hospital and tell them to end life support.

Even with this it still proves nothing when considering the existence of a Deity...

 

[USViking]

I disagree, often without suffering there is stagnation.

So, we should never have innoculated the first
person against smallpox, typhoid, typhus, etc.?

We must be more "stagnant" for having done so,
since so much suffering was eliminated.

There is a far larger picture to view, especially from one in the position of Deity. Ending all suffering could possibly negate the reason for the physical universe, that we learn to be what we were intended to be, as a whole not just as an individual.

That God, if He exists, created a universe where
suffering is essential is something I believe I am
on board with here.

That He was constrained to do so I am not on
board with.

There is a difference between the picture you present. God didn't kill your brother, it was a circumstance of the physical world in which we live.

An omnipotent and omnicient God created the
circumstances, and could at any time have altered
those to the benefit of my brother, and many others.

Your brother continued in another existence that we haven't the knowledge of.

It is more than possible that some suffering in this small physical existence better prepares you for the next existence where there can be larger challenges for your next step in learning....

I find it gruesome to imagine my brother might face
an even larger challenge than he has already faced.

Since we cannot know everything about all of existence attempting to judge on the same basis is simply erroneous and gives far more import to single meat existence that cannot be the major goal of the Deity, it is simply illogical to assume that is the goal without knowledge of the end result.

I will stand that one on its head, and reply that it is
illogical to assume the means chosen by the Diety
could possibly justify His ends.

That such a view accords well with those of the more
rapacious secular ideologies of the recent past is obvious.

Religious people find it impossible to realize how much
their Gods have in common with the purveyors of these ideologies.

 

[USViking]

And therein lies the fallacy of this argument. You argue that the existence of a supernatural being cannot be because I do not believe in the existence of a soul.

Where did I say this?

Thus you can simply negate the vast number of reasons that can be the reason for such suffering without ever listening to why they do not disprove the existence of the Deity that you question.

I did not say suffering disproved the existence of God.
I said it disproved the possibility of an ethical God
(ie “Therefore God has failed to do what is morally imperative.”)

If you are arguing the existence of the Being then you must take the whole of the picture, just saying "I don't believe in that so you can't bring it up." is a fallacy of logic.

I am entitled to reject any unsupported premise out of hand,
and I fail to see how you have supported your premise that
there must be a soul. All you have done is assert there is one.

Mine was amplified by the fact that it came early and without warning to me. There were others who knew that my father was dying but for some reason kept this from me. I found out when I had to go to the hospital and tell them to end life support.

I am sorry for you and your family and your father’s friends.

Even with this it still proves nothing when considering the existence of a Deity...

I have not been arguing against God’s existence, I have been
arguing about His nature, if He does exist.

 

[no1tovote4]

So, we should never have innoculated the first
person against smallpox, typhoid, typhus, etc.?

We must be more "stagnant" for having done so,
since so much suffering was eliminated.

No, you equate physical body with spirit again. You keep deliberately missing the point. They are not equal.

That God, if He exists, created a universe where
suffering is essential is something I believe I am
on board with here.

That He was constrained to do so I am not on
board with.

No, you are STILL only thinking of the physical and not one step further, this limits your own growth...

An omnipotent and omnicient God created the
circumstances, and could at any time have altered
those to the benefit of my brother, and many others.

And, as I stated, may have stagnated them, never allowing growth within or without from the boundaries of physical existence. Much like giving money to a beggar on the street is not actually helping them....

I find it gruesome to imagine my brother might face
an even larger challenge than he has already faced.

However, the challenge is not likely to be physical. It will be different.

I will stand that one on its head, and reply that it is
illogical to assume the means chosen by the Diety
could possibly justify His ends.

Or, could it be possible that the ends cannot be reached without the means? That we do not yet understand what that may be doesn't change the circumstance where this does not disprove the existence of that Creator...

That such a view accords well with those of the more
rapacious secular ideologies of the recent past is obvious.

Religious people find it impossible to realize how much
their Gods have in common with the purveyors of these ideologies.

And the non-religious have a hard time finding any lesson other than, "I am in pain, it must be the fault of the non-existant!" What point are you trying to reach here other than I don't want to therefore He must not exist? I haven't attempted to convert you, only to show that your, "We suffer therefore there cannot be a God." is a fallacious argument. It would be equally fallacious to say, "Sometimes some people are healed without scientific explanation, therefore God must exist." Neither are evidence of the conclusions.

