The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[fatboys]

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".

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.

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

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'?"

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 I've misrepresented either side of this argument, let me know, and I'll edit the OP to reflect it. This seems about right though.

Also, if anyone has a different answer to The Problem of Evil, feel free to argue that too. I just know that at least 90% of my answers are going to be "free will" so I'm getting out ahead of it.

So now my response is, "If always doing good means you don't have free will, then God doesn't have free will because He always does good". But maybe somehow God is an exception to the rule somehow.

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.

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

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. But whatever argument you have that pushes it to this point, let's just skip to here instead of dragging it out over the course of pages and pages.

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)?

In order to know good you have to know what evil is. If a person only knew good they not only would not know evil they wouldn't even know good either. There must be opposition in all things

 

[Chriliman]

You also said that He isn't necessarily omnipotent because of what He will or won't do. Omnipotence is about capabilities. So if He can do evil, but will never choose to, then His omnipotence is unaffected. Is this what you meant?

His capabilities are subject to his will. His will is not subject to his capabilities. IOW, it only matters what God does, if His will is good and it is good to create beings who can freely choose to listen to him or not.

I never said it was illogical or impossible. I pointed out infants that passed away to show that humans don't need to go through as much of the process as people claim before they get that perfect nature.

Those infants still went through a process of coming into existence of life on earth and then dying. What God does to someone after they've physically died is unknown to us who are still alive on earth, but knowing His nature, it is good and beneficial to what He's accomplishing, which is the removal of all sin and evil in His creation. Even those dead infants will be resurrected at the final judgement and knowing God's nature, he will have mercy.

And if life begins at conception, then saying the Earth is necessary for the whole process becomes exceedingly arbitrary.

Sin entered the world through one man and so is being removed by one man, the perfect Son of God, Jesus Christ, who actually died a human death and conquered sin and death through His resurrection. This was only possible because He lived a perfect life as a man, never sinned.

We are yet to fully experience the affects of what Jesus has done and is doing in creation by the will of God.

What is illogical and impossible is for a being to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and allow evil and suffering for no reason. Free will isn't that reason, so what is?

The reason is the ability to live freely and act justly, forever, just like God and God is teaching us His ways through His creation and our experiences of it. There's more we can expect from a loving God, but at this point that is enough for me to believe and act for God because I love Him and His ways.

I hope all the best for you in your journey to truth

 

[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".

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.

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

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'?"

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 I've misrepresented either side of this argument, let me know, and I'll edit the OP to reflect it. This seems about right though.

Also, if anyone has a different answer to The Problem of Evil, feel free to argue that too. I just know that at least 90% of my answers are going to be "free will" so I'm getting out ahead of it.

So now my response is, "If always doing good means you don't have free will, then God doesn't have free will because He always does good". But maybe somehow God is an exception to the rule somehow.

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.

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

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. But whatever argument you have that pushes it to this point, let's just skip to here instead of dragging it out over the course of pages and pages.

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)?

This very question of God having free will yet being unable to do evil is brought up in the article I have linked. Check it out!

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/freedom-and-the-ability-to-choose-evil#ixzz4IvU1Rfel

 

[fatboys]

Oops got lost again. Sorry

 

[Moral Orel]

But to create someone who loves everyone by default is disgraceful to even think of such a thing.

What in the world? Why? If God's love is simply part of His nature and that makes it unforced, then it can simply be part of our nature and be unforced as well. If I was naturally athletic, it wouldn't make it fake that I can run fast either. I would genuinely run fast.

 

[Moral Orel]

This very question of God having free will yet being unable to do evil is brought up in the article I have linked. Check it out!

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/freedom-and-the-ability-to-choose-evil#ixzz4IvU1Rfel

I've read that article before, and He makes the claim that God can't create more perfect beings because there can be only one God. Now, it is true, there is only one God. But that shouldn't be confused with there can be only one God. There is no evidence given for this assertion. In my view, if God is omnipotent, then He can create an infinite number of other omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings.

But that's all irrelevant anyways as I've pointed out infants that go to Heaven, become sinless, never sin for all of eternity, never make a choice to choose Jesus, and attain this perfect nature that is supposedly unattainable.

 

[Moral Orel]

In order to know good you have to know what evil is. If a person only knew good they not only would not know evil they wouldn't even know good either. There must be opposition in all things

There was an old Beavis and Butthead quote where Beavis said, "If nothing sucked, how would you know what was cool?".

Of course, God knew what evil was going to be before we existed, understood it, and understood that it was bad, right? So it doesn't have to actually exist for us to know what evil is.

 

[Moral Orel]

The reason is the ability to live freely and act justly, forever, just like God and God is teaching us His ways through His creation and our experiences of it.

But we could do all that without being tempted by the flesh if we were made better to start. God isn't tempted to do evil, yet He lives freely and acts justly. And He can instill knowledge in us in an instant without having to learn it. He didn't teach Adam to talk did He? Adam just knew how to talk the instant he was created.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

What in the world? Why? If God's love is simply part of His nature and that makes it unforced, then it can simply be part of our nature and be unforced as well. If I was naturally athletic, it wouldn't make it fake that I can run fast either. I would genuinely run fast.

God was never created so his loving nature was natural. If you put in someones genetic code to be all loving then its forced. See my point? You can't compare things that require choice to have any meaning to something like athletic ability where there is no emotional involvement.

