God is good but there is still suffering.

Literary characters, all, and all lacking credible evidence for their existence. I can understand why kids believe in Superman, Batman and gods, but grown adults? Hmm.

Sure.
What is evidence?

Show me some for your god and we'll find out.

We all have the same evidence.

Show some that credibly, not fallaciously, supports your god hypothesis, then.

Thanks for your honesty.

I would that more JWs were as much.

Some people come to God THROUGH suffering, myself included. Also, there are many lessons to be learned from suffering. A lot of things in life would probably have less value if you had never suffered prior to receiving them. I think suffering itself can have value.

However, most suffering is man made. A world where PEOPLE chose not to harm themselves or others; physically, mentally, or emotionally, that would likely cut out the majority of the suffering. I think at the root of the problem we all know we ourselves are mostly at fault for every problem we have.

Also, death is inevitable. We will all eventually die. If we didn't, the planet we live on could not sustain us. So death is necessary if for no other reason than for another generation to live. Sometimes the WAY people die is tragic or violent or without cause, but likely one thing is true for the sake of this argument, THAT person is no longer suffering. We forget to celebrate life and instead we take it as a personal injury and cause our own suffering or propel ourselves forward lusting after anger and blame. Again a lot if not most unnatural deaths are a result of HUMAN error.

Conscience and free will are what I come to out this topic. I think God comes to all men in our conscience, telling us His will, as opposed to ours and allows us to have a choice. Having the choice is the beauty and the downfall of mankind. So in conclusion, God wants us to know Him and to choose Him, not to force us against our will because then all meaning would be lost. Even love would have no meaning if we did not choose to love, we would only be puppets and not people without choice. But because we have a choice we abuse it. If God were to punish or remove everyone who caused suffering there would be none left. If he were to manipulate our actions and cause us not to do harm he would be taking away our choice. This in my opinion is why we have suffering, because we create it.

You were reasonable and worth reading right up to the point where you tried to shoehorn your god into the picture.

Just curious about where you would go from here.

Since we have free will, is the proper choice always to love?

Anecdoche:
(n) A conversation in which everyone is talking, but nobody is listening

Isn't that what we call an internet forum?

That does happen (a lot) but sometimes they just don't get it...

I think unity would be the proper choice, in terms of combating human suffering. Doing for the good of the many above the good of the one which itself would benefit the one. Obviously I realize this is unrealistic as you would have to have the cooperation and participation of the many.

It would require a great deal of love, in the sense that "to do for others" is a demonstration of love. Or at least a separation of self, which is humility. But most would not want this as we mostly care only about ourselves.

The point I was trying to make was that because we care mostly for ourselves there will always be suffering. But because we are capable of love, unity, service, and humility we are also capable of eliminating it through choosing God. And so God gave us the choice to choose our own fate as a species, to choose His way which is in the interest of the many, and or our way which is in the interest of the self . But offers individuals help IF we want it, WHEN we realize we need help with our choices.

Taking a great big leap there. People have been debating that for a very, very long time, and still no proof either way. Theists and other punitive-minded people cling to the concept mightily...

As do most governments who rely on the recognition of free will to stabilize their system of laws.

I think I've said before you would make a stellar defense attorney.

Ah, did I mention last time that this is a fallacious appeal to common practice?



I could get any star off the hook, I guarantee it!

Common practice?
But of course.

Did you get the deal where he denies free will while at the same time depending on a bunch of philosophical axioms?

Talk about 'clinging'...
I wonder why he thinks he even has a choice about it?

Point to exactly the place where I denied free will.

He has the right to determine the axioms which will substantiate his deterministic point of view.

Er. . .