suffering and bikes

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you fully admit that if your argument was an attempt to explain the existence of suffering, then it is invalid, as you fully admit the existence of suffering that has nothing to do with free will. ----------------whitey----------------------

No , I said that malaria does not provide freedom but that does not mean there is no link. Co2 gases do no ...[text shortened]... ense there is a direct link between co2 and travel , but co2 does not PROVIDE or create travel.

…No , I said that malaria does not provide freedom but that does not mean there is no link….

Yes there is a link. Malaria takes people’s freedom away from them -mainly in two ways: 1, it makes them so sick that it makes them bed-ridden; 2, it kills them.

So why would a kind and yet all-powerful god put something on Earth that takes away people’s freedom?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…And would such a process be voluntary or would you force it on said child?….

In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, it would be voluntary.

…What if the child wanted to try it a different way? ….

In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, I would allow him to do it any way he wants. But, because I am “ ...[text shortened]... ll-powerful although obviously this doesn’t exclude the possibility he is only one or the other.[/b]

In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, I would allow him to do it any way he wants. But, because I am “all-powerful“, I would so arrange it so all those “alternative ways” will not lead him into hurting himself. -----------------hamilton----------------------

Hmmm, I see. Don't you mean "allow him to do it anyway he wants " apart from those ways which might involve any risk? What if he wants to take a few risks ? What then? Would you find a way of him taking a risk without taking a risk? There must logically be at least one alternative way your child could choose that would leave you with a dilemma - you would either have to refuse such a choice or allow it with the risk that it entails.

When I taught my child to ride a bike I knew that I was "powerful" enough to enforce a way of him learning that would significantly reduce risk of any harm. However , he wanted to learn his own way , I had the power to stop him but chose not to. Why would I do such a thing?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…No , I said that malaria does not provide freedom but that does not mean there is no link….

Yes there is a link. Malaria takes people’s freedom away from them -mainly in two ways: 1, it makes them so sick that it makes them bed-ridden; 2, it kills them.

So why would a kind and yet all-powerful god put something on Earth that takes away people’s freedom?[/b]

Yes there is a link. Malaria takes people’s freedom away from them -mainly in two ways: 1, it makes them so sick that it makes them bed-ridden; 2, it kills them.

So why would a kind and yet all-powerful god put something on Earth that takes away people’s freedom?----------------hamilton-------------

Take a deep breath because you will hate my answer. God decided to set a universe in motion that would lead to real sentient freedom and to a certain extent be out of his control. Nasty stuff like Malaria (+evil and suffering) is a by-product of this course of action.

The freedom that God is interested in is not one of quantity of choices NOR is it a worldly one of freedom to be alive. He is interested in creating beings who can share eternity freely (not forced) with him.

Now this will sound heartless... To God death is not a big deal. If a person achieves eternal life they will consider (from an eternal perspective) that all the suffering and loss of worldly freedom + even death itself is as rags compared to the freedom of being with God in eternity.

This is not to say that God does not feel compassion for our suffering , only that for him it's not the whole story. The person who dies from malaria after months of suffering will have a trillion years of joy for every second of that suffering.

You are probably puking right now , but before you do , consider that Christianity is not a palatable religion in many ways. It's not intended to be "nice" or "cosy" , it only intends to be the truth. If you want nice sweet sticky stuff I'm sure there's a candy shop near you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And what if we didn't like this idea or didn't want to co-operate with God in this endeavour? Would we have to sign up or would it be voluntary? In short , would we be volunteers in such a universe or conscripts?

And what if we didn't like this idea or didn't want to co-operate with God in this endeavour? Would we have to sign up or would it be voluntary?

You don't "sign up" because you don't yet even exist when god endorses the creation plan. But, hey, what's the problem here? Even in this universe, you have some character that is ultimately not of your determining. You didn't have any say beforehand about god's creation plans or about what sort of character would ultimately be provided for you in this universe; and yet I don't hear you complaining about this.

Under the hypothetical, we suppose it is the case that god creates us with beneficent characters such that the deliverances of our own deliberations about what to do align with virtuous living. Is there something about god's providing us with highly beneficent characters that you think would somehow preclude freedom? According to your own accounts, Jesus had an extremely beneficent character, didn't he? Does that mean that the actions of Jesus were not free?