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. Which I knew you would cross eventually considering you are going this route of just making up any excuse you can, any little argument that can be made to reject God you will always make. It's sad. That you are so desperate to reject God you will fight to the end to reject him with any opportunity and possibility even if the possibility makes no sense at all and isn't optimal.

 

[Moral Orel]

God was never created so his loving nature was natural. If you put in someones genetic code to be all loving then its forced. See my point?

Nope. I don't see it. God not having a beginning has nothing to do with whether love is genuine or not. God doesn't choose to love, it's part of His nature. If it were part of our nature, it wouldn't be a choice either. God can't help but love, by default, whatever He creates. If they reject Him, then maybe, but to start, He loves simply because that's who He is. Does that make His love less than genuine because He can't help but feel it?

 

[fatboys]

There was an old Beavis and Butthead quote where Beavis said, "If nothing sucked, how would you know what was cool?".

Of course, God knew what evil was going to be before we existed, understood it, and understood that it was bad, right? So it doesn't have to actually exist for us to know what evil is.

He knew because he knows good from evil. We didn't know. Evil has always existed. Where there is a positive there is going to be a negative. With out light we wouldn't know what darkness is. Without pain we wouldn't know what pleasure is.

 

[fatboys]

Little children who die at a young life are spared full mortality because had gained enough knowledge before this life that they only needed a short time here to continue on with their progression.

 

[Chriliman]

But we could do all that without being tempted by the flesh if we were made better to start.

It's a part of God's design that we are flesh. We will be flesh in the eternal kingdom of God, on earth, where he will dwell with us, forever.

At that time, I can imagine life being in an optimal state of existence, imperishable.

God isn't tempted to do evil, yet He lives freely and acts justly. And He can instill knowledge in us in an instant without having to learn it.

I agree, from God's perspective, everything happens instantly(A day is like 1000yrs, 1000yrs like a day), but not from creation's perspective and this is for our benefit so that we can come to understand and accept the truth.

2 Peter 3:9
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

He didn't teach Adam to talk did He? Adam just knew how to talk the instant he was created.

Matthew 4:4
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

It seems we're unable to understand anything or even live, unless God speaks and gives understanding and life.

 

[bling]

Okay, what is our "earthly objective"? You say what it is not, but you don't say what it is. And how does evil and sin existing help us achieve this "earthly objective"?

see next post had issue posting here.

 

[bling]

Okay, what is our "earthly objective"? You say what it is not, but you don't say what it is. And how does evil and sin existing help us achieve this "earthly objective"?

If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.


Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.


So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes that compels even God to do all He does) and become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).



What keeps the all powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation?


There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).


An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).


This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.


Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.


All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

 

[anonymous person]

There was an old Beavis and Butthead quote where Beavis said, "If nothing sucked, how would you know what was cool?".

Of course, God knew what evil was going to be before we existed, understood it, and understood that it was bad, right? So it doesn't have to actually exist for us to know what evil is.

We are not God. So this is not a good analogy.

God's will for us was that we be allowed to experience evil and suffering. Two biblical characters come to mind immediately. Joseph and Job, and of course Jesus which makes three. In fact all the great men of faith endured suffering, trial, and tribulation, and these men walked closer with God I daresay more than many of us ever will in this life. And Jesus, He was perfect in all respects and suffered more than any. Either God is some sort of cosmic sadist or He Has good reasons for permitting these things. In every case I mentioned, great good resulted for a great many people as a result of the things they endured.

Humans are significantly free moral agents and sin entered the world through man's disobedience.

Yes God knew this would happen. If you believe God is omnibenevolent, have tasted and seen that the Lord is good and have been born again having the testimony of the witnesss of God's goodness bearing witness with your spirit that God is good, then evil poses no insurmountable problem for you.

If not, then you still have to account for evil anyway.

 

[anonymous person]

If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.


Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.


So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes that compels even God to do all He does) and become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).



What keeps the all powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation?


There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).


An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).


This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.


Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.


All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

I agree. This segues into the idea of the hiddenness of God, i.e. that God keeps Himself at an epistemic distance from us so that we can have significant freedom when it comes to our moral choices.

 

[Moral Orel]

Godly type Love is not instinctive

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

He knew because he knows good from evil. We didn't know. Evil has always existed. Where there is a positive there is going to be a negative. With out light we wouldn't know what darkness is. Without pain we wouldn't know what pleasure is.

Can you back that up with scripture? As far as I can tell, evil didn't always exist. God says, "I create peace and I create evil". Even if you interpret that immensely indirectly, as in God created beings that created evil, evil still had a beginning because it was created. Everything about original sin screams that evil had a beginning, so I really don't understand how you can claim it always was.

I know your denomination isn't the most common (or the most liked by your fellow Christians) but I hope that the idea of eternal evil isn't just something from the Book of Mormon.

 

[Moral Orel]

Little children who die at a young life are spared full mortality because had gained enough knowledge before this life that they only needed a short time here to continue on with their progression.

I hope no one thinks I'm saying little children shouldn't go to Heaven. It may sound like I'm saying, "Hey, that's not fair!", but I'm not. Of course they should, and because they can, it means that the rest of existence is meaningless.

Unless of course children in Heaven are diminished in some way. If they are less than the other inhabitants, or if their love isn't genuine like the other inhabitants because they never made the choice on Earth. But near as I can tell, no one is making either of those claims.