Concerning Pain, Evil and Suffering

[Bradskii]

God created your entire existence with the ability to map it out any way He wanted and somehow you are culpable for choices even though that's exactly what God brought into existence? Wouldn't God bear the responsibility for your choices?

I don't think so. You still make the choice.

Imagine if I had the chance to see the future and whether my wife was going to have cereal or eggs for brekkie tomorrow. And I see her choose cereal. When she makes that choice, am I responsible? Obviously not.

But my problem is whether we have free will in tbe first place. I don't think that we do.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I don't think so. You still make the choice.

Imagine if I had the chance to see the future and whether my wife was going to have cereal or eggs for brekkie tomorrow. And I see her choose cereal. When she makes that choice, am I responsible? Obviously not.

But my problem is whether we have free will in tbe first place. I don't think that we do.

If you see the future and see that your wife chokes on her breakfast and dies what responsibility do you have?

 

[Bradskii]

If you see the future and see that your wife chokes on her breakfast and dies what responsibility do you have?

If it's already in the future then I can't change it.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Bear with me here: I'm not saying this is possible, but for the sake of discussion: If Naturalism was the fact --i.e. if there was after all no God-- cause-and-effect occurring naturally, our decisions would necessarily still be caused. If in our reasoning, then, God is First Cause, which he most certainly is, what is the difference between that and naturalism, (other than the most blessed security that the judge of all the world will do what is right)?

Yes, determinism can be true both with God and without. I would argue that that is definitely the case if either were true.

 

[Bradskii]

If you see the future and see that your wife chokes on her breakfast and dies what responsibility do you have?

Actually, what I might see is me stopping her having breakfast.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If it's already in the future then I can't change it.

Interesting. So if you have a vision that you bring her an Egg McMuffin and then turn around and leave for work and after you have departed she chokes on that sandwich and dies. Are you saying that you wouldn't feel responsible to behave differently? To not bring her the sandwich? Or at least to stay so you can assist when she chokes? Or are you saying that you wouldn't be able to change what you saw in the future because the future is part of a trajectory that you cannot alter? And if that's true, how does free will make sense if everything is determined?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If it's already in the future then I can't change it.

Lol, as the theory goes, you might even cause it, trying to stop it.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Lol, as the theory goes, you might even cause it, trying to stop it.

Haha, that's interesting to think about, isn't it?

Actually, what I might see is me stopping her having breakfast.

Okay, so IF you could see the future, and IF you could use that information to alter what would happen, would you feel any culpability in the death of a loved one you could have prevented with your knowledge?

 

[jayem]

But my problem is whether we have free will in tbe first place. I don't think that we do.

We don’t have absolute free will. Our decisions are determined by neuronal pathways in our brains—primarily in the prefrontal cortex. If at 2 different times, these patterns were exactly the same, we would make exactly the same decisions. But the normally functioning brain is an extremely dynamic organ. As sensory input comes in, new neuronal pathways are constantly forming and reforming. This activity occurs even during sleep. The odds that our brains will be in exactly the same state on 2 separate occasions are vanishingly small. This gives us the impression that we have free will. But it’s a relative free will. Not absolute.

 

[Bradskii]

Haha, that's interesting to think about, isn't it?



Okay, so IF you could see the future, and IF you could use that information to alter what would happen, would you feel any culpability in the death of a loved one you could have prevented with your knowledge?

No. Thinking about this last night, there could be considered two possible time lines. One where she died and one where she didn't. If the one where she dies is the one that actually happens then it must mean I didn't save her and so was not concerned about her death. Maybe I even wanted her to die to get the insurance money. So that's the one I'd see.

But if it happens that she doesn't die then I would see a future where I stepped in to save her.

So it's not that I can change the future. It's that I have already decided what the future will be. And that will be reflected in what I see.

Now me being one of the active participants clouds the matter of intentionality. So lets say it's my neighbours who are involved. I see the wife either choking and he saves her or I see her choking and he stands by and does nothing. Whichever I see, my neighbour has already decided what he's going to do. I can't change that by interfering in the future.

So God allows the results of our decisions to eventuate. And we suffer the consequences. I understand that position. Even as an atheist. It makes sense to me. Just as I wouldn't be responsible for my neighbour wanting to see his wife die (or even actively kill her), neither is God responsible simply because He has knowledge of the future event.

So no, God is not responsible for future actions we take. But yes, there is an argument that He could arrange things so that immoral acts never eventuate. But that would mean that He'd need to interfere with our free will (if you assume that we actually have it).

