Okies...Atheists and Theists...your opinions please...?

Question

Now, just to let you know, I'm Atheist and I find this explantation a little bit lacking...but here we go:
"This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering
that I have seen. It's an explanation people will understand :

A lady went to a beauty shop to have her hair cut and her nails painted
and
trimmed. As the lady began to work, they began to have a good
conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the beautician said :
"I don't believe that God exists."

"Why do you say that?" asked Sheryl who has MS.

"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't
exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would
there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither
suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of
these things."
Then Sheryl thought for a moment, but didn't respond because she didn't
want to start an argument. The beautician just finished her job and the
customer left the shop. Just after she left the beauty shop, she saw a
woman in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and not groomed at all.
She looked dirty and unkempt.

Then Sheryl turned back and entered the beauty shop again and she said to
the beautician: "You know what? Beauticians do not exist."

"How can you say that?" asked the surprised beautician. "I am here, and I
am a beautician, and I just worked on you!"

"No!" Sheryl exclaimed. "Beauticians don't exist because if they did,
there
would be no people with dirty long hair and be very unkempt, like that
woman outside."

"Ah, but beauticians DO exist! What happens is people do not come to me."

"Exactly!" affirmed Sheryl. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What
happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why
there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Please, your thoughts on this...oh this is gonna be interesting...

Hey I dunno, I find it a lame excuse...I got this in an e-mail...so I have no clue on what this chick having a MS...I'd like to know myself...maybe it is to make her more credible or something...or that since she goes to God for whatever...she can deal with it or whatever...I dunno...thanks for the answers so far!

Answer 1

Most of the people on this thread have answered in a way that I would ~ that this argument makes no sense because there was clear evidence of the beautician existing, and none that God exists; and because a kind and compassionate God would not allow suffering.

But I'd like to add this:

Suffering and unhappiness are necessary. It's sad but true. You can't have a wave without a trough. You can't have a star without a black sky for it to lean against. If everything was absolutely perfect and happy all the time, we wouldn't even know it. We wouldn't know that satisfaction of eating something when we were very hungry, or the delicious quenching of thirst when we drink something cold on a hot hot day. I honestly think I wouldn't love my boyfriend so much if I hadn't been so terribly lonely before he came along. I appreciate his presence in my life for many reasons, but one of them was the way he relieved that type of suffering within me.

It's not like I relish suffering, especially in those that don't deserve to suffer. But it's clear to me that the world works by having contrasts in it.

Answer 2

Cute story. While I wouldn't use it to explain why there is pain and suffering in the world, I would probably use it to show that the logic behind: "If God exists and he's a loving God, why is there pain and suffering in the world" isn't really valid.

According to that same reasoning, beauticians can't exist because there are dirty, unkempt people in the world. Likewise, said beautician has the power to fix up the dirty, unkept person outside her shop... but she doesn't. Does that mean she doesn't exist? Certianly not. Does it mean she's a cruel, heartless woman with no emphaty? Maybe, but not necessarily.

Also, if I have never visited that particular beautician and I have never seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard her, does that mean she doesn't exist? No. Should I discredit her completely because I've had no experience with her whatsoever? Maybe. But what about those other people who visit her shop? I can't deny the results: they come out clean and pretty-looking. They've changed. So I know something or someone did something to make that change. Those people didn't do it themselves. Hence, I probably can't completely discredit the beautician's existence, since I have seen the results of her work.

Anyhoo, that's my 2 cents. Hope it makes sense.

Answer 3

Personally, I significance evaluations which might be sponsored up by way of a couple of standards. First might be details. That is what I appear for whilst I ask questions right here on Yahoo. What are the details? OR, is it simply an opinion that's preferably positioned down in writing. Second, I appear for reason. Is the opinion out of hindrance; is it out of Godly principled love? If now not then I don't pay so much awareness to it. Third, is it logical? If it does not ring real to me, I query its significance. Fourth, Does it move together with my Bible proficient sense of right and wrong? That is the real significance. If it stands as much as those four aspects (and I'm definite there are extra however that's what's coming to brain), then this can be a very valued opinion. The Zeb ;)

Answer 4

This defies a simpl test of the argument. Can you subsitute God for the beautician and meet the same standard of evidence?

