(If you want the quick answer to this conundrum, go to the final three paragraphs of this article. If you want an explanation of the answer, read on)
I’ve asked ChatGPT an unsolvable question again, just to see what answer an impartial intelligence will come up with!
The premise in the title of this article is the go-to existential problem that atheists use to (supposedly) destroy the faith of all religious people. The thing is, this question only works if you believe in a ‘magic-wand god’ – this god does not exist; it is a false god, destined to fatally disappoint everyone who believes in it, and who builds their faith in it. The premise also assumes that all suffering comes from God; however, in the experiences of my own life, most of my own harshest suffering and cruellest pain has been caused by human beings, not God.
In contrast, in my own life, God has been there to give me the strength to endure all the things I’ve been through. God has been there to love me and support me in the absence of human love and support. God has been there to teach me and guide me with wisdom, in the absence of human guides or mentors. God was always there to care for me and console me, in the absence of any of that which should have come from human beings.
Furthermore, having a scientific mind, knowing how biology and nature works, when I consider the physical illnesses and infirmities I now have, God has given me the strength and courage to accept them as part of the biological human condition – I obviously do what I can to alleviate my conditions (e.g. taking medicines, following medical treatments etc), but I don’t feel the need to blame God at all. In short, the God I believe in and know, has never failed me in any part of my life. As a Follower of the Way, as a Talmidi, I experience God – YHVH – as a very powerful, living, caring and loving Being. That‘s the God I have always desired to teach all of you!
Our present human culture is one that has been conditioned to seek to apportion blame for everything wrong that happens to us, even when it is natural. I personally don‘t feel the need to resent God or be angry at God for any of my pain or suffering, not because I‘m naïve or blind or intellectually-challenged, but because I understand how nature works.
Abolishing the human condition
The premise of this article inherently assumes the abolition of the human condition. So, for example, in order to stop the pain I have suffered in life, you would‘ve had to fundamentally alter what human beings are – from being agents of free will, to being robotic automatons who never have any choice in life. Does anyone think human beings would ever agree to relinquishing their free will and become robots? In such a perfect world, no human would ever be free.
God is greatly concerned with our suffering and our pain, so God has given us ethical and moral laws to protect us; following these laws is God‘s way of reaching out to humanity, of guiding us and sheltering us. Like any caring and loving parent, God hurts deeply to the heart to see us suffer. Too often, we look for God in all the wrong places. God is in the kind word, in the helping hand, in the selfless act, in the warm embrace, not in the disease, the misfortune or the catastrophe. God is in the beautiful things in life, the happinesses, in the new things we learn and the wisdom, in the wonder, the awe, the majesty of life, not in its cruelty.
Making mistakes is part of being human, part of learning, part of growing and evolving. To stop all suffering and pain caused by humans, you would have to become beings with static knowledge, beings which did not grow or evolve in any way. God has given us laws to guide us on the right path, to protect us, but it is up to us to make the choice to do the right thing – to choose not to harm others.
You know I‘m a big sci-fi fan. If you know the Star Trek Universe, you will be aware of the Q. The Q are perfect beings who have never experienced pain or suffering, and as a consequence, they have no compassion or empathy. They inflict pain and suffering on others, because they have no experience of it themselves. Do we really want to become like the Q?
What would actually be required of God to do, in order for God to accomplish the feat of preventing all pain, suffering, illness and accident?
When you examine the question from a purely scientific perspective, you realise that the expectation of abolishing all suffering and pain is ultimately an unreasonable one. The premise is based on a child-like, simplistic view of what God is supposed to be. We can certainly work to diminish suffering, and I believe that God is guiding our scientists and researchers in that direction, but abolishing it altogether is not practical, for the reasons you will see below.
Logically, in order to prevent all natural suffering, such as illnesses, disease, infirmity, accidents and natural catastrophes, all the natural laws of the universe would have to be suspended and abolished. So looking at the question from a purely scientific perspective, with no theological considerations in the picture at all: If you can figure out why the natural world cannot and indeed must not bring all suffering to an end, then you will realise why God does not do it, and you will have your answer to this conundrum.
Most of you know I love the life-sciences, and as I mentioned previously, the main reason why I don‘t even ask myself this question of, “If God really existed, then surely God would not allow suffering“, is because I understand how nature works. In order to ensure that no humans ever suffered, you would have to suspend all the laws of physics and biology. In order to stop the negative sides of a scientific law, you also have to shut down its positive sides too, such as cause and effect – no effect would have any causes, and no causes would have any effect.