And by the way, my wife had cereal this morning and seems fine so far...

 

[Bradskii]

We don’t have absolute free will. Our decisions are determined by neuronal pathways in our brains—primarily in the prefrontal cortex. If at 2 different times, these patterns were exactly the same, we would make exactly the same decisions. But the normally functioning brain is an extremely dynamic organ. As sensory input comes in, new neuronal pathways are constantly forming and reforming. This activity occurs even during sleep. The odds that our brains will be in exactly the same state on 2 separate occasions are vanishingly small. This gives us the impression that we have free will. But it’s a relative free will. Not absolute.

There isn't a button that says 'Tend to agree'. But I do tend to agree. There are many experiments that indicate that we make decisions before we are consciously aware of them.

The way I see free will is that it would be the ability to make a different decision if the situation in which we made it unfurled in exactly the same way. And I mean exactly. In which case, what caused us to do that? There were reasons why we'd choose to do something the first time that would be valid the second.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

No. Thinking about this last night, there could be considered two possible time lines. One where she died and one where she didn't. If the one where she dies is the one that actually happens then it must mean I didn't save her and so was not concerned about her death. Maybe I even wanted her to die to get the insurance money. So that's the one I'd see.

But if it happens that she doesn't die then I would see a future where I stepped in to save her.

So it's not that I can change the future. It's that I have already decided what the future will be. And that will be reflected in what I see.

Now me being one of the active participants clouds the matter of intentionality. So lets say it's my neighbours who are involved. I see the wife either choking and he saves her or I see her choking and he stands by and does nothing. Whichever I see, my neighbour has already decided what he's going to do. I can't change that by interfering in the future.

So God allows the results of our decisions to eventuate. And we suffer the consequences. I understand that position. Even as an atheist. It makes sense to me. Just as I wouldn't be responsible for my neighbour wanting to see his wife die (or even actively kill her), neither is God responsible simply because He has knowledge of the future event.

So no, God is not responsible for future actions we take. But yes, there is an argument that He could arrange things so that immoral acts never eventuate. But that would mean that He'd need to interfere with our free will (if you assume that we actually have it).

And by the way, my wife had cereal this morning and seems fine so far...

First of all, I am definitely glad your wife survived cereal.

Second, trying to imagine how humans work within timelines, while incredibly interesting, does not apply to a being that exists outside of time itself and, in fact, created time. God is not a witness to reality. He created it (according to most Christians). He knew the outcome of all of humanity. He had every variable at his disposal and chose the ones He did for a reason. Every possible outcome was in reach and, for whatever reason, here we are. Given that He is (to most Christians) all-powerful and all-knowing, how would he not be culpable for literally everything that happens?

God ordained the entirety of existence the moment he spoke it into being. And He didn't have to create things exactly as they are. He could have done otherwise. To speculate anything else would be to limit God's power or God's knowledge. I have no problem with that, personally, but some believers might not be on board with a not all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent God.

 

[Bradskii]

He knew the outcome of all of humanity. He had every variable at his disposal and chose the ones He did for a reason. Every possible outcome was in reach and, for whatever reason, here we are.

I'm finding it somewhat wierd defending a deity in which I don't believe. But I don't mind playing the Devil's Advocate.

But He knows the outcome, not because He has determined it, but because we have determined it. It's like He's the director of a film and he allows everyone to ad lib their parts. To just play the part as they want. He could have directed it. He could have determined that all actors must read His script as written. But He allows this improv.

And it's kinda wierd that He gets to see the completed film even before the cameras roll. But that doesn't change the fact that the actors 'wrote their own lines'.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm finding it somewhat wierd defending a deity in which I don't believe. But I don't mind playing the Devil's Advocate.

But He knows the outcome, not because He has determined it, but because we have determined it. It's like He's the director of a film and he allows everyone to ad lib their parts. To just play the part as they want. He could have directed it. He could have determined that all actors must read His script as written. But He allows this improv.

And it's kinda wierd that He gets to see the completed film even before the cameras roll. But that doesn't change the fact that the actors 'wrote their own lines'.

That makes sense and is well put.

Now, I could grant you free will and/or our ability to improv, but the God of the Bible can and does intervene, according to scripture. If you can and do intervene at times, not intervening is an active choice, not a passive one.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I'm finding it somewhat wierd defending a deity in which I don't believe. But I don't mind playing the Devil's Advocate.

Also, same. It's a fun and thought-provoking conversation for us because we don't believe our eternal souls are on the line. Haha!

