The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[Moral Orel]

If you chose to love God that means something. If God created us all loving him and everything you have crossed the line into robot puppets.

If this is true, then infants who go to Heaven are robot puppets because they didn't choose to love God.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

If this is true, then infants who go to Heaven are robot puppets because they didn't choose to love God.

They didn't reject him though. And if God wants to give them the benefit of the doubt of eternal life that is fine. It's about what you do with what you have. Thats what God cares about. If an infants heart is pure and full of love which you and I can agree they all are, then they are already all loving and have a heart for God. So I don't think you going to your infant ace up the sleeve works here. And if it doesn't then you have no excuse come judgment day. I will continue to engage in conversation with you because I believe that at the very least when judgment day comes you will be without excuse. And hopefully at the end of this dialogue you can come to know Christ, if I fail then its a risk worth taking.

 

[anonymous person]

then God can create an infinite number of omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings who always choose the good and never choose the bad and have free will. I'm only arguing that He could do a lot less than all that and make people just like they are in Heaven, based on things we know for certain exist (according to scripture).

I don't see how that follows from what you have said. Maybe you could clearly present your premises?

And even that temporal status can be rendered meaningless if you think of God existing outside of time itself creating other beings without creating time. Although I can't wrap my head around such a being, I can't wrap my head around a being that exists outside time either, though that is a posited explanation by Christians for God's eternal nature.

It could be argued that God exists timelessly sans creation and in time subsequent to it.

 

[anonymous person]

If this is true, then infants who go to Heaven are robot puppets because they didn't choose to love God.

Not if God's middle knowledge enables Him to know how these infants would have related to Him had they lived and matured into adults. It may be that those He receives would have grown up to love Him and desire to be with Him and would have believed on the Lord Jesus while they were living and if God has middle knowledge, then He would know which ones would indeed be this way.

 

[Moral Orel]

They didn't reject him though. And if God wants to give them the benefit of the doubt of eternal life that is fine. It's about what you do with what you have. Thats what God cares about. If an infants heart is pure and full of love which you and I can agree they all are, then they are already all loving and have a heart for God. So I don't think you going to your infant ace up the sleeve works here. And if it doesn't then you have no excuse come judgment day. I will continue to engage in conversation with you because I believe that at the very least when judgment day comes you will be without excuse. And hopefully at the end of this dialogue you can come to know Christ, if I fail then its a risk worth taking.

How in the world does that ace not work? It is an example of a human, who never chose God, who God instilled a perfectly sinless nature in, who does not lack free will, who (for all intents and purposes) skipped an existence on Earth and still attained perfection. If such a being exists, then all beings can exist in such a way. It is possible. Ergo, free will is unaffected by instilling in people a completely, perfectly, sinless, good nature.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not if God's middle knowledge enables Him to know how these infants would have related to Him had they lived and matured into adults. It may be that those He receives would have grown up to love Him and desire to be with Him and would have believed on the Lord Jesus while they were living and if God has middle knowledge, then He would know which ones would indeed be this way.

This would mean not all infants go to Heaven. Is that what you're saying? That if an infant passes, but had he not passed, He would have grown to reject God, then he would be refused admittance into Heaven?

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't see how that follows from what you have said. Maybe you could clearly present your premises?

I think I clearly presented my premises for the argument at hand about achieving a perfectly sinless nature and that being the extent of it. Do you mean the premises for creating other gods?

Here's that:
God can create anything that is possible to exist.
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being exists.
God can create an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

Now I'll give you that a created being with no beginning is impossible to exist. But I see no link between that temporal state and any of the other qualities listed.

I'll even break them down. Think of omnipotence first. God gave us the ability to reason, the ability to feel, the ability to communicate. Omnipotence is merely all abilities, right? So He could give us the ability to fly, and the ability to create matter, and the ability to create energy (kind of the same thing, but you get the idea). When does it stop? Is there some limit to the number of abilities He can bestow? I see no reason to think there is.

Same for omniscience. Is there any limit to the things God knows that He can't teach?

And since people stop sinning in Heaven, we know that He can bestow omnibenevolence on people. So is there a reason to think He can't do all three? Not having a beginning has nothing to do with any of them.

 

[anonymous person]

This would mean not all infants go to Heaven. Is that what you're saying? That if an infant passes, but had he not passed, He would have grown to reject God, then he would be refused admittance into Heaven?

