Why does God allow evil to exist on Earth?

[EverlastingMan]

[/font]There was none! You basically said "If god did everything for you, you wouldn't love god". You failed to show how the stuff after the comma logically follows from the stuff before the comma.

I'll quote what you quoted, ie what I was referring to:

Your arguing with a tagline to an argument that actually has about 0 to do with that argument? Don't. And anyhow, my answer should be fairly obvious: freewill is necessary for loving God; loving God is the ultimate good; thus, a world with the tools necessary for the ultimate good is better than one without. And if what you say is true than we can happily conclude this argument by saying that we just can't know.​

You seem to have forgotten what we were arguing over here, quite easy to do I keep on having to look back three and four posts, and think you made a statement about my lacking a reason for love requiring freewill. Which we weren't talking about here, but we do somewhere below.

No you haven't. If you have, please, please, PLEASE, point out the post number, quote the paragraph. Show me exactly where you did. I don't see it, and saying "Well, I already did" doesn't help me see it.

Here is my argument again:

Your arguing with a tagline to an argument that actually has about 0 to do with that argument? Don't. And anyhow, my answer should be fairly obvious: freewill is necessary for loving God; loving God is the ultimate good; thus, a world with the tools necessary for the ultimate good is better than one without. And if what you say is true than we can happily conclude this argument by saying that we just can't know.​

Then you have justification for the distinction?

You yourself provided it! My mother did not create me, she conceived me certainly. But she didn't create me: she is not the one giving me the instinct to love her. Thus the argument doesn't apply.

Again, you have misread my arguments.

You seem to think that an actual point was being made here, it wasn't. I was just fussing at you.

Yes, I understand the defense. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. However, you have not shown that love logically requires freewill. Without that, the whole defense falls apart. And before you say it, no, I have not ignored your posts. You say instinctive love does not work with god, and you give no justification for the distinction. It's ad hoc, and you know it.

If I do not love of my own freewill, I love because of an instinct. I have shown that God making us love Him is patently ridiculous; and I think we have that later on.

Suppose there is a world where everyone does only good. Is it necessary that this world does not have freewill?

No.

You still have yet to justify why that love is any less real when instinctive.

You

... you do realize that the second statement follows logically from the first, right? "No good is possible without love" implies that love is required for the ultimat good. The second is necessarily true if the first is true.

Yes, but the statement "love is required for the ultimate good" (LrU) does not mean "love is required for all good." (LrG) And since this argument centers around the former statement (LrU) and we cannot infer the latter (LrG) then we need not be concerned with it. I do not wish to argue that point, since it's not necessary I don't have to.

Although, to be fair, you are correct that this is somewhat irrelevant.

Entirely.

Got to love non sequiturs. My favorite comic, by the way.

My second favorite. I like Get Fuzzy better. Anyway, it's not. I had in my previous post said that we are not babies about our freewill, the topic of discussion. You said "Compared to God we are"; I said "true"; you said "then you admit the analogies points"; I said "Sure, but since it doesn't apply to the current argument I don't really care".

Don't be so facetious. You could find a way to kill yourself right now if your wanted to. The point of the analogy remains, however. If a choice is required to kill oneself, than the means to kill oneself would necessarily entail the ability to choose to do so.

If that was the point of your analogy, then it doesn't stand against me. To kill onesself one must do it instinctively or by ones own freewill; that is true. But your point appeared to be that the choice was the means. Which it is not. The choice where it is a willed decision is indeed necessary for the process to begin but it is not itself the actual means by which the deed is accomplished.




Yes, I understand that.

No, I did not. I understand what an instinct is.

You didn't bring it up in your previous post though, thus at that point--whether or not you understood--the point was overlooked, ie ignored. This may be partly my fault though.

Tell that to your beating heart or your digesting stomach. Your sweat glands might also be interested to hear this. I imagine your kidneys and pancreas might care, too.

In other [words], you're wrong.

And you still fail to show that loving god intinctually would reduce the pleasure or benefits.

This is what I mean when I say you're ignoring me. I said that if God makes love instinctive then He is doing no more than recording His own voice saying "I love you" and then playing it back.While you did address it in one of your previous posts you appear to have dropped it; which would appear to mean you agree; which would then make my stance correct.

Did I respond to it, or did I not? Do you really want me to copy and paste my response when it is a mere inch up the page?

You did, I meant that it had not been until that post. Meaning that my prior complaint would have been valid.

I'm pretty sure I'm the one being ignored, not you.

Verwirrung

-- D

I'm quoting everything you say mate and giving a response to it; by the way now you are actually addressing some of my arguments so as long as I'm addressing yours we can drop the accusations.

Kudos for conceding it right away, so we have that out of the way. It´s already forgotten.

I try-emphasis on that last word--to concede wherever I know I'm wrong. I used to never concede and it just got . . . annoying.

To be more precise (and I disagree with the wording of the thread title here): He must have created it.
Last time I checked god was said to be the creator of everything, and not the creator of something and the allower of other things. If "freewill" is necessary for there to be love, and if "evil" is a necessary byproduct of "freewill", god must have created evil, else his plan of creating love out of "freewill" could not have worked.

No not really. Choice can lead to the creation of new things. I could choose to be an engineer and invent a time machine. I created something new out of my, in this case, choices. Evil is to the Christian the lack of good, God being the spiritual embodiment of good. Thus as long as everyones being good evil doesn't exist. However, since evil is the lack of good one can bring it about merely by choosing to be not good. Choice can bring evil into existence, and it has.