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm finding it somewhat wierd defending a deity in which I don't believe. But I don't mind playing the Devil's Advocate.

But He knows the outcome, not because He has determined it, but because we have determined it. It's like He's the director of a film and he allows everyone to ad lib their parts. To just play the part as they want. He could have directed it. He could have determined that all actors must read His script as written. But He allows this improv.

And it's kinda wierd that He gets to see the completed film even before the cameras roll. But that doesn't change the fact that the actors 'wrote their own lines'.

Consider that God is generally considered to be outside of time. It seems then that the entire space-time continuum was created at once (how else would a being without time do it). That is to say, the future is created. Such a god not only knows what you "will" do but created you doing it.

(Never mind how a being without time does anything. Never mind how a being without time sequences its actions. And, if there is a problem with infinite regress, this being has it.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

He knew the outcome of all of humanity. He had every variable at his disposal and chose the ones He did for a reason. Every possible outcome was in reach and, for whatever reason, here we are. Given that He is (to most Christians) all-powerful and all-knowing, how would he not be culpable for literally everything that happens?

Your next paragraph makes the point that "God ordained the entirety of existence the moment he spoke it into being". This I agree with, but it contradicts the notion that there are variables.

God ordained the entirety of existence the moment he spoke it into being. And He didn't have to create things exactly as they are. He could have done otherwise. To speculate anything else would be to limit God's power or God's knowledge. I have no problem with that, personally, but some believers might not be on board with a not all-powerful all-knowing omnipotent God.

If God ordained the entirety of existence, why bother to say he could have done otherwise about any particular? To do so is to anthropomorphize him, or at least to look at him from a merely human (not altogether logical, and certainly not very knowledgeable,) POV.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Your next paragraph makes the point that "God ordained the entirety of existence the moment he spoke it into being". This I agree with, but it contradicts the notion that there are variables.



If God ordained the entirety of existence, why bother to say he could have done otherwise about any particular? To do so is to anthropomorphize him, or at least to look at him from a merely human (not altogether logical, and certainly not very knowledgeable,) POV.

Yes, I agree with that. I'm trying to view this from a couple different perspectives. I think if God is all-knowing and all-powerful then every last thing was determined at the moment he spoke the entirety of existence (past and future) into being all at once. When I say variables in this instance, I mean that he had options prior to bringing everything into being. He could foresee every last string of consequences (all-knowing) and have the ability to set the parameters/variables in such a way to yield His desired results (all-powerful). (I know that using temporal words like prior or before in the case of a being outside of time is problematic, but whatcha gonna do?)

If God does intervene periodically as outlined in the Bible, that introduces an interesting question which is that perhaps it takes some supernatural guidance here and there to keep things on the course that He set out at the onset. It doesn't really effect the conclusion though that if everything is under His control, then everything that happens is according to His will.

As an aside, I wouldn't be the only one to anthropomorphize God. The Bible is packed with such behavior.

And thanks for the engagement.

 

[cvanwey]

These thoughts are offered in the hope that they may begin what logical defense of Christianity does not always do:

To those who don't know HIM, you have maybe some vague concept of the agony of separation from God, and the joy of closeness to Christ. Maybe you have some experience with guilt and despair. Maybe not.

Maybe you feel a revulsion at the indignity to which God has subjected his creation. You are disgusted by the sycophantic adoration of believers for Christ. You find no logic in the thinking of those who find confidence in supposed 'truth' that admittedly lies beyond even their own understanding.

You don't know the pain, dismay and sorrow at the failings of the flesh in service to God. You don't know the joy in communion with Christ or the exaltation in being a 'partaker in his sufferings'. You can't understand the beauty of souls in pain, resigned to their own helpless need for the One for whom they were created.

You mistake what is written in tears of joy and pain, for arrogance!


You ask a reason for our hope, our expectation in Him? Read Job 19

23 “Oh, that my words were recorded,
that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead,
or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!"


You have no idea how badly we wish you could know Christ!

I'm curious? What is God's stance on 'natural evil'?

 

[Bradskii]

That makes sense and is well put.

Now, I could grant you free will and/or our ability to improv, but the God of the Bible can and does intervene, according to scripture. If you can and do intervene at times, not intervening is an active choice, not a passive one.

Agreed. And this leads to contradictions in the manner in which He is meant to interact with us. Leading to the ubiquitous Who Can Know The Mind Of God (aka I Haven't The Foggiest Idea Why He Is Meant To Have Done That).