Why are children allowed to suffer in this world? Because.........

[Halbhh]

So what? It looks like love, it acts like love... and you even get rid of all the nasty sideeffects. So what is better about this "real" love over "forced" love?

There isn't any 'forced' love any more than there is 'forced light'. Light is photons. Love is love. Wrongs can happen, but that's simply another separate thing.

If you were wanting to just cease to exist after you die, that's precisely what the Bible says many will experience, called the "second death" where they are "destroyed" in the "lake of fire" aka the "outer darkness" (both metaphors of course, for the same thing). Those there who are not immortal will "perish". (In contrast to us though, the devil and his angels are already immortal; we are not unless given eternal life). It's an "eternal punishment" in that it really is "death", and permanent.

In other words, it's very much like the natural death atheists believe in.

You can either choose to live or to die, and no one is forcing you, but you get an actual, true choice, your own.

 

[Freodin]

There isn't any 'forced' love any more than there is 'forced light'. Light is photons. Love is love. Wrongs can happen, but that's simply another separate thing.

So what is "love" that it is preferable to a "forced" behaviour that has all the effects of "love".

 

[Halbhh]

So what is "love" that it is preferable to a "forced" behaviour that has all the effects of "love".

To me it's a complex emotion, inside, in response to another being. It's an involuntary response, though one can elicit it by thinking on the qualities of another. Of course, the word 'love' is used in a very diverse set of ways, including for such as loyalty, care, compassion, like, enjoyment, passion, and on and on. But the most central true form I think is the one that makes one care about another so much you will put their welfare high in your priorities, at the top or near, in time more important than a job, even than one's own safety potentially.

 

[Freodin]

To me it's a complex emotion, inside, in response to another being. It's an involuntary response, though one can elicit it by thinking on the qualities of another. Of course, the word 'love' is used in a very diverse set of ways, including for such as loyalty, care, compassion, like, enjoyment, passion, and on and on. But the most central true form I think is the one that makes one care about another so much you will put their welfare high in your priorities, at the top or near, in time more important than a job, even than one's own safety potentially.

Hm, I don't see anything that I would disagree with you here.

But that doesn't answer my initial question.
So we already have an "involuntary" behaviour. One that compels you to show loyality, care, compassion, etc. Something that makes you care about another.

So why is a trait that allows you to NOT do all that deemed superiour to one that would "force" you to act in this way?

 

[Halbhh]

Sorry, I'm not understanding which things the pronouns/nouns in your last sentence/question refer to -- "So why is a trait that allows you to NOT do all that deemed superiour to one that would "force" you to act in this way?" Which "trait"? What "one"?

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, I'm not understanding which things the pronouns/nouns in your last sentence/question refer to -- "So why is a trait that allows you to NOT do all that deemed superiour to one that would "force" you to act in this way?" Which "trait"? What "one"?

"Love" - the trait that makes you act in all these nice ways, but allows you to not act in all these nice ways, even allows you to act in way contrary to these nice ways.
"forced behaviour X" - a trait that makes you act in all these nice way, and only these nice way, preventing you from acting in contrary ways.

The premise here that "evil" exist, because you cannot be forced to "love". If you were forced to "love", it would not be "real love".

So my question was: what is the point in "real love"? "Real love" - the free choice to love or not - is, according to this above premise, responsible for all this "evil". "Forced love" would result in the same positive behaviour, but prevent all the "evil" behaviour.

So why would "real love" still be considered preferable? The only noticable difference would be the lack of evil... and we can agree that this would be a good thing, right?

 

[Halbhh]

I think we'd have to say precisely what 'evil' is if we discuss it. Here are definitions I'm using:

Evil -- Intentionally (and knowingly) doing to another person(s) what you would not want anyone to do to you. (A less precise but useful definition is to "to intentionally harm someone other than only the minimum force needed to stop them from harming others")

I think evil exists if there is "freedom", also called "free will", the ability to choose and do your own actions without constraint. If there is freedom, then at least some people will intentionally do to other people actions they would not want anyone to do to them, thinking to somehow gain by doing that harm.