Not being an expert on science by any means, but wanting to know from a scientific perspective, what would actually happen if you suspended all natural laws to prevent suffering, I decided to ask ChatGPT this question:
Ignoring all theology and the concept of God, focussing purely on observable scientific principles, what would happen if you suspended all the laws of physics and biology, in order to ensure that no human being ever suffered pain, disease, infirmity or accident?
The answer took me through a whole string of logical cause and effect. The bottom line is that humans would basically exist in a biological black hole, and would not be able to function, or even survive or exist as humans. In order for this suspension to be completely effective, it would need to happen to the entire universe, and the universe too would then collapse, and cease to exist.
So in order to understand why God doesn‘t stop suffering and pain, you have to understand why the universe cannot do it. Conversely, if you can understand what would happen in nature if pain and suffering were abolished, you will understand why God doesn‘t do it, or won‘t do it. Does that make sense? True, God can do anything, but there are logical reasons why there are certain things that God doesn‘t do, won‘t do, or mustn‘t do.
Basically, in order to stop all suffering caused by human beings, humans would have to become completely compliant and obedient, mindless automatons. In order to stop all natural human suffering, all the laws of the universe would have to be suspended; as a consequence, human beings would cease to exist, and eventually, the universe itself would cease to exist. Basically, the very act of preventing all suffering and pain becomes an act of anti-creation.
CHATGPT‘S ANSWERS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU SUSPENDED ALL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS TO STOP HUMAN SUFFERING
I‘ve appended the answers ChatGPT gave me:
Ignoring all theology and the concept of God, focussing purely on observable scientific principles, what would happen if you suspended all the laws of physics and biology, in order to ensure that no human being ever suffered pain, disease, infirmity or accident?
That’s a fascinating philosophical conundrum! Creating a specific exception to the laws of physics and biology for a single species, humanity, would have bizarre and catastrophic consequences. This scenario creates an impossible and self-contradictory paradox. The human biological exemption would cause a cascading collapse of ecosystems and societies, ultimately destroying the very life it was meant to protect.
Ecological paradox and systemic collapse
The exemption from suffering is a physical and biological contradiction. Humans would no longer be subject to the limitations that govern all other life, leading to the collapse of the biosphere.
- Humans become biological black holes: For biological laws to be suspended for humans, our bodies could no longer be part of the food chain or the nutrient cycle. We would eat food, but we could not consume it. Humans would produce no waste or decay, meaning we would be a net sink of all biomass we consume, with no way to return nutrients to the environment. This would cause a biological and ecological desertification, draining the planet of resources that support all other life.
- The end of the food supply: While humans would no longer get ill from parasites or bacteria, our food sources would remain vulnerable to them. We would consume resources, but other organisms, like food crops, would still suffer from diseases and decay, collapsing the agricultural base that supports our population.
- A ‘war of the worlds’ scenario: In effect, humans would become functionally alien to the planet‘s biology. Bacteria, viruses, and parasites that prey on every other living thing would bounce off of us harmlessly, but we would be unable to engage with our environment in a normal symbiotic fashion.
- Immunity is a biological fight, not an absence of it: The premise assumes that removing all suffering means removing all illness. But the immune system is a constant, biological battle between a body‘s systems and pathogens. It is a form of managed, biological suffering. Removing this would require removing some or all of a human‘s immune system, which would make humans a walking petri dish for germs to cultivate and evolve, and so if they left the human body, they would endanger all other species.
Societal and ethical implosions
An exemption for humans alone would create unresolvable ethical and social problems.
- Immortality and overpopulation: If humans were immune to infirmity, the world would rapidly become overpopulated, creating a struggle for finite resources. This would likely lead to new, non-lethal forms of conflict.
- Psychological disintegration: While physical pain would be gone, psychological and emotional suffering would remain. As overpopulation, resource scarcity, and mass boredom became a reality, human societies could break down. The absence of any fear of death or physical injury could also lead to extreme risk-taking and self-destructive behavior.
- Meaninglessness: The finitude of human life and the struggle against hardship often provide purpose. Without the ultimate motivation of survival and the struggle to overcome adversity, all human ambition could become meaningless. Art, philosophy, and science could wither as humanity becomes a race of apathetic, directionless, untouchable beings.
Philosophical and logical collapse
Ultimately, the scenario is a philosophical problem, not just a biological one.
