The problem of evil

[Kenny'sID]

There is no reason why he could not have created that situation here on earth.

Yours is a viable speculation and I call it that because you don't know if there was no reason whyor not, and my rebuttal is just the same...speculation. So, without Gods input, as with many other arguments here, good chance we may never draw a viable conclusion on who is wrong and who is right. You can't convince me God is a meany, that there is something wrong with the way he does things or whatever your purpose, I'll have a comeback every time just as the reverse will happen.

It's not that I mind the argument, it's just that the same thing always happens so all I can suggest is we both draw our own conclusion or wait for the answers, but at the same time, I know that's not likely to happen in general here.

Don't take this personally, Dave, because it's not just about what is going on here and now, it's about the overall big picture on why the Atheist, time and time again, comes here to do the same exact thing, to prove, or try to prove God is a meany. And don't misunderstand, that doesn't bother me and if it was only here and there, I wouldn't even bring it up but is seems like the major reasons many Atheists are here. In a way it makes perfect sense that would happen, but it's hard for me to accept, that's just what Atheists do....and still, even after asking around, I haven gotten an answer on the whys that makes good sense to me.

Carry on with the original conversation if you like, and/or maybe someone could offer some input on why it seems to come down to this same thing so often?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Prevent, how? Taking away free will? In the "dad" scenario above, he could have locked everyone in a closet or not had the children in the first place in order to prevent problems. Any other ideas on how to prevent?

It's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created us with the free will to choose to do evil, but without the inclination. So in the dad scenario, the children don't misbehave in the first place, so no punishment is necessary.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It seems to me the problem of evil is a real problem, and it is my main barrier to faith. I just have trouble believing in a benevolent creator that cares about people- I see no evidence for it in this world. There is gross unfairness and suffering in the world and I don't believe Christians can account for it.

I grant that I could be wrong, that somehow there is a God in charge of it all and its just like the Christian God and is beyond my understanding. But it would be pretty cruel for such a being to hold honest doubts against me, given the quality of evidence he's left.

And honestly, if it is the case that God exists and he has such a mysterious plan, what does that say about Christian epistemology? How could we take any religious authority seriously if God's will is so inscrutable? It seems to me much more skepticism of religious claims are warranted, regardless of whether or not the Christian God exists.

The Bible describes God as holy (Isaiah 6:3), righteous (Psalm 7:11), just (Deuteronomy 32:4), and sovereign (Daniel 4:17-25). These attributes tell us the following about God: (1) God is capable of preventing evil, and (2) God desires to rid the universe of evil. So, if both of these are true, why does God allow evil? If God has the power to prevent evil and desires to prevent evil, why does He still allow evil? Perhaps a practical way to look at this question would be to consider some alternative ways people might have God run the world:

1) God could change everyone’s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

Instead, God made Adam and Eve innocent but with the ability to choose good or evil. Because of this, they could respond to His love and trust Him or choose to disobey. They chose to disobey. Because we live in a real world where we can choose our actions but not their consequences, their sin affected those who came after them (us). Similarly, our decisions to sin have an impact on us and those around us and those who will come after us.

2) God could compensate for people’s evil actions through supernatural intervention 100 percent of the time. God would stop a drunk driver from causing an automobile accident. God would stop a lazy construction worker from doing a substandard job on a house that would later cause grief to the homeowners. God would stop a father who is addicted to drugs or alcohol from doing any harm to his wife, children, or extended family. God would stop gunmen from robbing convenience stores. God would stop high school bullies from tormenting the brainy kids. God would stop thieves from shoplifting. And, yes, God would stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings.

While this solution sounds attractive, it would lose its attractiveness as soon as God’s intervention infringed on something we wanted to do. We want God to prevent horribly evil actions, but we are willing to let “lesser-evil” actions slide—not realizing that those “lesser-evil” actions are what usually lead to the “greater-evil” actions. Should God only stop actual sexual affairs, or should He also block our access to pornography or end any inappropriate, but not yet sexual, relationships? Should God stop “true” thieves, or should He also stop us from cheating on our taxes? Should God only stop murder, or should He also stop the “lesser-evil” actions done to people that lead them to commit murder? Should God only stop acts of terrorism, or should He also stop the indoctrination that transformed a person into a terrorist?

3) Another choice would be for God to judge and remove those who choose to commit evil acts. The problem with this possibility is that there would be no one left, for God would have to remove us all. We all sin and commit evil acts (Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8). While some people are more evil than others, where would God draw the line? Ultimately, all evil causes harm to others.

Instead of these options, God has chosen to create a “real” world in which real choices have real consequences. In this real world of ours, our actions affect others. Because of Adam’s choice to sin, the world now lives under the curse, and we are all born with a sin nature (Romans 5:12). There will one day come a time when God will judge the sin in this world and make all things new, but He is purposely “delaying” in order to allow more time for people to repent so that He will not need to condemn them (2 Peter 3:9). Until then, He IS concerned about evil. When He created the Old Testament laws, the goal was to discourage and punish evil. He judges nations and rulers who disregard justice and pursue evil. Likewise, in the New Testament, God states that it is the government’s responsibility to provide justice in order to protect the innocent from evil (Romans 13). He also promises severe consequences for those who commit evil acts, especially against the "innocent" (Mark 9:36-42).