Shoot, the Creator of the Deists simply created then watched.... Suffering is not a circumstance of the Creator of the Bible at all, but of the loss of paradise when Man sinned before that loss of paradise your brother would never have died.... We can go through many of the religions but in none of them would the statement, "We suffer therefore there is no God." ever pass muster of logical argument.

 

[Nuc]

Sorry to butt in, but USViking, do you believe in or worship the Norse Gods?

 

[USViking]

Sorry to butt in, but USViking, do you believe in or worship the Norse Gods?

No.

 

[USViking]

No, you equate physical body with spirit again. You keep deliberately missing the point. They are not equal.

No, I am not deliberately missing any point.
Let me direct your attention to your earlier post:

I disagree, often without suffering there is stagnation. There is a far larger picture to view, especially from one in the position of Deity. Ending all suffering could possibly negate the reason for the physical universe (emphasis added), that we learn to be what we were intended to be, as a whole not just as an individual.

Please sort out exactly what it is you are trying
to say, and get back with me.

No, you are STILL only thinking of the physical and not one step further, this limits your own growth...

See above.

And, as I stated, may have stagnated them, never allowing growth within or without from the boundaries of physical existence. Much like giving money to a beggar on the street is not actually helping them....

It offends me that you should compare a dying
two year-old, and his parents, to a beggar on the street,
who could not actually be helped by his recovery.

I want nothing to do with any God who shares your view.

However, the challenge is not likely to be physical. It will be different.

“Not likely”, huh? My brother is not the only person who
died at age two. How many do you suppose there have been?
What is the “likelihood” all have escaped additional physical
pain in their next lives, reincarnations, or whatever?

Furthermore, you are the one who is downplaying the physical-
the “meat” as you so elegantly expressed it earlier. I would
think, then, that suffering other than physical would be even
more acute.

Or, could it be possible that the ends cannot be reached without the means?

The tenet that the end justifies the means is considered
reprobate in human relationships.

The God you are defending has based His relationship
with human beings on this tenet.

Presimably He had the ability to do otherwise, since
He was able to create everything, and is able to take
a personal interest in each one of us.

That we do not yet understand what that may be doesn't change the circumstance where this does not disprove the existence of that Creator...

And the non-religious have a hard time finding any lesson other than, "I am in pain, it must be the fault of the non-existant!" What point are you trying to reach here other than I don't want to therefore He must not exist? I haven't attempted to convert you, only to show that your, "We suffer therefore there cannot be a God." is a fallacious argument. It would be equally fallacious to say, "Sometimes some people are healed without scientific explanation, therefore God must exist." Neither are evidence of the conclusions.

Shoot, the Creator of the Deists simply created then watched.... Suffering is not a circumstance of the Creator of the Bible at all, but of the loss of paradise when Man sinned before that loss of paradise your brother would never have died.... We can go through many of the religions but in none of them would the statement, "We suffer therefore there is no God." ever pass muster of logical argument.

How often must I repeat that I am not trying
to disprove the existence of God? I do not
think it can be either proven or disproven.

I myself have made a choice not to believe
because I consider His malevolent nature to
have been established, if He exists. I think
it would be better for there to be no God than
for there to be a malevolent one.

 

[no1tovote4]

No, I am not deliberately missing any point.
Let me direct your attention to your earlier post:

Please sort out exactly what it is you are trying
to say, and get back with me.





See above.





It offends me that you should compare a dying
two year-old, and his parents, to a beggar on the street,
who could not actually be helped by his recovery.

I want nothing to do with any God who shares your view.

It was not meant to offend. God would be working on a much larger view. That you may not see how it could possibly help them, doesn't mean that it didn't. Much like a child going into surgery can be scared and likely unconvinced in the benevolent nature of the surgeon.

“Not likely”, huh? My brother is not the only person who
died at age two. How many do you suppose there have been?
What is the “likelihood” all have escaped additional physical
pain in their next lives, reincarnations, or whatever?