Some would argue that. I argue the bible teaches that children yet to reach the age of accountability who die go to be with God.

 

[anonymous person]

I keep getting drawn into this topic in various threads that aren't quite on topic with this, so I thought I would start a new thread and open it up to the community to see if there is any other answer to The Problem of Evil other than "free will".

There are different versions of arguments. There is not just one Problem of Evil argument. So the answer you get will depend on what version of the argument the answer is addressing. Is it addressing the existence of moral evil or natural evil? Is it addressing gratuitous evil? Or evil per se. You have logical versions which attempt to show a logical inconsistency exists between certain propositions, you have probabilistic versions which attempt to show that the co-existence of God and evil is highly unlikely, and you have some that argue they simply don't like the idea of God allowing evil, which is an emotional and existential issue.

So basically the problem goes: "Why did God create a world that would be filled with evil?" We can call "evil" just any negative thing. Death is evil. Crime is evil. Pain is evil, etc.

This is not an argument Nicholas, it is a question.

An argument for example would be when Mackie and McCloskey claim that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).

(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).

(3) God is perfectly good.

(4) Evil exists.

They are arguing that there is a logical inconsistency/contradiction in the set of propositions. This is a version of the logical problem of evil by appeal to the existence of evil in general.

The typical answer is: "He didn't, we made evil when we Fell".

And this answer would be incorrect. The correct answer to your question, "Why did God create a world that would be filled with evil?" would be one which acknowledges that God did create a world that would be filled with evil and then sets out to present a theodicy of why God would do so. The bible clearly teaches that God created the world knowing full well that evil would result from the choices of free moral agents, so we cannot deny that.

In addition, a response would need to highlight that evil is not something that is made, but is that which is as Augustine argued, a privation (or a parasite) on the good. It exists in the same way that a wound exists on an arm or as rust exists on a car. The rust cannot exist on its own any more than cold can exist without the existence of heat or darkness can exist without the existence of light. So evil has no existence in and of itself.

Then the response to that is: "So why didn't God just make us Good from the start so that we wouldn't ever 'Fall'?"

The question assumes that we were not made good from the start. This contradicts the clear teaching of the bible in Genesis 1:31, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." This was after man had been made so man is included in the "every thing".

Your question also assumes that being good entails being unable to do evil. I see no reason to think that. Do you have a reason?

And the typical answer is: "Because if He did that, we wouldn't have free will, and we would be nothing but puppets/robots."

If God created Adam and Eve without the ability and freedom to choose to do evil, without the capacity for making significant moral choices and decisions, then they would indeed be akin to a robot which lacks the capacity for genuine moral reasoning. They would have been like the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, living in accordance with nature and the instinct God had put in them when making them. We would be lacking in that essential component which differentiates us from the animal world, a free will.

So now my response is, "If always doing good means you don't have free will,

This conclusion does not follow from what the Christian is claiming. When we say that we would not have a free will if we lacked the ability to do evil, it is not analogous to saying that always doing good means you don't have free will, for it is possible for a person to freely choose to always do what is good. Always doing good therefore, does not entail that one has no ability to choose the bad, it just implies that they always choose the good.

then God doesn't have free will because He always does good". But maybe somehow God is an exception to the rule somehow.

In light of the above, this does not follow. For in claiming God always does good, one is not required to also at the same time claim that God does not have free will. As Dr. Craig explains, "what is crucial to freedom of the will is not the ability to do the opposite but the absence of external causal constraints upon one’s choice: it is entirely up to [them]. In God’s case He is clearly free from such external causal constraints and therefore does the good freely. So He is not at all a moral automaton, but a free agent.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-able-to-do-evil#ixzz4J6bYRaqt

So then what about once you're in Heaven? You have free will, you'll never sin again. Why not start people off that way? But maybe you need to go through a process, it can't be instantaneous.

There are different views as to whether or not the saints will have free-will. The answer you get will depend on what view the person who is answering you holds.

So then what about babies that pass away? They go to Heaven without ever enduring any earthly, spiritual process.

I think that is fair to say.

Without ever choosing to follow God here on Earth. Once there, they get the perfectly sinless nature and never do evil. They go through their entire existence without ever sinning once, but they still have free will.

I think this would be fair to say too.

Of course, it would be ridiculous to think that God is incapable of letting that baby grow up in Heaven with his perfect nature in tact. Surely God isn't incapable of maturing an immature being if He can create a fully mature being from dust. So I hope no one is going to answer that babies stay babies in Heaven forever.

