I used to think “if there really was a God, why would he create cancer and cause fetal growth anomalies?”, and as I learn of all the things we created (plastic nanoparticles in drinking tap water in Sweden, for example), I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t God who is to blame for cancer, but ourselves.
back
7 comments
If you believe in an all-powerful God, it follows that he/she/it also created the conditions which allows cancer to exist and chose to do nothing to prevent it (because the opposite contradicts its/his/her all-powerfulness).
If life was a test, and we are rewarded based on that test. Would it be fair for god to intervene and remove the evil and sick? Wouldn't that be unfair for the good people? What would be the point of virtue in this life without its coexistence with evil. We appreciate our health when we get sick. We appreciate good people when we meet evil ones. We will appreciate heaven with the existence of hell.
> If life was a test, and we are rewarded based on that test. Would it be fair for god to intervene and remove the evil and sick?
An all-powerful god who creates subjects that are capable of failing a test of his own devising, even though he totally could make everyone adequate if he so chose, such a god is an evil sadist.
It'd be like making up rules for what constitutes an evil pixel in Conway's game of life and punishing those pixels for their transgressions. You controlled every parameter. Those pixels failed the test because you set them up for preordained failure.
The only way to square this away is to assume that god isn't unwilling to intervene, but is unable to.
> An all-powerful god who creates subjects that are capable of failing a test of his own devising, even though he totally could make everyone adequate if he so chose, such a god is an evil sadist
That wouldn't be called a test. That would be perfect beings who follow the commands of god. (which already exist and are called angels)
> It'd be like making up rules for what constitutes an evil pixel in Conway's game of life and punishing those pixels for their transgressions. You controlled every parameter.
If we set the rules and command those pixels you to follow the rules otherwise we punish you. And those pixels had free will but still chose to transgress. Wouldn't be fair to punish them?
> Those pixels failed the test because you set them up for preordained failure.
You have free will. You chose to transgress and revoke god even though the signs were obvious. God knows the outcome because he is all-knowing but you now have the freedom to do whatever you want. Your actions are not forced.
> You chose to transgress and revoke god even though the signs were obvious.
About 4000 religions that all have a different opinion of what it means to transgress and what god might be is 'obvious'?
There are 4000 religions, but there is one truth. there cannot be 2 truths otherwise that means neither is the truth. We are required to find that truth and follow it.
There has to be objective morality that was commanded by god to know what is good and what is bad.
Now for me, it's Islam and the Quran. I can say with certainty that the Quran is the word of god and there is plenty of proof. We just need to do a bit of research.
What is free will when my life depends on the actions of others? If the water that I drink is filled with nanoparticles that will result in cancer, why I am suffering from the free will of the others who decided to put them there? That means I'm not the subject under test, I'm a NPC.
So now we have established that there are perfect beings (angels), subjects under tests (those who have free will) and NPCs (those who suffer from the actions of the aforementioned subjects).
It's ok to worship a cruel god, you know. Just not my cup of tea.
You don't have to pretend he is perfect or justify all his actions. Just admit that any human who made the decisions he did would be rightfully judged as an evil person, but since "might makes right" I guess god is infallible.
Mental gymnastics only helps you sleep at night and won't change the rest of our minds.
Also this discussion went off topic real fast and my comment doesn't help.
Boring. What's the point of a test where everyone passes? Creating an environment where everything is destined to pass sounds way less interesting than adding some rules and randomness (although in real life it's more complex). Also whoever said that death fails the test?
Being good is boring. Being malevolent is where all the fun is. At least for the omnipotent beings.
> The only way to square this away is to assume that god isn't unwilling to intervene, but is unable to.
Or maybe it is unwilling to intervene because he is immensely powerful but not omniscient. And so, if he wants to create the perfect world, he has to run tests first. The same way we break materials to know their physical properties, that god is breaking humans to test their limits, so that the next iteration will be better. He is not sadistic, we are just unlucky to be in the cancer test batch.
There is no ethical issue in breaking materials, that we're aware of. Performing experiments that cause suffering to sapient beings, when sapience is clearly not required for the phenomena studied (humans without brains get cancer just fine) seems harder to justify ethically.
Calling something a test wouldn't make the harm and suffering you've set up ok. Otherwise "Saw" would be wholesome family movie recommended for all ages.
On the contrary. Setting up "tests" is often a sign of perverse malevolence.
That only follows if God didn’t enable free will. Most theists believe God will redeem and rehabilitate the entire universe once time is up. For example, Christians believe that sin is responsible for a fallen world and that God will fix not just the planet, but the entire universe.
How can you make a choice through free will that God didn't anticipate or in fact intend since he created good/evil/free will and in fact all things?
