An argument for free will/suffering and evil.

Originally posted by Halitose
no, i do not think this is a very good summary. the point is this: if you want to convincingly claim that an OOMP God exists, then you need to be able to support the claim that ALL evil and suffering that exist are logically necessary for some greater good (an alternative, i guess, would be to entertain the notion of a callous God, but this is a positio e view and say that you need two consenting parties within a marriage for it to be good. Irre...

God-created sex? are you making stuff up as you go?

in seriousness, thanks for your reply. i haven't the time at the moment to respond to your thoughts, but i will when i can.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, in essence, your point is as follows:

[b]God created humanity so that a loving relationship could obtain.

A loving relationship can obtain if and only if the loving parties can freely choose to love one another.

The freedom of choice required for a loving relationship does not merely extend to the choice of loving or not, but to the choice as to d ...[text shortened]... no reason to think that God's being "good" is actually morally important.

Best,

Bennett

You've got it wrong my friend.

One is not born with character, character is learned, by your experiences and teachings as you make your way through life. which is why I can have a character A today, come a year, I have a different character. (It's your value system)

Originally posted by LemonJello
God-created sex? are you making stuff up as you go?

in seriousness, thanks for your reply. i haven't the time at the moment to respond to your thoughts, but i will when i can.

God-created sex? are you making stuff up as you go?

😏

in seriousness, thanks for your reply. i haven't the time at the moment to respond to your thoughts, but i will when i can.

You're welcome. No rush.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Lucifer/satan

What was there purpose or the reason for: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. GENESIS 1:1

Good point...seems like he always gets missed. I have said it before, but the secret of his success is the secrecy in which he moves.

Originally posted by Halitose

Well, I disagree. God's omnipotence ends at our choice, our freedom, our free will. Its a paradox: an omnipotent God who chooses to limit His omnipotence to allow His creation the freedom of choice. God will not intervene with our freedom unless He is asked to.

He will not intervene unless He is "asked" to intervene? i think that claim is going to lead to some interesting conclusions. consider a particularly devious man, Mr. X, who happens to possess a large number of powerful nuclear devices. he uses his free will to choose to strategically place these devices around the world, and his plan is to simultaneously detonate the devices. if successful, the plan will annihilate the entire human race through direct impact and subsequent nuclear fallout, making earth uninhabitable. since the only persons who know about the plan are Mr. X and a few of his very loyal followers, no one "asks" God to stop the plan. will God intervene? according to your claim, God will not intervene, and the entire human race will be obliterated by Mr. X. since the entire human race is completely wiped out, you will have a very hard time convincing me that this instance of Mr. X's evil is logically necessary for some greater good. therefore, i think an omnipotent, omniscient God who only intervenes when asked to intervene is at best indifferent to the sufferings of man; more likely, such a God is a monster. for it follows from your claim that God will NOT intervene to stop any logically unnecessary instance of suffering that is not accompanied by a plea for intervention. you could counter by saying that the mere existence of free will is a good of ultimate significance, such that any instance of evil that is directly brought about by human free will is logically necessary; however, to convince me of that, you would, among other things, need to explain to me how Mr. X's wiping out the whole of mankind could be interpreted as logically necessary. this also brings up other questions: if God would intervene to stop Mr. X but does not intervene in certain other instances of evil due to human free will, then where does God draw the line between intervening and not intervening? if he is morally perfect, then he must draw the line where logical necessity dictates that it be drawn. where is that? you still have not demonstrated why all or even some of the suffering that results from free will is logically necessary.

by the way, what do you mean by "unless He is asked to?" who does the asking? also, is asking God to intervene only a necessary condition, or is it also a sufficient condition, for actually getting some intervention?

My reasons for logically necissary end at the free will for man. I don't deny that suffering can be used for good, and is probably used by God for that said purpose. As none of us are omniscient, I really doubt we could even know for sure whether any suffering was logically necissary. What criteria do we use to judge "logically necissary"? Whose ethical standard? The question also arises of the goal of suffering. To what end would God allow suffering? Turning a inwardly centered person towards Him?

ah ha! the old "God works in mysterious ways, so who are we to try to understand Him?" routine. very ineffectual IMO. suppose you wake up one morning to the sound of God scuffling around and making noises in your room. you look over and there is God with a sword, chopping off the heads of live human babies and puppies. so you would just go back to sleep and say to yourself "well, as i've always said, God works in mysterious ways."??? i doubt it. if it looks and walks and makes sounds like a duck, we call it a duck. likewise, if it looks and seems like logically unnecessary suffering, we should call it that. take any reasonable ethical theory and tell me whether or not the suffering caused by Katrina seems and looks logically necessary to you. if it doesn't, but you still cling to your fall-back that the ways of OOMP God are mysterious, then you are, IMO, simply trying to dodge the problem of evil.

I don't deny that suffering can be used for good, and is probably used by God for that said purpose.

this is all well and good, but to say that suffering can at times be causally sufficient in bringing about good is, unfortunately, nowhere near strong enough to conclude that such suffering is logically necessary for said good to obtain. rather, it must be shown that the measure of good which obtained could not possibly have been brought about without the said instance of suffering.