I see no reason to think there will be babies in heaven. I think babies that die here will be glorified and receive their glorified mature body.

So, the alternate proposed process that God could follow is thus:

1. Create a being that is not mature enough to be held accountable for his choices/actions.
2. Bestow upon that being the infinitely good nature that allows it to never sin without controlling its will.
3. Mature that being into a fully mature, intelligent being that has free will but never sins.

Now honestly, it seems like I shouldn't have to go so far. God isn't omnipotent, in my opinion, if He can't just do all of this instantly.

Now if God followed this process, for every single being He ever created, including Satan and all the fallen angels, then the universe would have no sin in it whatsoever, and free will could still abound. Free will isn't what limits God's ability to create beings that aren't puppets/robots. So the question is, if God can avoid ever allowing evil to exist, why did He want it to exist in the first place? If anyone ever does something, it is either because they want to, or because they need to. So since God didn't need to create evil (albeit indirectly) why did He want to create evil (again, indirectly)?

I see what you're saying. If babies can go to heaven without ever sinning and be glorified and be just like the saints who have gone through much evil and suffering in this life will be in the end, then why cannot God come up a similar process for everyone else?

IOW, why can't God just have us all "pass go" as they say in Monopoly and head straight to heaven without all the stuff in the middle?

My response would be that while such a world seems to be logically possible, such a world if it were able to be actualized would have overriding deficiencies in it, such that God would have morally sufficient reasons for actualizing this world as opposed to the "pass go" world we will call it.

Meditate on such a world and what the inhabitants of such a world would be like having never had to endure the many things that we have to endure in this life? Would God, as revealed in the bible, really desire such a world? Would such a world be really better? I can immediately think of some overriding deficiencies the pass go world would contain that would make it less preferable for a Holy, Righteous, Morally perfect being to actualize.

We tend to think that if God existed, then His chief aim for creating this world would be to create a comfortable world for His human "pets" to frolick around in and never experience any adversity or hardship. Having read the bible and how righteousness is inculcated and moral virtues are developed, and knowing God would desire for us to be conformed into the image of His Son, such a world as "pass go" world would be far inferior to our world. You would have a bunch of weak, soft, coddled, immature beings who knew nothing of overcoming, knew nothing of enduring and persevering, of patience and of love, of joy and of sorrow. Such beings would indeed be babies in adult bodies and I just have seen no convincing argument that God would prefer such a world, especially in light of the fact that Jesus came and showed us what God desires for us.

I think I clearly presented my premises for the argument at hand about achieving a perfectly sinless nature and that being the extent of it. Do you mean the premises for creating other gods?

Here's that:
God can create anything that is possible to exist.
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being exists.
God can create an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

I reject one. Why?

1. It is possible for God to exist.
2. God, by definition, is an uncreated being
3. It is logically impossible to create an uncreated being
4. God cannot do the logically impossible
5. God cannot create anything that is possible to exist.
6. God cannot create God

If you agree with 1-4, then 5 follows it seems to me and 6 says that the "anything" entails God.

Now I'll give you that a created being with no beginning is impossible to exist. But I see no link between that temporal state and any of the other qualities listed.

Such a link need not be shown. Suffice it to say, an uncreated being cannot be created. It is logically impossible.

I'll even break them down. Think of omnipotence first. God gave us the ability to reason, the ability to feel, the ability to communicate.

Yes He did.

Omnipotence is merely all abilities, right?

No. I see no reason to think omnipotence means "merely all abilities". Omnipotence is arguably best viewed as being able to actualize any logically possible/metaphysically possible state of affairs.

So He could give us the ability to fly, and the ability to create matter, and the ability to create energy (kind of the same thing, but you get the idea). When does it stop? Is there some limit to the number of abilities He can bestow? I see no reason to think there is.

I would say the limit is the logically possible and metaphysically possible. For instance, God cannot bestow upon us the power to destroy Him or cause Him to cease to be etc. etc. God cannot cause us to be able to make a married bachelor or a round square etc. etc.

Same for omniscience. Is there any limit to the things God knows that He can't teach?