Same way you can predict the weather even though predicting it doesn't cause it to happen. God's prediction abilities would have been honed over trillions of years versus our few decades of computerized meteorology. It doesn't follow that just because you know something is going to happen that you cause it to happen. I think some things are left up to people with certain major events in people's lives and indeed in society at large being determined ahead of time, and in those cases how people respond to what happens is where they exercise their free will. Other times they're allowed to choose something of their own choosing from options provided or allowed by God.
God created the weather along with the rest of the universe he doesn't predict it. The only way he wouldn't know the outcome is if there is an outside force or source of entropy not created by him.
If I program a virtual world that includes virtual beings it would be idiocy to blame them or worse punish them for any choice they make, I programmed their ability to make choices they only do what I created them to do.
I agree that God created the weather and doesn't predict it. I only brought up the weather as an example of systems that humans can predict with high success despite that prediction not having any causal impacts. The predictors don't by their prediction cause the predicted. So we have an example of a system where there is some kind of mechanism by which we see that it is possible to know without causing.
I agree with you as well that it would be...unfair in some sense to punish or blame people for their bad choices. I think this is complex enough that the only way to treat the subject with nuance is to consider a specific religious theology. This is because we need to know what God's attributes are.
In the typical Abrahamic sense, God is considered to be perfect and holy. That is why he cannot be in the same place as sin without just destroying it. It's the same with how light in a dark room necessarily lights up the darkness. It just cannot help but light up the darkness - it is in its nature. But since God is also perfect in love and in mercy, this means that he doesn't really blame people for much. In fact, that's why he forgives and saves and loves. If he really blamed or punished people for their choices, well, nobody would make it. But again, my view is that God is love and that mercy is his greatest attribute. And that this is consistent with his perfection.
>So we have an example of a system where there is some kind of mechanism by which we see that it is possible to know without causing.
How is it possible for God to not be the cause of all things since he's is the creator of all things? If god did not cause something then that means there is something that god did not create and came from somewhere else.
Revelation 21:6 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
>. That is why he cannot be in the same place as sin without just destroying it.
So god did not create sin? This seems in contradiction with him creating all things.
>But since God is also perfect in love and in mercy, this means that he doesn't really blame people for much.
Genesis 3:16 - To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
Sound like blame and punishment to me that all women get to share for ones choice long ago to eat from the tree of knowledge, pure idiocy.
God doesn’t predict, God is omniscient. He knows past, present, and future.
Is that how God defines his power over knowledge, or is it according to human definitions? Ultimately, this being is the one who created reality and decides the limits of what can be known because he is the one furthest in knowledge and prediction powers. God does predict. He knows everything that can be known, and he predicts and makes the future and sometimes lets it go on its own for the sake of free will, but only in the short term.
This is like asking why we'd write software that has bugs.
Well, I have no idea why a hypothetically omnipotent and benevolent god would allow bugs in my code to exist either. Unfortunately, not being omnipotent myself I have certain disadvantages in that regard.
Cancers existed in ancient times. Besides, even if all harm was done by humans the God would still bear the ultimate blame because he created humans and the universe in such way that those things happen. The only way you can honestly believe in omnipotent God is by concluding he is malevolent. It resolves all contradictions very neatly.
It's not clear to me cancer rates are actually higher than the past. People are living longer because they're not dying of other diseases (tuberculoses, syphilis, heart attacks, etc. etc.), and no one was checking what did or didn't give you cancer in the past.
And animals get cancer. Tasmanian devils and their infectious mouth cancer is a famous example.
It's extremely clear that we're exposed to more man made materials proved or suspected to cause cancer than 200 years ago.
The fact that we live longer doesn't mean we couldn't live even better/longer without all these pollutants
With everyone burning fires for heating and cooking, factories spewing out smoke, and no one testing chemicals used to colour everything from clothing to food to toys? I wouldn't be so sure.
> I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t God who is to blame for cancer, but ourselves.
Wonder no more, 70%+ cancer are caused by lifestyle or environmental conditions, most of which is negatively impacted by our own choices (lack of exercise, contaminated food, contaminated water, bad diets, bad construction materials outgassing nasty things, &c.)
Well given that humans actually exist as opposed to a fairy tale that does not, it’s a pretty easy swing as to who’s at fault here.
If you don't like that philosophical abstraction then let me phrase it another way: "How much of our cancer rates and fetal anomalies are a natural result of our genes, and how much are they a result of things we humans have done to our environment?"
>I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t God who is to blame for cancer, but ourselves
Since God created us and the whole universe then how can he not be to blame for anything that occurs within it?
The only possibility for God to not accept blame is if there were some outside force that he did not create for which blame can be attributed to.