True freedom is having consequence to choice.

even if this is true, you surely must acknowledge that if free will is a process by which man can choose to do good or choose to do evil, then in theory, free will does not necessitate any evil whatsoever. for every man could employ his free will to freely choose to do only good. this is a logically possible state of affairs; so it follows that OOMP God could have made it so. in short, God could have made it so that each man freely chooses to do only good. are you then going to tell me that true freedom would not exist in such a world? according to your above statement, true freedom DOES exist in such a world, for the consequences of evil actions are not any less imminent simply because men always in practice freely choose to do good. so unless you can show that the evil in our world is in fact logically necessary (irrespective of whether free will exists or not), then it follows that God was morally negligent by creating the particular world in which we live. so the appeal to free will does you no good in getting around the problem of evil (it also does you no good because free will does not explain natural evils, but you already know and acknowledge that.).

Simply altered the transgressor's integral character slightly? Huh? Interfere with free will? Unless you are asserting that its God's fault that somebody has an aggressive character. I contend that our character is molded by the choices we make, therefore interfering with our character is an interference of our free will.

the choices that one makes freely are influenced by the agent's integral and abiding character. if God would have made it such that, for example, your character were different, that would not change the fact that you are still free to choose according to your character, although the choices you make may in fact be different. if God would have made just one evil man with even slightly more benevolent integral character, then that man would have used his free will to freely choose good more often, resulting in less evil and suffering. that man's free will still exists; by altering the underlying character, God has not deprived the man of his free will.

I contend that our character is molded by the choices we make, therefore interfering with our character is an interference of our free will

it seems like you are saying that if a man in a particular instance chooses action A; and if, after God has altered his character, the same man in the same instance would instead choose action B; then it follows that the man's free will has been tampered with. why? did not the man freely choose to do action B? his free will is left intact despite the difference in outcomes. as an aside, suppose we did live in an alternate world in which men were significantly more prone to freely choosing benevolent deeds over evil ones: do you really think we would be cursing God for making us so darn good in our choices and actions? do you really think we would feel "enslaved" to our good characters? at any rate, the consequences of our evil actions would be no less real, and we would be no less free to choose to commit such evil actions. as a matter of observation, though, we would choose to commit such evil acts less frequently.

If that was the reason you were created for, then I'm sure God would deem it unacceptable if you rebelled against it.

so because i do not love God -- a proposed supernatural being for which there is no demonstrable evidence -- that makes me a rebel? sorry, but what makes it right for God to demand my love, particularly when he has not even given me sufficient evidence upon which to conclude that he even exists?

His ship? This is our ship. God gave man dominion over the whole earth. If there is a mess its because we made it. Unfortunately I believe God will ultimately intervene and clean up the mess we’ve made of it.

again, you are implying that God can be morally perfect and yet NOT always act in accordance with morally preferable outcomes. from what i can tell, you base this on the claim that God can basically smooth everything out later on, so it's fine for him to give us free reign now. but a morally PERFECT being must ALWAYS act in accordance with morally preferable outcomes, wouldn't you think? if you are just going to give me some more nonsense like "we cannot pretend to understand God's method of justice," then please spare me. if it walks, and talks, and looks like a morally imperfect being, then that is what we should call it -- again, we can use any reasonable ethical standard to make this call.

Justice will still prevail, irrespective of time.

what evidence do you have to support this claim? is it because the bible says so? yawn.

Disease? A lot of disease are a result of human perversion of Gods creation. Point in case: Most STD's.

are such diseases logically necessary?

Starvation? Methinks there is enough food on this earth, its just being hoarded.

is such starvation logically necessary?

Earthquakes and floods? Hmmmm... The fall of man?

are earthquakes and floods logically necessary? i still await your arguments aimed at explaining why God allows natural evils.

Originally posted by Halitose

drat! they chopped off the last bit of my above response:

You ask: is evil so because God says so? I contend, that God says so, because it is evil.

then God merely relays the fact that it is evil. so it sounds to me like God is simply a dispensable middleman when it comes to establishing morality.

Halitose

Disease? A lot of disease are a result of human perversion of Gods creation. Point in case: Most STD's.

Lemon Jello are such diseases logically necessary?

How do animal STD's fit into the picture? Did animals pervert God's creation too?

(An article on animal STD's: http://www.phylodiversity.net/cnunn/PDFs/Nunn2003AnimBehav.pdf)

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Well, I disagree. God's omnipotence ends at our choice, our freedom, our free will. Its a paradox: an omnipotent God who chooses to limit His omnipotence to allow His creation the freedom of choice. God will not intervene with our freedom unless He is asked to.

He will not intervene unless He is "asked" to intervene? i think that claim is go ...[text shortened]... cally necessary? i still await your arguments aimed at explaining why God allows natural evils.[/b]

u got too much ur hands

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How do animal STD's fit into the picture? Did animals pervert God's creation too?