- A fundamentally illogical premise: The concept of ‘suspending’ a physical law for one species is illogical. It implies the existence of a higher-order system or consciousness that manages and distributes natural law, which is not part of any currently known science. The scenario is not just a scientific problem, but a question of metaphysics.
- The meaning of ‘suffering’: The very definition of ‘suffering’ becomes problematic in this scenario. What is ‘pain’? Is it a feeling? Or is it a state of being? If humans no longer feel physical pain, do they suffer from a disease they don‘t perceive, or is the disease itself gone? The premise creates a self-contradictory paradox, where the word itself loses all meaning.
- No frame of reference: Without the contrast of suffering, concepts like ‘joy,’ ‘happiness,’ and ‘well-being’ would lose all meaning. Human existence would become a monotone existence, incapable of understanding the emotions that give life purpose.
If the laws of physics and biology were suspended such that no human being ever suffered pain, disease, infirmity, or accident, we’re not just tweaking reality — we’re abolishing it. Here’s what would happen to the universe, step by step:
1. “Suspending the laws of physics and biology” means no physical causality
Physics defines how matter and energy interact. If these laws are suspended, then:
- Forces (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.) no longer behave predictably — or at all.
- There’s no cause-and-effect relationship.
- There’s no consistent space-time structure.
Without these, physical reality cannot persist. You can’t have matter, energy, or living organisms in a coherent state if physical laws don’t operate.
Result: The universe would instantly disintegrate into non-structure — a state of undefined existence.
2. Biology depends entirely on physics
All biological processes (metabolism, DNA replication, neural signalling, etc.) depend on physical laws governing:
- Chemical bonds,
- Energy transfer,
- Molecular stability.
If those are suspended:
- Cells can’t maintain membranes or exchange energy.
- Proteins can’t fold or function.
- DNA can’t store or transmit information.
Result: Life ceases to be possible in any recognizable form.
3. The requirement of “no pain, disease, infirmity, or accident” implies total physical invulnerability
To have that without biology or physics, you would have to create a state where:
- No organism can experience damage.
- No physical system can fail.
- No random events can cause harm.
That means:
- No entropy (violation of the second law of thermodynamics).
- No randomness (violation of quantum mechanics).
- No aging (violation of cellular and molecular degradation laws).
But if entropy doesn’t exist and no processes can fail, nothing can change. You would have an unchanging, static universe frozen in a single configuration — no decay, but also no growth, movement, or thought.
Result: The absence of pain and decay equals the absence of dynamic life.
4. Consciousness would cease to function
Pain, perception, and emotion depend on:
- Neural signals,
- Synaptic transmission,
- Chemical gradients.
If these can’t cause distress, injury, or dysfunction, it means either:
- Neurons cannot misfire or overfire (so no pain), or
- The brain cannot alter state in ways that register harm.
But both conditions imply:
- No variation in signal intensity,
- No possibility of error or adaptation.
Therefore, no meaningful neural computation. Without biological signalling variation, consciousness would collapse into inert equilibrium — a brain that cannot process change.
5. Logical outcome: a paradox
The initial stipulation (that “humans never suffer”) presupposes that humans exist in some stable physical form. But suspending physics and biology eliminates the framework in which ’human’ has any meaning. It’s equivalent to asking for a ’triangle with no sides’ — conceptually self-contradictory.
Result: The moment you remove the laws of physics and biology, you also remove the possibility of humans existing to experience the absence of suffering.
Here’s me back again! The ultimate answer to our question
Why doesn’t God end all suffering and pain? From a purely scientific perspective, the answer is because humanity, all life, and the entire universe would collapse and cease to exist. Ending all suffering would ultimately be an act of destruction and anti-creation, and God cannot act against God’s own Self (if you wish to read further about the problem of suffering, I have written this other article on the subject).
Nevertheless, God acknowledges our pain, God feels and experiences our individual pain. That is why God becomes a source of the knowledge, strength and courage we can draw from, in order to help us get through our times of pain and suffering. False Religion has given us the expectation that the goal of religion is to end all suffering, but pain and suffering are a natural part of what life is. True Religion helps us to get through the bad times, to provide both divine and human support for us when we suffer, to comfort and console us in our times of trouble.
It is only in heaven that all suffering and pain no longer exists, because the laws of time and space, physics and biology, don’t function there. The Bible tells us that God is working to bring heaven to earth – that there will come a time when there will be universal peace, no more suffering, disease, war or death. That will only happen when God is able to bring heaven to earth without causing it to collapse in on itself. So God is working on it!! There is more going on behind the scenes than any human being on earth can possibly imagine!