This is just one reason (of many) why I find free will objections against the argument from evil to be ineffectual: god could have simply made provisions such that even one person would have had a more beneficent character; the actions would still have been free, but less harm and suffering would have resulted; so, the mere provision of free will does not necessitate the degree of suffering that exists.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Um, but it's logically possible that God helps us make cars that go really fast but never crash. That state of affairs doesn't entail a logical contradiction.----------lemon---------------

I imagine such a car would have to be stuck to the road via such a strong railing system that it would more likely resemble a train. In any case the freedom behind the wheel would have to be severely restricted.

I imagine such a car would have to be stuck to the road via such a strong railing system that it would more likely resemble a train. In any case the freedom behind the wheel would have to be severely restricted.

No. Anyway, the point remains: what you described before is not logically impossible. Are you sure you know what it means to say this or that is "logically impossible"? I ask because your offerings basically went like this: you claimed that X is logically impossible; then, you said that X is in that regard like Y; but the Y you cited is clearly not logically impossible. 😵

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes there is a link. Malaria takes people’s freedom away from them -mainly in two ways: 1, it makes them so sick that it makes them bed-ridden; 2, it kills them.

So why would a kind and yet all-powerful god put something on Earth that takes away people’s freedom?----------------hamilton-------------

Take a deep breath because you will hate my an ...[text shortened]... e the truth. If you want nice sweet sticky stuff I'm sure there's a candy shop near you.

…God decided to set a universe in motion that would lead to real sentient freedom and to a certain extent be out of his control. Nasty stuff like Malaria (+evil and suffering) is a by-product of this course of action. .…

I am not sure if I am misinterpreting what you say here and if I am then I apologise in advance but are you actually implying that, god creates malaria to create “real sentient freedom” ?
If so, you have to explain to me how that works because in what way does malaria increase “real sentient freedom” when it makes people so sick they are bed-ridden?
Do you actually think malaria increases “real sentient freedom” ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, I would allow him to do it any way he wants. But, because I am “all-powerful“, I would so arrange it so all those “alternative ways” will not lead him into hurting himself. -----------------hamilton----------------------

Hmmm, I see. Don't you mean "allow him to do it anyway he wants " apart from rn his own way , I had the power to stop him but chose not to. Why would I do such a thing?

…Hmmm, I see. Don't you mean "allow him to do it anyway he wants " apart from those ways which might involve any risk? What if he wants to take a few risks ? What then?.…

In this hypothetical scenario where I would be all-powerful, if he requested for or merely wants real risk (such as the risk of real pain -although I would personally draw the line with the risk of death) and I am certain he fully comprehends what exactly that risk is, then I would give that risk to him -no problem.

Note: in the real world people are put at real risk even if they do NOT want that real risk nor request it.
Why would a kind but all powerful god put people at real risk who do NOT want that real risk?

… When I taught my child to ride a bike I knew that I was "powerful" enough to enforce a way of him learning that would significantly reduce risk of any harm. However , he wanted to learn his own way , I had the power to stop him but chose not to. Why would I do such a thing?.…

Because you want him to exercise his freedom of choice -obviously I have no problem with that -I would do the same. But why would a “kind” god put us at risk if we didn’t CHOISE to be at risk?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Hmmm, I see. Don't you mean "allow him to do it anyway he wants " apart from those ways which might involve any risk? What if he wants to take a few risks ? What then?.…

In this hypothetical scenario where I would be all-powerful, if he requested for or merely wants real risk (such as the risk of real pain -although I would personally draw ...[text shortened]... d do the same. But why would a “kind” god put us at risk if we didn’t CHOISE to be at risk?[/b]

Because you want him to exercise his freedom of choice -obviously I have no problem with that -I would do the same. But why would a “kind” god put us at risk if we didn’t CHOISE to be at risk?--------------------------hamilton----------------------------------------------------

Because when you are being kind and loving to someone you do what is in their best interests whilst also balancing the person's right to autonomy and to make their own choices.

There are times when a good parent will protect their child from harm and others where they will put them in situations where they can get hurt because they will learn things and grow and develop. A good parent will do this even against the wishes of the child because it's in the child's best interests. At other times the parent may not do this and will just respect the wishes of the child.