(An article on animal STD's: http://www.phylodiversity.net/cnunn/PDFs/Nunn2003AnimBehav.pdf)

Boss, this is actually a very good question. i think it would be hard to make a case that such animals have perverted God's intended purpose for sex. according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse), dolphins, humans, and bonobos are the only animals that engage in heterosexual intercourse at such times when the female is not at a point in her gestation cycle that is suitable for successful impregnation. moreover, humans, bonobos, and certain other animals like dogs are the only animals known to engage in homosexual sex and stimulation. that tells me that the vast majority of animals (many of which are afflicted by various STDs) are nevertheless employing sex in the method that it was "intended" -- they are having heterosexual intercourse at such times when the female is at a point in her gestation cycle that is suitable for successful impregnation. of course, you can also add in the facts that common notions of moral responsibility lack any coherency in relation to these animals and that the normal concepts of marriage and monogamy also appear moot.

at the same time, it seems reasonable to classify the animal STDs as "evil" since they do in principle and in practice cause the animals pain and suffering. therefore, in the context of the problem of evil, i would classify animal STDs as yet another type of natural evil that seems at best logically unnecessary within the framework of God's creation. it seems to differ from other natural evils, such as widespread floods or earthquakes, however, since the impact on humans caused by animal STDs is a little unclear.

halitose: is the danger of contracting some weird animal STD the just punishment for those humans who use their free will to engage in bestiality? is that why God allows the animal STDs? 🙄🙄

moreover, if someone has contracted an STD through sexually promiscuous behavior, is it fair that this person should be able to enter a respectable relationship and then give the STD to the partner who may have no intention of perverting God's intentions for sex? God's method of punishment seems to extend to more than just the pool of offending individuals -- are such methods just?

it seems also that STDs are present just about everywhere that sexual reproduction occurs, even in flowers and plants: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_108/ai_53682810.

Originally posted by Vladamir no1
u got too much ur hands

of course, i am not a mind reader; and i have misplaced my magic decoder ring; but i think you meant to incude "time on" in there somewhere.

i do carry a watch on my wrist, which is close to my hands. so you may be on to something. throw in the fact that i am currently responding to a post that lacks intelligibility, and you are probably definitely on to something.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How do animal STD's fit into the picture? Did animals pervert God's creation too?

(An article on animal STD's: http://www.phylodiversity.net/cnunn/PDFs/Nunn2003AnimBehav.pdf)

Oi, Halitose.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oi, Halitose.

I still dread opening the can of worms of the fall of man and the curse.

Still working it out conclusively.

Originally posted by Halitose
I still dread opening the can of worms of the fall of man and the curse.

You have piqued my curiosity. I want to see what's inside that can!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You have piqued my curiosity. I want to see what's inside that can!

Typical Adam.

I'm sure there are not many who will deny that mankind is now a horror to God (if you believe He exists) and himself (consider all the many atrocities that I'm sure are just waiting to be thrown in proof that not all suffering is logically necissary). This is not because God created us so, but because of the abuse of our free will. There are two other sub-Christian theories (which I am in theological disagreement with) on the origins of evil, which negate the need for free will:
Monism: God, being above "good and evil", produces impartially the effects to which we give those two labels.
Dualism: God produces "good", while some other equal and independant Force or Power produces evil.

I, however still hold that God is good - He made all things for the sake of their goodness; and that one of the good things He made - the free will of rational creatures - by definition included the possibility of evil.

Pre-Fall

As scripture doesn't have much to say about pre-fall man, one can only speculate about the pre-fall state of mankind, and I do so with great philosophical... or ehm... poetic license.
The Genesis account: Irrespective of whether this is taken literally or figuratively, man walked out of the mists of time - a creature different from all others. A creature with a new kind of consciousness; which could say "I" and "me", which could make judgements of truth, beauty, and goodness, which was so far above time that it could percieve time flowing past . I think this consciousness was merely a hint of what we exhibit today. Pre-fall man would have had the eminent power which the modern Yogi can only aspire to - control of bodily functions such as digestion, circulation, the full capacity of our brain. His organic processes obeyed the law of his own will, not the law of nature. Wholly commanding himself, he commanded all lower lives with which he came in into contact with. Even today we meet rare individuals who have a mysterious power of taming/charming animals. Man was created the steward, the priest of the animal kingdom - the mediator through whom they apprehend so much of the Divine splendour as their irrational nature allows.

The Fall

Once again we can take the Genesis accound of the fall from both a literal or figurative perspective. While the "magical apple" could have been real, it embodies the act where man decided to cease directing his life to and for the Creator. This act of self-will on the part of the creature, which constitutes an utter falseness to its created position must have been very heinous, or its consequences would not be so terrible, and yet it must have been something which a being free from the temptations of fallen man could concievably have commited - an utter and complete turning from God to self.

The Curse

This is pretty much what we see around us now and the antithesis of the Pre-Fall. Once God centred, we have now become self-centred, once the ruler of nature, we are now subject to nature and its forces. The world is degenerating in disease, turmoil, war and natural disasters (to name a few). When God cursed man, this curse spilled over onto his charge (nature). As actions often have far-reaching consequences, the rebellion of man resulted in this degeneration of his charge.

I guess I ran out of inspiration at this point. Bring 'em on... I'll see to your post later on LJ.