The one who is taught, even if he is taught everything, derives his knowledge from the one who teaches, i.e. the one who knows all things innately without having to have been taught anything. Dr. Craig explains:

"Even so, the excellence of God’s knowledge is still not yet fully exhausted! What is important here is also the way in which one acquires one’s knowledge. Suppose we imagine that there are two beings, and each one of them had all propositional knowledge, and suppose that each one of them had appropriate self-knowledge. Nevertheless, suppose that one of them acquired his knowledge only because the other one had taught it to him. The other one told him everything that he knew, and that’s why the second being has all the propositional knowledge that he does, only because the first one told him. Clearly, the second being would not be as cognitively excellent as the first being, who didn’t have to be taught. The one who only learned, or acquired, the knowledge by being taught would be less excellent cognitively then the first being which was untaught. The first being doesn’t learn anything from anyone – he has his knowledge innately. Similarly, God simply knows all truths innately. He is maximally excellent intellectually. He has all propositional knowledge, holds no false beliefs, has appropriate self-knowledge, and he does so innately without learning it or acquiring it from anyone.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-13#ixzz4J6pllC4t

And since people stop sinning in Heaven, we know that He can bestow omnibenevolence on people. So is there a reason to think He can't do all three? Not having a beginning has nothing to do with any of them.

Omnibenevolence is not to be viewed as what someone is by virtue of what they do or do not do or whether or not it has been bestowed upon them, but as an underived, essential property. Jesus sums up this view clearly when He says, "there is none Good but God alone." God cannot bestow omnibenevolence on anyone because it is not something one can derive from another, as it is an essential property. We would say that the saints in heaven are simply sinless.

 

[Moral Orel]

IOW, why can't God just have us all "pass go" as they say in Monopoly and head straight to heaven without all the stuff in the middle?

My response would be that while such a world seems to be logically possible, such a world if it were able to be actualized would have overriding deficiencies in it, such that God would have morally sufficient reasons for actualizing this world as opposed to the "pass go" world we will call it.

Meditate on such a world and what the inhabitants of such a world would be like having never had to endure the many things that we have to endure in this life? Would God, as revealed in the bible, really desire such a world? Would such a world be really better? I can immediately think of some overriding deficiencies the pass go world would contain that would make it less preferable for a Holy, Righteous, Morally perfect being to actualize.

We tend to think that if God existed, then His chief aim for creating this world would be to create a comfortable world for His human "pets" to frolick around in and never experience any adversity or hardship. Having read the bible and how righteousness is inculcated and moral virtues are developed, and knowing God would desire for us to be conformed into the image of His Son, such a world as "pass go" world would be far inferior to our world. You would have a bunch of weak, soft, coddled, immature beings who knew nothing of overcoming, knew nothing of enduring and persevering, of patience and of love, of joy and of sorrow. Such beings would indeed be babies in adult bodies and I just have seen no convincing argument that God would prefer such a world, especially in light of the fact that Jesus came and showed us what God desires for us.

We can skip to this point since you seem to agree that free will isn't the reason that evil has to exist. "Skipping Go" results in the type of being I'm talking about, never will sin, still has free will, yet isn't God. Is this correct? Is free will not the answer to the problem of evil?

Note that I didn't take a formal argument approach, not because I don't understand it, but because I'm attempting to a) be more relatable to more people, not just those familiar with formal debate, but 2) mostly because I'm attempting to be vague and general and field responses from all sorts of Christians. Not all of your answers are the same answers as I've gotten from other Christians on the subject.

So, if we agree that it is possible for God to create beings which always choose the good, but still have free will, I'll move on to your alternate explanation as to what purpose evil serves.

What would a being be like if it never actually experienced pain and suffering? That's the question right? Actually experiencing, and not merely having knowledge of, pain and suffering is necessary for a being to have the proper "virtues" necessary to be well-made beings is what you are positing, correct? You'll start to notice a theme in my responses here: does God lack these virtues because He hasn't actually experienced pain and suffering?

Now I know you'll want to jump to Jesus, and that is truly a way you can say that God did experience pain and suffering, but we're talking about before all that. Before humans, before angels. Before all that happened, did God lack the necessary virtues that can only be obtained from experiencing pain and suffering to be a well made being?

Second, what purpose do these virtues serve in a world without a need for them? A lack of suffering doesn't make people weak, it makes being weak meaningless, and there's a difference.

What use is bravery if there is no danger? What use is a hard-work-ethic if everything can be done without spending time or effort? What use is generosity if all resources are infinite for everyone? What use is compassion if no one is ever sad?

If Heaven is truly the eternal bliss without worry that it seems to be made out to be, then it would seem all the virtues people are supposed to learn on Earth become obsolete and useless.