My sister for one. She died long before I was born. She was born microcephalic and had health issues all of her life. We cannot know the likelyhood of any of that and that is the point. Stating there is suffering NOW and therefore that proves that there is nothing larger than us is bogus reasoning based on illogic and not on any certain determination of evidence. You cannot even make an assumption of morality as you have tried earlier, much like the child mentioned earlier before surgery may think the doctor is "mean" when his intent is to save that child's life. We cannot know what suffering in this life may gain us in a later one.

Furthermore, you are the one who is downplaying the physical-
the “meat” as you so elegantly expressed it earlier. I would
think, then, that suffering other than physical would be even
more acute.

In the context of an eternal universe the few years we have here are very little in comparison to the rest of time. Downplaying a short portion of our existence is exactly that, emphasising the terminal nature of this existence and stressing that it is only that, a tiny portion of our existence.

The tenet that the end justifies the means is considered
reprobate in human relationships.

Once again, you deliberately miss my point. You are stuck so much on the suffering that you cannot see past this minute moment of time.

That in some cases it may be worse with the 'protection' that you assume would be yours if this Deity were moral, you even assume the morality of the Deity. This is still not evidence of the non-existence of Deity, just of your lack of a larger picture. You have limited yourself so strongly to only this existence that any importance to further existence cannot be applied. Thus you apply a strict physical moral code to a much more spiritual existence such as the Deity would be.

Like a doctor cutting into somebody to remove an appendix knows that the surgery will cause suffering, he knows that he has limited the actual suffering to a less than terminal condition....

In this case the ends (the surgery) certianly justifies the means (actual physical injury in order to save a life)...

The God you are defending has based His relationship
with human beings on this tenet.

I have not defended any God whatsoever, just represented the fact that it is fallacious to argue that because there is suffering there cannot be a God. In fact I have pointed out that to argue that some are healed with no explanation therefore there must be a God would be an equal fallacy based on the same logic. This is not a defense of God, it is a defense of LOGIC.

Presimably He had the ability to do otherwise, since
He was able to create everything, and is able to take
a personal interest in each one of us.

You presume a specific religion where I have implied none. I have simply pointed out the holes in your logic. That first the Deity would follow our moral code in a strict physical sense, that because he created the Universe he should care about your personal physical suffering, that because of your personal physical suffering, and that of others, there can be no Deity, and lastly that this suffering can never promote gain in another sense (much like the surgery aforementioned).

That is all fallacious and illogical argument based solely on emotional response and not one iota found within actual logic.

How often must I repeat that I am not trying
to disprove the existence of God? I do not
think it can be either proven or disproven.

Yes. You are. I specifically quoted the post that said, (paraphrased) "Because there is suffering, there can be no God." I stated that this was an illogical argument and since you have been attempting to try to "prove" this argument with more posts on the subject. One cannot disprove God because of suffering. For all we know the Deity promotes it... or as I have stated there is much more to gain by the Deity allowing such to occur and much to be lost without it....

I myself have made a choice not to believe
because I consider His malevolent nature to
have been established, if He exists. I think
it would be better for there to be no God than
for there to be a malevolent one.

Had this been the statement you started with, I wouldn't have begun any argument at all. I like to find argument within logic, not emotion. That you choose not to believe is fine with me, it is your choice. I just think that basing it in physical suffering is simply illogical and have pointed out why.

 

[USViking]

It was not meant to offend. God would be working on a much larger view. That you may not see how it could possibly help them, doesn't mean that it didn't. Much like a child going into surgery can be scared and likely unconvinced in the benevolent nature of the surgeon.

I reject your unsupportable premise of God’s “larger view”,
and the analogy with surgeons, who in all cases promote
human life by attempting to save it.

My sister for one. She died long before I was born. She was born microcephalic and had health issues all of her life. We cannot know the likelyhood of any of that and that is the point.

Why is the liklihood my brother will not face future
physical challenges not extended to your sister?

Stating there is suffering NOW and therefore that proves that there is nothing larger than us is bogus reasoning based on illogic and not on any certain determination of evidence.

I am not saying suffering NOW proves anything except
the malevolent nature of God, the massive scale of the
suffering being certain evidence.

As long as you are blathering about evidence, can you
provide any that your sister and my brother, and any
of God’s other victims have in fact benefitted from their
suffering, either physically or spiritually?