 

[bhsmte]

There isn't any 'forced' love any more than there is 'forced light'. Light is photons. Love is love. Wrongs can happen, but that's simply another separate thing.

If you were wanting to just cease to exist after you die, that's precisely what the Bible says many will experience, called the "second death" where they are "destroyed" in the "lake of fire" aka the "outer darkness" (both metaphors of course, for the same thing). Those there who are not immortal will "perish". (In contrast to us though, the devil and his angels are already immortal; we are not unless given eternal life). It's an "eternal punishment" in that it really is "death", and permanent.

In other words, it's very much like the natural death atheists believe in.

You can either choose to live or to die, and no one is forcing you, but you get an actual, true choice, your own.

Assuming what some interpret the bible as saying, is credible.

 

[quatona]

Who do you think created reality? God.

So God isn´t real? Ok.

 

[Freodin]

I think we'd have to say precisely what 'evil' is if we discuss it. Here are definitions I'm using:

Evil -- Intentionally (and knowingly) doing to another person(s) what you would not want anyone to do to you. (A less precise but useful definition is to "to intentionally harm someone other than only the minimum force needed to stop them from harming others")

I think evil exists if there is "freedom", also called "free will", the ability to choose and do your own actions without constraint. If there is freedom, then at least some people will intentionally do to other people actions they would not want anyone to do to them, thinking to somehow gain by doing that harm.

And again, there is nothing in this post I would disagree with.

But I fear you are missing my point.
Yes, free will exists and is responsible for a lot of this "evil".

So why is free will preferable over a directed behaviour pattern ensuring "good" outcomes?

Say you were a programmer and wrote a program to do, say, statics calculations for bridge construction.
You would want your program to give "correct / good" results, wouldn't you? You wouldn't want your program to "choose" to give false results and then say: "Hey, I know this resulted in half my bridges collapsing... but my program had FREE WILL. Hurray!"

 

[Phil 1:21]

Isaiah 45:9-10

9 “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
those who are nothing but potsherds
among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
‘The potter has no hands’?
10 Woe to the one who says to a father,
‘What have you begotten?’
or to a mother,
‘What have you brought to birth?’

 

[Halbhh]

And again, there is nothing in this post I would disagree with.

But I fear you are missing my point.
Yes, free will exists and is responsible for a lot of this "evil".

So why is free will preferable over a directed behaviour pattern ensuring "good" outcomes?

Say you were a programmer and wrote a program to do, say, statics calculations for bridge construction.
You would want your program to give "correct / good" results, wouldn't you? You wouldn't want your program to "choose" to give false results and then say: "Hey, I know this resulted in half my bridges collapsing... but my program had FREE WILL. Hurray!"

Why aren't we just programmed to avoid most or all instances of evil? Because then we'd be merely robots, only able to follow a fixed program, without any free will. (Of course, we may have to define terms some more.

Put another way, if God merely wanted only robots, then He'd have built merely robots. Or just something like big amoebas with no volition.

On the other hand, if He'd wanted only puppets, or only prisoners, then He'd controll all our actions directly, or put us in jail cells of some fashion.

None of these are the case, though, fortunately. Life is far more wonderful, dangerous, joyful, loving, than those.

 

[Freodin]

Why aren't we just programmed to avoid most or all instances of evil? Because then we'd be merely robots, only able to follow a fixed program, without any free will. (Of course, we may have to define terms some more.

Why yes! It seems you got this part at last.

And now the question that remains - the question I keep asking for half a dozen posts now: why prefer these "free willed" beings over robots, when the sole difference seems to be that the free willed beings screw things up?

Put another way, if God merely wanted only robots, or only puppets, then He'd have built merely robots. Or just something like big amoebas with no volition.

I have never been a fan of Leibniz "best of all worlds" idea. It is rather... unimaginative.

On the other hand, if He'd wanted only puppets, or only prisoners, then He'd controll all our actions directly, or put us in jail cells of some fashion.

That basically means: "God wanted it this way. No other reason necessary."

None of these are the case, though, fortunately. Life is far more wonderful, dangerous, joyful, loving, than those.