 

[Chriliman]

I think I clearly presented my premises for the argument at hand about achieving a perfectly sinless nature and that being the extent of it. Do you mean the premises for creating other gods?

Here's that:
God can create anything that is possible to exist.
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being exists.
God can create an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

Now I'll give you that a created being with no beginning is impossible to exist. But I see no link between that temporal state and any of the other qualities listed.

I'll even break them down. Think of omnipotence first. God gave us the ability to reason, the ability to feel, the ability to communicate. Omnipotence is merely all abilities, right? So He could give us the ability to fly, and the ability to create matter, and the ability to create energy (kind of the same thing, but you get the idea). When does it stop? Is there some limit to the number of abilities He can bestow? I see no reason to think there is.

Same for omniscience. Is there any limit to the things God knows that He can't teach?

And since people stop sinning in Heaven, we know that He can bestow omnibenevolence on people. So is there a reason to think He can't do all three? Not having a beginning has nothing to do with any of them.

Yes, in the end, which is really a new beginning, we become One with God, through Jesus Christ. Basically this means we'll receive unimaginable good things from God and all credit goes to Him for giving us those good things through Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:4-9
"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

So you can't earn your salvation, it's a gift from God. Your reward is based on what you do after salvation.

As you alluded to earlier, I don't think there's a limit to the rewards God can bestow on each individual, but it's based on what they do in Christ Jesus(after salvation).

I'm curious, do you call Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?

 

[anonymous person]

We can skip to this point since you seem to agree that free will isn't the reason that evil has to exist.

I don't think evil has to exist at all. God could have created a world full of rabbits or androids or wolves if such a world was what He wanted. In such worlds, evil would not exist because there would be no free moral agents to commit it. Such a world would be neither moral or immoral but amoral.

Free will makes evil possible, not inevitable. God's creation was created with the potential to be spoiled. But it does not follow that it was inevitable.

"Skipping Go" results in the type of being I'm talking about, never will sin, still has free will, yet isn't God. Is this correct? Is free will not the answer to the problem of evil?

Once again, it depends on what problem you are posing. If you are arguing that God cannot be omnipotent and create a world containing evil in it at the same time, then an appeal to the logical possibility that humans have libertarian free will would be enough to refute it. It does not give us an answer as to why God would create such a world however. That is the task of a theodicy, not a defense.

Note that I didn't take a formal argument approach, not because I don't understand it, but because I'm attempting to a) be more relatable to more people, not just those familiar with formal debate, but 2) mostly because I'm attempting to be vague and general and field responses from all sorts of Christians. Not all of your answers are the same answers as I've gotten from other Christians on the subject.

Ok cool.

So, if we agree that it is possible for God to create beings which always choose the good, but still have free will, I'll move on to your alternate explanation as to what purpose evil serves.

Before we go on, I want to make sure you understand the distinction between the concepts of logical possibility and metaphysical possibility. What is metaphysically possible will of necessity also be logically possible, but what is logically possible is not necessarily metaphysically possible.

I agree that a world wherein free moral agents always freely choose good and never evil is logically possible. Such a world we can call P1. This is a point you were making. Such a world is logically possible.

However, even though P1. is logically possible, P1. may not be metaphysically possible i.e. feasible to actualize. What might make P1. infeasible for God to actualize? Imagine that the free moral agents we mentioned which are the inhabitants of our possible world have libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is explicated as: a person is free with respect to a given action if and only if that person is both free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing that action; in other words, that person is not determined to perform or refrain from that action by any prior causal forces. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H4

If such people occupy our possible world, then it may be that they choose to do evil. Since if they are free in the sense of being undetermined by prior causal forces, then God CANNOT bring it about or cause it to be the case that these people refrain from doing evil. For if God brings it about or causes it to be the case in any manner whatsoever that the person does not do evil, then that person is not free in the libertarian sense.

Does it follow that God is therefore not omnipotent because He cannot cause someone to freely do something? Not at all, for it is logically impossible to do so and it is no mark against God's omnipotence that He cannot do the logically impossible!

So while P1. is logically possible, God cannot guarantee that creatures will always freely do what is good and never do evil, therefore God even though He is omnipotent, cannot guarantee at the outset that everyone will always do what is right, for they may choose not to and He allowing them to be free, does not nullify that freedom.

As long as it is merely logically possible that humans have libertarian free will, then there is no logical inconsistency in God being omnipotent and there existing evil.