A (Sheryl) observes, meets and talks with B (beautician).
So, A meets, observes and communicates physically with B, therefore, B can be said to exist.

Subject C (God), however, has not been observed, either by A or by B. C would only exist, using this logic argument, if C was actually met, observed and communicaced with in the same manner as B was.

The next part of the argument simply defies any reasoning. A has already admitted the existance of B. Why would the observation of D (the unkempt person) change the existance of B? They are not related. We know that, according to observed data, A, B & D exist. D may not know that A or B exist intimately, but D can observe both A and B, no matter what their hair looks like. By comparison, the matter of existance of C is still in the air. I cannot be proven by observation, as measured against the philosophy that God will end our suffering. The evidence of suffering, especially the suffering of those who believe, is manifest. You can't explain away that evidence by using faulty logic on an unrelated item.

The person on the street could observe both A and B during the discussion, no matter if they had the money to pay for a service or not. C cannot observe anything, because C is absent, and one is not told where C can be found (perhaps at the coffee shop next door).

You can't compare an argument of observation with an argument of belief or faith. It's just not logical.

Answer 5

That's a pretty childish argument. If god existed, he would not have the same limitations as a beautician. Not to mention the fact that she was actually talking to a beautician, and at least had some proof that they exist.

Answer 6

The beautician is not omnipotent and all knowing. Nor does she claim that she actively wants everyone to look beautiful, at least without paying her.

If the beautician claimed that:
She wanted everyone to be beautiful.
She was all knowing.
She was omnipotent.

Then either the unkempt lady would not have existed. Or the beautician would be lying.


So since Christians claim that god:
Loves us all
is all knowing
is omnipotent

Then little children should not suffer disease and blindness.

But sadly millions of little children do suffer disease and blindness in this world.

So, the Christians are wrong. God does not exist or is not how they describe him to be.


And WTF does her having MS have to do with anything in the story? Is this fictional character supposed to be more credible because she not only believes, but suffers too?

I understand this O.K. I understand that trite tripe like this allows believers to ignore the logical conclusions that result from the claims they make for their god.

Answer 7

The suffering thing is a lame argument against God. I mean, don't all 3 year olds think you're being a big meany for making them get innoculations?

That said, the "not going to God explains suffering" is equally lame.

God either is or is not and all of the cute analogies in the world won't prove a damned thing. You want to find God? Look to science because if there is a God, He's not cowering in the pages of a 1,600 year old text.

Answer 8

You know... sometimes I get so tired of everyone blaming God for everything in this world that is bad... Look at all of us... think about how even the nicest people in this world still to a certain degree are hateful and rude. Did any of you ever think that it could be us? And maybe.. just maybe... it could be the work of the devil. I'm not saying that a sick 3 year old with cancer is responsible for her illness, but look at this world. Look on every corner where someone is smoking a cigarette... or exaust coming out of a car... etc... we are doing it to ourselves... and Satan is loving it. So come on.. stop holding God responsible for everything... He did give us "free will"!

Answer 9

Not very interesting at all. You can answer your own question by simply substituting for god either the the Easter Bunny, the "fairy queen," or any other bit on nonsense you care to dream up.

You'll discover that lo and behold, all these nice little inventions must ALSO exist by the same logic.

NEXT!

Answer 10

It is my personal belief that there is pain and suffering in the world because GOD is a lazy SOB. creating the heavens and earth in 6 days, maybe next time don't rush you POS. instead of spending the 7th day watching reruns of Sanford and Son perhaps you could have created a world with no pain or suffering....

But to be fair who can resist Sanford and Son?