You cannot even make an assumption of morality as you have tried earlier, much like the child mentioned earlier before surgery may think the doctor is "mean" when his intent is to save that child's life. We cannot know what suffering in this life may gain us in a later one.

Yes, I can make an assumption that moral imperatives exist.
You are free to reject them, as I am free to reject yours,
yours being that the suffering of innocents is for their
own benefit.

In the context of an eternal universe the few years we have here are very little in comparison to the rest of time. Downplaying a short portion of our existence is exactly that, emphasising the terminal nature of this existence and stressing that it is only that, a tiny portion of our existence.

All the more reason to assume the greater acuteness of the
suffering God has in store for us in the spiritual world.

Once again, you deliberately miss my point. You are stuck so much on the suffering that you cannot see past this minute moment of time.

In fact, I am looking back hundreds of thousands of years,
and forward for as long as human beings can survive.

That in some cases it may be worse with the 'protection' that you assume would be yours if this Deity were moral, you even assume the morality of the Deity.

No, what I assume is that a benevolent diety would abide
by moral imperatives.

This is still not evidence of the non-existence of Deity,

Correct.

just of your lack of a larger picture.

Evidence of your own, please.

You have limited yourself so strongly to only this existence that any importance to further existence cannot be applied. Thus you apply a strict physical moral code to a much more spiritual existence such as the Deity would be.

Correct.

Like a doctor cutting into somebody to remove an appendix knows that the surgery will cause suffering, he knows that he has limited the actual suffering to a less than terminal condition....

In this case the ends (the surgery) certianly justifies the means (actual physical injury in order to save a life)...

Let me refine what I said earlier: That the ends always
justify any means is the tenet followed by Hitler, Stalin,
God, and others.

The end being some hypothetical improved state
of existence, and the means being the suffering
and death of entire classes, nations, and, in the
case of God, every member of the human race.

The God you are defending has based His relationship
with human beings on this tenet.

I have not defended any God whatsoever,

Yes, you have.

just represented the fact that it is fallacious to argue that because there is suffering there cannot be a God.

Nor have I.

In fact I have pointed out that to argue that some are healed with no explanation therefore there must be a God would be an equal fallacy based on the same logic. This is not a defense of God, it is a defense of LOGIC.

I am with you here.

 

[USViking]

You presume a specific religion where I have implied none.

I am presuming an omnipotent and omniscient God.

I have simply pointed out the holes in your logic.

You have deliberately missed almost all my points.

That first the Deity would follow our moral code in a strict physical sense,

He should, not that He would, or has. These words
have different meanings, you know.

that because he created the Universe he should care about your personal physical suffering,

Absolutely.

that because of your personal physical suffering, and that of others, there can be no Deity,

No.

and lastly that this suffering can never promote gain in another sense (much like the surgery aforementioned).

Previously addressed

That is all fallacious and illogical argument based solely on emotional response and not one iota found within actual logic.

Not solely emotion, but also the evidence provided by
the bones and ashes of God’s countless victims.

Yes. You are. I specifically quoted the post that said, (paraphrased) "Because there is suffering, there can be no God." I stated that this was an illogical argument and since you have been attempting to try to "prove" this argument with more posts on the subject. One cannot disprove God because of suffering. For all we know the Deity promotes it... or as I have stated there is much more to gain by the Deity allowing such to occur and much to be lost without it....

Please quote me without paraphrase, citing my post #.

I have reviewed your post #s 61-62-70-71-74 (page 5)
-78 (page 6), all of which contain quotes by me, and I am
unable to locate the statement you refer to.

I myself have made a choice not to believebecause I consider His malevolent nature tohave been established, if He exists. I thinkit would be better for there to be no God than for there to be a malevolent one.

Had this been the statement you started with, I wouldn't have begun any argument at all. I like to find argument within logic, not emotion. That you choose not to believe is fine with me, it is your choice. I just think that basing it in physical suffering is simply illogical and have pointed out why.

I started with this statement prior to any exchanges with you.

See these posts:
(page 3, post #45)

I consider it proven that the diety is unethical,
if it exists.

I do not consider it possible to prove or disprove
its existence.

The evidence for its existence is in my opinion
not sufficient to justify belief in it.

(page 4, post #49)

What I consider proof applies to the nature of God,
not to His existence.