What would a being be like if it never actually experienced pain and suffering? That's the question right? Actually experiencing, and not merely having knowledge of, pain and suffering is necessary for a being to have the proper "virtues" necessary to be well-made beings is what you are positing, correct? You'll start to notice a theme in my responses here: does God lack these virtues because He hasn't actually experienced pain and suffering?

God has experienced pain and suffering which is paradoxical. Jesus Christ is the chief example. On Him was laid the sins of the entire world and no man has endured that which Christ has endured. But God is not made virtuous by the experiences He has. He possesses these attributes intrinsically and essentially. He is essentially longsuffering and patient. His patience is not something cultivated over time as the result of enduring trials and obstacles. He is essentially compassionate. His compassion does not increase as the days pass or through working with people and helping them. All of these things can inculcate virtues in us, but God needs no such inculcating. He is perfect, lacking nothing.

Now I know you'll want to jump to Jesus, and that is truly a way you can say that God did experience pain and suffering, but we're talking about before all that. Before humans, before angels. Before all that happened, did God lack the necessary virtues that can only be obtained from experiencing pain and suffering to be a well made being?

No. God is perfect in power, love, and purity. He lacks nothing, has lacked nothing, and never will lack anything.

Second, what purpose do these virtues serve in a world without a need for them? A lack of suffering doesn't make people weak, it makes being weak meaningless, and there's a difference.

They would serve no purpose in a world where there was no need for them, at least that seems fair to say to me.

What use is bravery if there is no danger? What use is a hard-work-ethic if everything can be done without spending time or effort? What use is generosity if all resources are infinite for everyone? What use is compassion if no one is ever sad?

There would be no use for those things if the things which necessitate them did not exist and would never exist. However, Christian theism teaches that this life is a vale of decision making wherein we are trained, strengthened, and tested to be able to attain to that age to come wherein all the virtues of Christ inculcated in us will be used when we rule and reign with Christ. These virtues will then be necessary, yea, even indispensable I believe, when it comes to the work God has prepared for His saints to undertake in the age to come. Ruling and judging angels, having dominion and authority over the things God has made that no man can fathom.

I always wanted to be a Navy Seal as a youngster. I idolized the men that would endure such rigorous training, so many sleepless nights, so many hours in the near freezing waters, so many strenuous activities that pushed their minds and bodies to the breaking point and beyond. The few that made it through were ready for combat. They had been trained and pushed to their limits, having become better soldiers than they were when they entered. This life is like that for the few saints that will be a part of God's special forces so to speak. They will have endured through to the end, many dying as a result of the exercise of virtue, having been battle proven and tested, they will enter the kingdom of heaven bearing the scars of war and training just as Christ shall forever bear the marks of His passion. It is they that shall rule and reign with Christ having proven themselves here faithful in the little things, they shall be entrusted thereafter with great riches and responsibilities.

I desire to attain to that age.

If Heaven is truly the eternal bliss without worry that it seems to be made out to be, then it would seem all the virtues people are supposed to learn on Earth become obsolete and useless.

And now you are really beginning to see how messed up our conception of heaven is when we think that way. The last thing it will be will be a place of harp playing and laying around on clouds all day! There will be work, glorious work to be done, places to go, people to interact with, and most of all, Jesus will be there in all of His glory with His army of Archangels, angels, and saints. The bible in the book of revelation speaks about these things but does not go into great detail. There are going to be many surprises awaiting those who are found worthy to attain to that age.

 

[bling]

For God, it is instinctive. He didn't learn it or develop it over time. Yet God is not a robot. Therefore it can be instinctive. Now the way God designed the universe, He made it so that it isn't instinctive for us, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be instilled in us from the beginning of our existence.

If it were “instinctive” for God it would also be a robotic type act for God. Godly type Love is not some knee jerk reaction for God, but something He decided to do and will do consistently, but it is “physically” possible for God to do something else. He has decided to do only that which is best for others.

If you program an android to “love” you, is that the same as a Godly type Love for you?

How would a programmed android love, be different from an instinctive “love” in a human?

God is not hard wired to “Love” the unlovable.

This is the cognitive dissonance I see all through these responses in this thread and others. God automatically, without learning it, has a perfect nature and free will to choose, though He will never choose the bad. Yet for some reason, it is a logical impossibility for another being to exist that also has a perfect nature without learning it and has free will to choose, without ever choosing the bad.