In summary, we live in a real world where our good and evil actions have direct consequences and indirect consequences upon us and those around us. God’s desire is that for all of our sakes we would obey Him that it might be well with us (Deuteronomy 5:29). Instead, what happens is that we choose our own way, and then we blame God for not doing anything about it. Such is the heart of sinful man. But Jesus came to change men’s hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit, and He does this for those who will turn from evil and call on Him to save them from their sin and its consequences (2 Corinthians 5:17). God does prevent and restrain some acts of evil. This world would be MUCH WORSE were not God restraining evil. At the same time, God has given us the ability to choose good and evil, and when we choose evil, He allows us, and those around us, to suffer the consequences of evil. Rather than blaming God and questioning God on why He does not prevent all evil, we should be about the business of proclaiming the cure for evil and its consequences—Jesus Christ!


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created us with the free will to choose to do evil, but without the inclination.

Inability to have inclinations is hardly true free will.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Inability to have inclinations is hardly true free will.

But don't we all lack certain inclinations from a very early age? The balance of inclinations is often called our 'moral compass', not something we deliberate on, but an 'instinctive' feeling of right & wrong, fair & unfair. I have no inclination at all to violence or theft - although I know I'm potentially capable of either - but I don't feel this impinges on my free will; they're not among the options I would freely choose, because of my inclinations. And if I had to act against my inclinations it would feel like an infringement of my free will.

So it seems to me that inclinations influence how we exercise our free will, but don't essentially constrain it.

 

[devolved]

But don't we all lack certain inclinations from a very early age? The balance of inclinations is often called our 'moral compass', not something we deliberate on, but an 'instinctive' feeling of right & wrong, fair & unfair. I have no inclination at all to violence or theft - although I know I'm potentially capable of either - but I don't feel this impinges on my free will; they're not among the options I would freely choose, because of my inclinations. And if I had to act against my inclinations it would feel like an infringement of my free will.

So it seems to me that inclinations influence how we exercise our free will, but don't essentially constrain it.

I think we'd have to deconstruct what one would mean by "person" prior to discussion of free will. We generally view human being as a "whole" and seldom discuss the parts under the hood which comprise a human being.

Let's say we removed the frontal lobe of a person, would that still be considered a human being? It would be a merely stimulus-bound robotic existence which is unable to execute complex functions that a typical human would.

So, what is free will in context of reality of our nervous system? Religious concept of free will and how God miraculously communicates to people seems to be rather conceptual and doesn't really think through the implications.

Our will is always limited by our belief system. One wouldn't will things inconsistent with one's limited awareness or certain beliefs. For example, no matter how much I try, I wouldn't personally will to kill myself, given my present experience. But, given a state of mind of a suicidal person, they typically talk about suicidal thoughts "pop" into their head. So, the question is...

If God created Adam and Eve a full-grown human beings capable of speech (if someone would believe that version), that means that there are mental presets and understanding that drive them, thus they don't really have free will. Their will is directed by the presets and understanding that was pre-programmed in their mind.

Now, that the programming is challenged and broken, that's where possibility of free will enters. Thus, ironically Satan or a snake would be the agent of free will for humanity in such case, because without that challenging factor there is no alternative possibility or even thought for alternative possibility.

It has further implications, but I thought it may be relevant idea.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But don't we all lack certain inclinations from a very early age? The balance of inclinations is often called our 'moral compass', not something we deliberate on, but an 'instinctive' feeling of right & wrong, fair & unfair. I have no inclination at all to violence or theft - although I know I'm potentially capable of either - but I don't feel this impinges on my free will; they're not among the options I would freely choose, because of my inclinations. And if I had to act against my inclinations it would feel like an infringement of my free will.

So it seems to me that inclinations influence how we exercise our free will, but don't essentially constrain it.

Never an inclination of violence of any kind? Then my guess is you are one of the very few exceptions on the planet. And that makes the point, there is you, then there is the rest of the world do feel so inclined.

 

[devolved]

Never an inclination of violence of any kind? Then my guess is you are one of the very few exceptions on the planet. And that makes the point, there is you, then there is the rest of the world do feel so inclined.

So, if we have some tendencies for non-violence, and empathy and compassion... would that by extension mean what? Methinks you are playing favorites here when it comes to "natural tendencies" .

And if you do, why not favor the better ones?

 

[Kenny'sID]

If God created Adam and Eve a full-grown human beings capable of speech (if someone would believe that version), that means that there are mental presets and understanding that drive them, thus they don't really have free will. Their will is directed by the presets and understanding that was pre-programmed in their mind.