You seem to be just looking for as many problems as you can find rather than giving my ideas any chance at all. If this is the case it will just be a self fulfilling prophecy for you. Part of me senses that you just don't want any Theist argument on suffering to work per se.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…God decided to set a universe in motion that would lead to real sentient freedom and to a certain extent be out of his control. Nasty stuff like Malaria (+evil and suffering) is a by-product of this course of action. .…

I am not sure if I am misinterpreting what you say here and if I am then I apologise in advance but are you actually impl ...[text shortened]... so sick they are bed-ridden?
Do you actually think malaria increases “real sentient freedom” ?[/b]

I said that Malaria is one of many by-products of God creating a universe that is out of his direct control and separate from himself. God is perfection. A perfect universe would have to be 100% under God's control with every aspect 100% determined by God. When God "let's go" of the universe ( eg-in order to create sentient free will) something has to give and such a universe has to be imperfect (or not 100% controlled by God) .

That's the basic idea. Don't ask me to fully explain it because I can't but on some level it does make some kind of sense.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I imagine such a car would have to be stuck to the road via such a strong railing system that it would more likely resemble a train. In any case the freedom behind the wheel would have to be severely restricted.

No. Anyway, the point remains: what you described before is not logically impossible. Are you sure you know what it means to say this ...[text shortened]... hat X is in that regard like Y; but the Y you cited is clearly not logically impossible. 😵[/b]

Don't patronise me . I know that you know that I know what a logical contradiction is.

I think it is you that needs to think about whether some things for God are logically impossible or not. If you think God's all powerfulness equates to him being able to create a tree that is not a tree then I have very little to say to you. If you agree with me that there are some things that however powerful you are you cannot do (because they logically contradict) then we can get started.

My whole point is this. The creation of real free sentient will in a 100% sanitised risk free universe is a logical contradiction. Even God cannot do it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Don't patronise me . I know that you know that I know what a logical contradiction is.

I think it is you that needs to think about whether some things for God are logically impossible or not. If you think God's all powerfulness equates to him being able to create a tree that is not a tree then I have very little to say to you. If you agree with me ...[text shortened]... will in a 100% sanitised risk free universe is a logical contradiction. Even God cannot do it.

Pffft. I don't recall ever having stated that omnipotence entails the ability to do that which is logically impossible. I'm perfectly willing to grant you that God can be omnipotent and yet incapable of doing stuff that is logically impossible (in fact, I find the view that omnipotence entails otherwise to be incoherent).

Once again, you just simply fail to see the relevant issue: I'm not saying that omnipotence requires the ability to do that which is logically impossible; rather, I am challenging whether or not what you claimed is logically impossible really is logically impossible. Look, you made the claim that it is logically impossible for God to provide for freedom and yet not introduce the potential for suffering. But -- and this is what I was pointing out -- your support for this claim really sucked: you made the claim that it is logically impossible; then you implied it is like god's helping us to make cars that go really fast but never crash. I mean, WTF? Look, if you say that it's logically impossible, then you should be able to actually demonstrate the contradiction (instead of just saying that it is like something else, where this something else is not even logically impossible).

I actually think you probably ought to be able to do it, given some libertarian construal. But here is another problem: how does it help you, really? If you demonstrate the potential for suffering must attend freedom, I am left wondering how that demonstrates what you really need to demonstrate: that freedom necessitates the actual suffering that obtains in the world. And yet even if you can do this, I believe your arguments will still fail to meet the problem of evil for at least two reasons: 1. compatibilist freedom is "real" freedom (and you've certainly never given me any good, non-question-begging arguments to the contrary), and I am skeptical that you can resolve my earlier (character) objection based on compatibilist freedom; in particular, it seems clear the existence of compatibilist freedom does not necessitate the degree of suffering that exists in the world, even when we restrict attention to suffering that has a genuine relationship with free actions and 2. I am skeptical you have any good response concerning "natural" sources of suffering that don't really have anything to do with freedom of the will -- an objection I already brought up in this thread.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Pffft. I don't recall ever having stated that omnipotence entails the ability to do that which is logically impossible. I'm perfectly willing to grant you that God can be omnipotent and yet incapable of doing stuff that is logically impossible (in fact, I find the view that omnipotence entails otherwise to be incoherent).

