Imperfections of man versus a perfect God

[Ostronomos]

Trailblazer said: ↑

We lost another cat today, and that makes six cats we have lost in one year. I just told my story about all the cat losses I have endured on the Pet Loss Forum but I won’t post the story here. I do not really know anyone on that forum since I rarely go there, but I had to post it somewhere, and all those people understand how I feel whereas my husband does not understand because he never grieves over the loss of a cat or close family member.

Suffice to say I can hardly believe this happened again. It was not due to lack of care that she or any of those other cats passed away. So why does this keep happening?

The following is what I wrote to one poster on the Pet Loss Forum who was feeling guilty because her cat died, even though she did all she could do for her cat.

I said: “I also know about the guilt, but I do not struggle with that anymore, I just have tremendous grief. Why should I feel guilty when I did all I could do? The fact of the matter is that death is part of life, and the buck stops with God because God created a material world where people and animals will die. I do not forgive God for all the suffering I have endured and I doubt I ever will. God is squarely responsible for all this suffering we endure and I cannot understand why other people don't see that God is responsible, because it is just logic. Atheists see it, but believers don't see it because they don't want to see it. I am a believer and I see it, knowing there is nothing I can do about it because God is omnipotent. It is a really difficult position to be in.”

I believe that God exists, I am sure of it, but there is no way I am going to believe a God that allows this much suffering is a loving God. I certainly am not only referring to my own suffering, I am referring to all the suffering of other people and animals. Just think of how many people have lost loved ones due to Covid-19. How is it their fault that they died and left grieving family members?

Whenever a cat dies we have this discussion and my husband says I should drop out of the Baha’i Faith and “become” an atheist, but I cannot “become” an atheist anymore than an atheist can become a believer, since I believe that God exists. Moreover, it is not a requirement of my religion for me to believe that God is loving. I am a logical person and I cannot believe what I see no evidence for just because it is in a book of scriptures. And where is this loving God? He sends Messengers to do His dirty work and then goes back into hiding. I would not show up either if I was God and was responsible for all this suffering.
Click to expand...

God is powerless to interfere with the material dynamic of reality as God is not a material object. He cannot make surgical alterations to you or your cat. He cannot heal broken bones. He cannot prevent you from dying of a horrible disease. The only apparent signs of His presence in our world is through electromagnetic radiation and dreams, or upon death. The reason is simple; we are cut off from interacting with Him unless we are either dreaming or in an altered state of consciousness. This does not however preclude God from scientific explanation. Rather, science must evolve to a point beyond its present stage in order to have any hope of aiding you and your cat. The onus is on humanity and you, not God. Our imperfections are thus not a reason to deny the existence of God as there is an inescapable logic that demonstrates His existence through science.

[Yazata]

God is powerless to interfere with the material dynamic of reality as God is not a material object.

Not being a material object might make causal interaction problematic. But the so-called "laws of physics" obviously interfere/constrain what happens in the physical realm and they aren't material objects.

If we believe in physical determinism (I don't think that I do) then whatever established the universe's initial conditions and the rules by which it evolves through time would seem to have determined everything that will ever happen in that universe. A deity might have set all that to turn out a particular way. Why did I just pick my nose? The Big Bang/God made me do it! It's all part of the cosmic plan!

That's why I'm inclined to think that determinism, despite it being hugely popular among atheists, is really just another species of creationism.

[Zinjanthropos]

Imperfections of man versus a perfect God

Does that mean God did not create us? I feel that if he did, then we are either meant to be the way we are or that we have no imperfections.

[C C]

God is powerless to interfere with the material dynamic of reality...

"Powerless" flirts with superfluousness, unless _X_ is a concept or tool (like a formula) that experts use to predict, engineer, control, or evaluate. The latter inert in and of itself, but knowledge still necessary to guide human thought and action.

Somewhat similarly yet different, one might contend that "God" is a prior-in-rank principle -- one that is potent, not passive -- that makes place, size, relationships and quantity possible (a realm where things reside, IOW). But that would be in the context of being the "hierarchical cause" of the entire development of the natural world rather than an antecedent cause of it back circa 14-billion years ago. (Which is to say, you can't have a transcendent creator contradictorily enslaved to the coordinates of space and time.)

Since such a "Supreme Principle" lacks a location (i.e., it makes location possible in the first place), it likewise borders on being superfluous because there is no spatiotemporal or consensus experiential evidence for it (only motivated arguments outputted by reasoning).

... as God is not a material object.

"Material" is either phenomenal (perception, sensation) or the abstract description of a discipline (like physics). There is no third manner of existence to provide, since even Kant's blank "things-in-themselves" would have to be referred to with language or another representational system.

That's not to say that the professional world isn't filled with myth-makers who believe "material" correlates to a third alternative. But if you check what they're actually offering it will be either an object/form of appearance/feeling or artificial symbols/graphics.

"Immaterial" is ironically used in the same two ways: Designating either phenomenal affairs or intellectual entities/properties dependent upon description or representational placeholders.

- - - - - -

NOTE: Technical description is actually manifested, too (it can be subsumed under "phenomenal"). But I must cater to the mainstream imbecility of philosophers and scientists who treat them as distinct (one treated as empirical perception of "stuff", the other treated as rational perception of "stuff").