I cannot get my answer to copy to this page will answer later.

There is only one logical contradiction between what God can create and Himself and that is His temporal status as having no beginning. Obviously, if something is created, then it had to have a beginning, so I'll grant that is impossible. That temporal status has absolutely nothing to do with choosing right or wrong. There is no link between the concepts of the temporal and the moral that anyone has explained. Until someone does, and as long as people continue to claim God can do anything that is possible, then God can create an infinite number of omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings who always choose the good and never choose the bad and have free will. I'm only arguing that He could do a lot less than all that and make people just like they are in Heaven, based on things we know for certain exist (according to scripture).

Since God and Jesus always existed they never had to “obtain” Godly type Love, but since humans are created beings they will have to “obtain” Godly type Love somehow:
You say: “Godly type love can be placed in a created being instinctively since Godly type Love is an instinctive reaction for God”. How would it be possible for anyone to know for certain any action of God was instinctive?

Just because God will only do what is best: does not mean God does not have the power to do something less?

Where are you coming up with your definition of “Godly type Love” that makes it an instinctive reaction?

Godly type love is defined by everything Christ did and said, plus you can use 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4

 

[bling]

This is the cognitive dissonance I see all through these responses in this thread and others. God automatically, without learning it, has a perfect nature and free will to choose, though He will never choose the bad. Yet for some reason, it is a logical impossibility for another being to exist that also has a perfect nature without learning it and has free will to choose, without ever choosing the bad.

.

Will try later

 

[Moral Orel]

If it were “instinctive” for God it would also be a robotic type act for God. Godly type Love is not some knee jerk reaction for God, but something He decided to do and will do consistently, but it is “physically” possible for God to do something else. He has decided to do only that which is best for others.

If you program an android to “love” you, is that the same as a Godly type Love for you?

How would a programmed android love, be different from an instinctive “love” in a human?

God is not hard wired to “Love” the unlovable.

God is love. That is why I claim He is instinctively/hard-wired to love. That doesn't make it robotic, it just is who He is, and that's fine.

Terms seem to be getting mixed around and used in multiple ways in our conversation, so let me try to make it extra clear.

God has the capability to do anything, including evil. Yet there is a quality that God has, which I will refer to as Q from here on out, that assures, without deviation, that He will never choose anything that is not good. Humans can start with Q, whatever that may be. If God is omnipotent, then He can create a being that has Q without hampering their free will because Q has no effect on free will, as it has no effect on God's free will.

 

[Moral Orel]

They would serve no purpose in a world where there was no need for them, at least that seems fair to say to me.

Then they serve no purpose, ultimately, in a universe with an omnipotent God. There is no need for us to do anything when there is a God that can instantly, perfectly, and without effort do it for Himself. What purpose do we serve except to do mindless busy work when God needs nothing of us and can create us in any fashion He sees fit?

What if God hadn't created other sentient beings? Would He have no purpose? Or would He still be able to enjoy His existence in bliss? I would say yes, He can. And therefore we too, could enjoy an eternity of bliss, without God designing struggles for us.

 

[anonymous person]

Then they serve no purpose, ultimately, in a universe with an omnipotent God.

There is no need for us to do anything when there is a God that can instantly, perfectly, and without effort do it for Himself. What purpose do we serve except to do mindless busy work when God needs nothing of us and can create us in any fashion He sees fit?

What if God hadn't created other sentient beings? Would He have no purpose? Or would He still be able to enjoy His existence in bliss? I would say yes, He can. And therefore we too, could enjoy an eternity of bliss, without God designing struggles for us.

In a sense you are right. Our being obedient and cultivating virtue does not fulfill something that is lacking in God, as if He needed us to be obedient and virtuous. God was quite fine before we were made.

I however do not share your view of the work God has given me as "mindless busy" work. I see it the height of honor and the most rewarding of occupations to be a part of God's Kingdom that the universe has to offer. To think that the sovereign God of the universe would enlist me to serve Him in His Kingdom and to allow me to be apart of His work is the greatest honor I could ever conceive of having. David Livingstone once so eloquently expressed my view when he said, ""If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"

Seems you take issue with God not making it so that you could float around on clouds all day strumming a harp in a state of eternal bliss. To point out something to you that you have tried to point out to me, you would have no concept of what bliss even was if you lived in such a state from your inception. It would just be the norm for you for you would have nothing to compare it to. Heaven is only a blissful state in your mind because you are comparing it to the here and now. This should clue you into the fact at how without this earthly life, there can be no heavenly bliss.