That would, in my view, drive them only to use the ability of speech and no more than that. There is no forcing them to even use that ability. No affect at all on free will. At least I don't see the connection.

 

[devolved]

That would, in my view, drive them only to use the ability of speech and no more than that. There is no forcing them to even use that ability. No affect at all on free will. At least I don't see the connection.

Does a computer have a free will?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Explain how I'm playing favorites?

 

[Kenny'sID]

A computer has no nothing in the area we are talking about.

 

[devolved]

Explain how I'm playing favorites?

I did. You seem to emphasize the "natural tendencies" that would lead to undesired outcomes, and you leave out the rest of the tendencies.

The reason why I asked about computer, is because our brain is a kind of computer and it merely follows instructions and presets. If God constructed the computer of the brain with all of the presets, it would be very difficult to fit "free will" in such model.

I guess you'd have to specify what you mean by "free will".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think we'd have to deconstruct what one would mean by "person" prior to discussion of free will..
...

Yes, it's a complicated subject. I was just commenting on the idea that inclinations, or lack of them, mean 'true free will' is constrained. I guessed a definition of 'true free will' was pending.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Never an inclination of violence of any kind?

Not actual physical violence, no. Plenty of imaginary violence, but I'd never act it out, unless forced into it against my will. I don't think I'm unusual in having an aversion to physical violence. YMMV.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Inability to have inclinations is hardly true free will.

I mean without the inclination to do "evil". So unless it's your contention that I don't possess free will because I have zero inclination to molest a child, or murder someone, etc. then you have to admit that I absolutely can have free will and yet not do "evil".

If it is your contention that I don't have free will based upon your particular definition of the term, then I'm perfectly fine saying I don't have free will, and I see zero issues in wishing that everyone was like me. Because I don't see a difference in my ability to choose something I never actually do choose, and someone who has the ability to choose something and actually does choose it. In that scenario, the only people with free will are the people who will choose any and all options. And that seems like an incoherent viewpoint.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I did. You seem to emphasize the "natural tendencies" that would lead to undesired outcomes, and you leave out the rest of the tendencies.

Of course I know other tendencies exist, your point?

I start losing interest when someone tells me they have no violent tendencies. That would make them a complete coward and completely unable to defend themselves if need be, that stuff it built into most of us...almost a reflex....doesn't have to be a bad thing. Seems that's the type person that would turn tail and run instead of stepping up to the plate if they saw...say, a woman in the act of being raped.

And when anyone tends toward the unreal or something that isn't true to make their points, how can I take such arguments seriously?

You people are just way to good, or so you say, but I wouldn't want you you next to me in a foxhole.

 

[devolved]

Of course I know other tendencies exist, your point?

What's yours? So, we do have some bad and some good tendencies. And?

That would make them a complete coward and completely unable to defend themselves if need be, that stuff it built into most of us...almost a reflex....doesn't have to be a bad thing. Seems that's the type person that would turn tail and run instead of stepping up to the plate if they saw...say, a woman in the act of being raped.

No, I think one could say that they merely allowed "free will" to be expressed and they decided not to stop the rape, or murder. You know... kind of like what the God of Christianity does.

Would you follow that example and do nothing? If you would prevent rape... then why can't God?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yours is a viable speculation and I call it that because you don't know if there was no reason whyor not, and my rebuttal is just the same...speculation. So, without Gods input, as with many other arguments here, good chance we may never draw a viable conclusion on who is wrong and who is right. You can't convince me God is a meany, that there is something wrong with the way he does things or whatever your purpose, I'll have a comeback every time just as the reverse will happen.

It's not that I mind the argument, it's just that the same thing always happens so all I can suggest is we both draw our own conclusion or wait for the answers, but at the same time, I know that's not likely to happen in general here.

Don't take this personally, Dave, because it's not just about what is going on here and now, it's about the overall big picture on why the Atheist, time and time again, comes here to do the same exact thing, to prove, or try to prove God is a meany. And don't misunderstand, that doesn't bother me and if it was only here and there, I wouldn't even bring it up but is seems like the major reasons many Atheists are here. In a way it makes perfect sense that would happen, but it's hard for me to accept, that's just what Atheists do....and still, even after asking around, I haven gotten an answer on the whys that makes good sense to me.

Carry on with the original conversation if you like, and/or maybe someone could offer some input on why it seems to come down to this same thing so often?

Well, to be fair, the topic of this thread is "the problem of evil". The reason why atheists (and some Christians) would raise the point that either god was said to have done bad things, or allowed bad things to happen is because that's the whole point of this philosophical exercise.

How do you discuss the problem of evil without bringing up the evil stuff that god had a hand in?

The point I raised was to demonstrate that the apologetic of "if god removed the ability to sin, we'd all lose free will and turn into robots" is wrong, even within your own theology. Therefore it's not a valid defense for why god allowed sin to happen on earth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Does a computer have a free will?

True free will?