Dangerous... definitly. Is this a good thing?

As for the rest... why would it be? Isn't this just a case of sour grapes?

 

[LaSorcia]

I have not and will not. No Kitty Genovese incident is going to happen on my block.

The price of being an atheist, I can't sit back and wait for God to take care of it.

Not all Christians sit back and wait for God to take care of it either, thankfully. In the book of James, we are explicitly told to do our part to help.

 

[keith99]

Not all Christians sit back and wait for God to take care of it either, thankfully. In the book of James, we are explicitly told to do our part to help.

Thank you for pointing that out. It is a rather startling contrast between Christians. Those Christians who decide that they cannot sit back and consider themselves Christian are often exceptional in their help to others.

And as I see it such aid to others should not stop at the divide between various faiths or faith vrs atheist. Sadly it often does, from all sides.

 

[Halbhh]

....why prefer these "free willed" beings over robots, when the sole difference seems to be that the free willed beings screw things up?
...

Robots are non-sentient on the level of feelings. Mere programming is less than the thing we have.

They won't constitute truly satisfying or even fairly good company for....well developed intelligences that are sentient. Not for long. They would at best be a poor substitute with which one would grow bored in a few years.

It's back to what is love, and why is love worthwhile. It's worthwhile...well, in a parallel way to how eating food is good for a hungry person -- not the whole picture, and not a perfect analogy, but one piece of the picture. Or another analogy -- well prepared food is far better than mere tasteless food. Again, not a perfect analogy, but suggestive in a useful way about what I'm pointing at.

 

[LaSorcia]

Thank you for pointing that out. It is a rather startling contrast between Christians. Those Christians who decide that they cannot sit back and consider themselves Christian are often exceptional in their help to others.

And as I see it such aid to others should not stop at the divide between various faiths or faith vrs atheist. Sadly it often does, from all sides.

I agree. And my faith is not just a matter of a set of beliefs. If it were just that, it would be a God-focused philosophy. For me, my faith is a relationship and a way of life. I help others with the resources I have whenever I have the chance and am aware of the opportunity.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What a horrifying risk parents take by allowing them to live past childhood.

I agree.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is an argument used by atheists, to challenge the existence of a God or loving God.

But the answer is surely not a contradiction.

If you accept God, you accept the concept of heaven, and an eternity in paradise, so that time limited suffering in this world, is not a heavy price to pay. Indeed some of Gods most favoured suffered the most.

It is only those who consider that this life is all there is, who therefore take disproportionate notice of quality of life here.

And since this forum is controversial I shall be mischevious and quote " she who called herself the immaculate conception" to Bernadette, as an example of a child who suffered: " I cannot promise you happiness in this world, only in the next" !

 

[Freodin]

Robots are non-sentient on the level of feelings. Mere programming is less than the thing we have.

As I said: unimaginative.

So you don't believe that sentient AI will be developed at some point? Or you don't think that an omnipotent creator could have found a way to do it?

They won't constitute truly satisfying or even fairly good company for....well developed intelligences that are sentient. Not for long. They would at best be a poor substitute with which one would grow bored in a few years.

So God created beings capable of harming, hurting, killing each other... because only those are good fun?

It's back to what is love, and why is love worthwhile. It's worthwhile...well, in a parallel way to how eating food is good for a hungry person -- not the whole picture, and not a perfect analogy, but one piece of the picture. Or another analogy -- well prepared food is far better than mere tasteless food. Again, not a perfect analogy, but suggestive in a useful way about what I'm pointing at.

A bad analogy, I would say.
Yes, well prepared food is better than tasteless food. Because we prefer the taste.

But if we were following this analogy... it would be impossible to have well prepared food, if you didn't also allow for poisonous junk to be served.

Or, to go up some lines... eating food is good for a hungry person. And being hungry and then eating food is preferable over the option of never needing food and not knowing the concept of "hungry"... so much more dangerous and joyful and worthwhile. It is so preferable that we pay the small price of a few underpriviledged people dying from hunger.

The real analogy would be hitting yourself repeatedly with a hammer, because of the worthwhile experience of the receding pain.