 

[Chriliman]

God is love. That is why I claim He is instinctively/hard-wired to love. That doesn't make it robotic, it just is who He is, and that's fine.

Terms seem to be getting mixed around and used in multiple ways in our conversation, so let me try to make it extra clear.

God has the capability to do anything, including evil. Yet there is a quality that God has, which I will refer to as Q from here on out, that assures, without deviation, that He will never choose anything that is not good. Humans can start with Q, whatever that may be. If God is omnipotent, then He can create a being that has Q without hampering their free will because Q has no effect on free will, as it has no effect on God's free will.

I'm going to replace Q with love.

In order for God to create us with love, we actually have to learn and experience what love is. If God just uploads love without us being aware of what he's doing then it would be as if nothing happened and we certainly would not credit God for love because we wouldn't know he gave it to us, unless he showed us through our experiences. This is why we must learn from God and know that he is the source of love and this knowledge is only possible through personal experience.

 

[Chriliman]

Then they serve no purpose, ultimately, in a universe with an omnipotent God. There is no need for us to do anything when there is a God that can instantly, perfectly, and without effort do it for Himself. What purpose do we serve except to do mindless busy work when God needs nothing of us and can create us in any fashion He sees fit?

What if God hadn't created other sentient beings? Would He have no purpose? Or would He still be able to enjoy His existence in bliss? I would say yes, He can. And therefore we too, could enjoy an eternity of bliss, without God designing struggles for us.

May I submit that God desires someone to exist along side Him in order for Him to love because he would already be aware that just loving himself for all eternity is completely selfish and selfishness is against His nature, which is why He creates others who can experience His love. Therefore, it's natural for an omnibenevolent God to create.

 

[Moral Orel]

In a sense you are right. Our being obedient and cultivating virtue does not fulfill something that is lacking in God, as if He needed us to be obedient and virtuous. God was quite fine before we were made.

I however do not share your view of the work God has given me as "mindless busy" work. I see it the height of honor and the most rewarding of occupations to be a part of God's Kingdom that the universe has to offer. To think that the sovereign God of the universe would enlist me to serve Him in His Kingdom and to allow me to be apart of His work is the greatest honor I could ever conceive of having. David Livingstone once so eloquently expressed my view when he said, ""If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"

I think of it kind of like this: We're all patients in a mental hospital, and God is the staff. The staff gives us coloring books to occupy our time. We don't need to color, and we don't even enjoy coloring for coloring's sake. But because we look up to the staff, we think them asking us to color these pages to be important. Even though the staff has a state-of-the-art color printer in their office, and all the work of coloring can be done in an instant, and better than we can.

We may even learn some rudimentary skills that help us color better. But those skills only matter for the sake of coloring, which remember, we don't need to do, nor do we enjoy it. We can color how we like. We can choose our colors from a limited palette available in the box to us. We can even go outside the lines at times when we please. But ultimately, all we're doing is work made for us to do that has no real importance except for the sake of the work.

Seems you take issue with God not making it so that you could float around on clouds all day strumming a harp in a state of eternal bliss. To point out something to you that you have tried to point out to me, you would have no concept of what bliss even was if you lived in such a state from your inception. It would just be the norm for you for you would have nothing to compare it to. Heaven is only a blissful state in your mind because you are comparing it to the here and now. This should clue you into the fact at how without this earthly life, there can be no heavenly bliss.

If you're talking about me quoting Beavis, I always thought that was pretty profound for a TV show based on toilet humor. But remember that I pointed out that God didn't need us to exist or for Jesus to die on the cross to know what bliss is. So pain and suffering isn't necessary to understand that you're happy when you aren't feeling bad.

The kind of thinking that says bad is required to appreciate the good makes me think that God needs us to be imperfect and much things up just because He can't make a mistake Himself. And that would make us far more important to God than Christianity lets on.

What I take issue with, and I know this flies on the face of the basic tenants of Christianity, is that He requires obedience. But not for the reason most people do. I have a problem with Him requiring obedience because He doesn't need us to be obedient, not because I think I know better what I ought to be doing. It serves no purpose for Him because He doesn't need anything from us. It seems more like we are to be obedient for obedient's sake. It isn't because He knows what's best for us, because He could have made us not lacking or needing anything as well.