Once again, you just simply g to do with freedom of the will -- an objection I already brought up in this thread.

But -- and this is what I was pointing out -- your support for this claim really sucked: you made the claim that it is logically impossible; then you implied it is like god's helping us to make cars that go really fast but never crash. I mean, WTF? Look, if you say that it's logically impossible, then you should be able to actually demonstrate the contradiction -----------------lemon------------------------

Doh!! It's not up to me to demonstrate this. We already know that there is a direct relationship between increasing speed and cars crashing. The faster you go the more risk there is. However, you think it's perfectly logical to suggest otherwise when all the evidence is contrary to this. Therefore the onus on you is to show how cars that go faster are actually safer or can be made safer as a result of an increase of speed. The fact that you and I both know you can't just makes your point look more pedantic

Originally posted by LemonJello
Pffft. I don't recall ever having stated that omnipotence entails the ability to do that which is logically impossible. I'm perfectly willing to grant you that God can be omnipotent and yet incapable of doing stuff that is logically impossible (in fact, I find the view that omnipotence entails otherwise to be incoherent).

Once again, you just simply g to do with freedom of the will -- an objection I already brought up in this thread.

You brought up compatabilism again which is fair enough but it's not the kind of freedom which God intends for us in my opinion.

What you seem to basically assert is that either free will cannot exist or that free will is basically identical to compatabilist freedom.

I need to clarify this. Do you think that God had two options?...

a) to create creatures that could make choices but were not capable of surprising God in any way due to the fact that all their choices were determined and therefore predictable (compatabilism) ....OR...

b) to create creatures that could make surprising choices and were not 100% predictable or determined (free will)

I guess what I am asking is what differences there might be between these two universes and whether a compatabilist universe would be possible if all potential pain and suffering were eliminated from it.

You see all I'm trying to show is that to create a meaningful universe that contains free (compatabilist or libertarian) autonomous, sentient beings that have some knowledge of good and bad , love and hate , beauty and ugliness etc etc means that said universe is not a 100% perfect sanitised risk free universe free from any potential suffering at all.

So far neither you or anyone else has even begun to show how such a universe could exist and not be a logical contradiction. Even you indirectly admit that a compatabilist universe might not be totally free of suffering. This means that you yourself might well believe that a compatabilist universe that is utteryl sanitised is a logical contradiction.

If so then it leaves me wondering why you are giving me such a hard time , because although you don't go as far as me , you do at least agree with the principle (unlike hamilton who seems to think that some sickly sanitised universe straight out of logan's run would be just as alive and meaningful as this one).

Originally posted by knightmeister
Because you want him to exercise his freedom of choice -obviously I have no problem with that -I would do the same. But why would a “kind” god put us at risk if we didn’t CHOISE to be at risk?--------------------------hamilton----------------------------------------------------

Because when you are being kind and loving to someone you do what is in Part of me senses that you just don't want any Theist argument on suffering to work per se.

…Part of me senses that you just don't WANT any Theist argument on suffering to work per se.. …. (my emphasis)

What I WANT has nothing to do with what I believe -that includes “argument on suffering“.
I am guessing that this is also what makes me an atheists and you a theist.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Part of me senses that you just don't WANT any Theist argument on suffering to work per se.. …. (my emphasis)

What I WANT has nothing to do with what I believe -that includes “argument on suffering“.
I am guessing that this is also what makes me an atheists and you a theist.[/b]

What I WANT has nothing to do with what I believe ---------------------------------------hamilton----------------------------------------------------

I understand that you would like to think that your beliefs are 100% neutral and objective devoid of any bias whatsoever. I would say that if you believe this about yourself then the science of psychology would probably not support you and you will have great difficulty finding any evidence to support this. All the research and evidence about the human mind predominantly shows that we always underestimate the levels to which human beings will go to indulge in wishful thinking. Given that you always talk about "science" I find your assertion about yourself naive in the extreme.

I doubt that you are an exception to the rule. The evidence from your posts is that you are constantly on the look out for any crack in any argument I put forward. You see I am well aware that very few arguments I put forward are watertight , but I am also aware that very few of them are complete bunkum either.

Can you honestly say , hand on heart , that if I made a point that had something to it you would accept it as so?