One may argue that while we may not be able to understand fully what God is thinking, we currently know a form of suffering as defined by humans and as such and all-knowing being such as God should be aware of what we determine to be horrendous or gratuitous suffering. Even if we do not know God’s intent or thought, we have been given, in Exodus, the Ten Commandments. One of the most prominent Commandments is written as, “Thou shall not kill”, which should be an indicator that God and us humans have had some form of connection about what is good and what is bad for the world. In a very basic sense humans have an idea of what is good and what is bad, to which it follows that most bad things lead to suffering for at least one person. In regards to the Ten Commandments, it is known that premature death or murder is a form of suffering for the world. As such, if God was a being that is not tied down to the laws of nature he should be able to prevent one, if not all, unnecessary sufferings and deaths of the world. [Furthermore, why then, is it considered that death is a form of reprieve of suffering?] Immediately it should point towards the possibility that there is suffering that must be ended in death and ultimately an all good, all powerful, and all knowing God would have prevented such circumstances. Despite being unknowing of what God thinks, we believe that God knows what we feel and think and as such would not allow us to endure our believed form of suffering. This particular argument engages my critique in that it shows that knowing what God’s thoughts are is irrelevant because there is still suffering in the world. I believe this particular argument to be impactful in that it attacks the main portion of my critique and adequately explains how it is unnecessary for humans to fully understand the thoughts of
One may argue that while we may not be able to understand fully what God is thinking, we currently know a form of suffering as defined by humans and as such and all-knowing being such as God should be aware of what we determine to be horrendous or gratuitous suffering. Even if we do not know God’s intent or thought, we have been given, in Exodus, the Ten Commandments. One of the most prominent Commandments is written as, “Thou shall not kill”, which should be an indicator that God and us humans have had some form of connection about what is good and what is bad for the world. In a very basic sense humans have an idea of what is good and what is bad, to which it follows that most bad things lead to suffering for at least one person. In regards to the Ten Commandments, it is known that premature death or murder is a form of suffering for the world. As such, if God was a being that is not tied down to the laws of nature he should be able to prevent one, if not all, unnecessary sufferings and deaths of the world. [Furthermore, why then, is it considered that death is a form of reprieve of suffering?] Immediately it should point towards the possibility that there is suffering that must be ended in death and ultimately an all good, all powerful, and all knowing God would have prevented such circumstances. Despite being unknowing of what God thinks, we believe that God knows what we feel and think and as such would not allow us to endure our believed form of suffering. This particular argument engages my critique in that it shows that knowing what God’s thoughts are is irrelevant because there is still suffering in the world. I believe this particular argument to be impactful in that it attacks the main portion of my critique and adequately explains how it is unnecessary for humans to fully understand the thoughts of