When talking about an omnipotent omniscient creator of everything, a wording like "allowed something contrary to his plan" is utterly meaningless. He knew every outcome, every development, every result of the way he created things - and for such god quite apparently there is no "oops, that came unexpectedly, I didn´t want it, that came all by itself". For an omnipotent first cause creator omniscience is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]: Everything that will happen IS his plan.

Agree with everything except the last bit. If I want to have a picnic with everyone, ie that's my plan, and I know some people will say "no", when they do not show up for the picnic it was not part of my plan. Now, certainly, God works things so that He comes on top in the end and He gets His picnic, but He would have preferred if we all went along with His original plan, not His backup as it were.

Not to be nitpicking, but that´s not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that god could have done that without harming anyone or infringing anyone´s "freewill".

You are right, within your definition of your world (That is you would really prefer if we got rid of the "allow" in what you said and simply have a world in which God did not allow only good people to exist, because everyone that would exist without God intervening to make sure they did not would be good. Certainly, God this world. As a theistic evolutionist, I think this probable--since most theories of what happened before the 10^-42 second of the big bang require the creation of an infinite number of universes. However, when your argument is taken like this it isn't an argument against evil in this world, merely it asks a question to which the Christian can only say "He probably did, but in all honesty we cannot know--at least on this side of eternity." It, however, fails to say anything about our situation.

Since I was working with a definition of your world that you were not, I'd rather actually not bother defend them since we were talking past eachother. But, I have to ask you, quatona, what is your world's significance? You're asking why didn't God create a world in which there people choose good consistently. And really, we can't know if He did or not. But what has it at all to do with this world? That was why I assumed God would be insuring that only good people would exist; because I assumed you wanted the world to have been otherwise somewhat like our own. But if it is merely a world in which God doesn't have to play the part of a family planner and everyone is good, then who cares? Is such a world possible. Yes. But it doesn't play into this world at all. Since my idea of your world was completely different from your own, my arguments don't really apply so I didn't bother answer them (Since your basic response was anyway that you didn't mean a world like that.)

This comes as a surprise. For all I know "omniscient omnipotent creator god" and "could not" do not go together well in one sentence. I don´t seem to understand what you mean, here.

This was made under the argument that God's restriction would be immoral. In which case, as you agree below, for God to commit it He would cease to exist as God, that is He would no longer be omni benevolent. But, since your world was apparently not like that then it doesn't really matter.

 

[us38]

Here is my argument again:

Your arguing with a tagline to an argument that actually has about 0 to do with that argument? Don't. And anyhow, my answer should be fairly obvious: freewill is necessary for loving God; loving God is the ultimate good; thus, a world with the tools necessary for the ultimate good is better than one without. And if what you say is true than we can happily conclude this argument by saying that we just can't know.​

Still no proof that you have to have freewill to love.

You yourself provided it! My mother did not create me, she conceived me certainly. But she didn't create me: she is not the one giving me the instinct to love her. Thus the argument doesn't apply.

Your mother has instinctual love for you. This is what I said originally. You never addressed it. Instinctual love still applies. Saying "well, she conceived, not created" is an ad hoc distinction.

Yes, but the statement "love is required for the ultimate good" (LrU) does not mean "love is required for all good." (LrG) And since this argument centers around the former statement (LrU) and we cannot infer the latter (LrG) then we need not be concerned with it. I do not wish to argue that point, since it's not necessary I don't have to.

Yeah, I realized that.

This is what I mean when I say you're ignoring me. I said that if God makes love instinctive then He is doing no more than recording His own voice saying "I love you" and then playing it back.

Yes, I've read that a thousand time. You also say that it takes away the pleasure and benefits of loving god. You never explain why.

BTW, a huge chunk of my argument got ignored here. you quoted it, but you didn't respond to it all.

You did, I meant that it had not been until that post. Meaning that my prior complaint would have been valid.

And I pointed out exactly where I had addressed it earlier. The complaint was not valid.

I'm quoting everything you say mate and giving a response to it; by the way now you are actually addressing some of my arguments so as long as I'm addressing yours we can drop the accusations.

It is undeniable that you ignored alot in my last post. Just go look at the quote triplet. You didn't really address any of it.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[quatona]

No not really. Choice can lead to the creation of new things. I could choose to be an engineer and invent a time machine. I created something new out of my, in this case, choices.

The point I was trying to emphasize was this one: the christian theology inserts god as the unique creator from nothing (that´s actually what seems to bring about the idea of a god existing). If you want me to accept this uniqueness, I would like you not to equivocate it away the next moment. You don´t create a time machine from nothing. You merely manipulate that which is and transform it.

Evil is to the Christian the lack of good, God being the spiritual embodiment of good.

1. I wasn´t aware that "evil" was defined that way for purposes of this thread, and that this was the definition the OP referred to.
2. If going by this definition, evil is the lack of god, and this is an impossibility if we follow the Christian teaching that god is omnipresent. Evil can´t exist.
3. On another note, if defining something to be the lack of something, it is not something that is there just like the thing the lack of it is. It is a mere theoretical concept. Evil cannot be created, then.

Thus as long as everyones being good evil doesn't exist.

Even if nobody is being good, evil doesn´t exist, if following your definition. A lack of something is not something existing.

However, since evil is the lack of good one can bring it about merely by choosing to be not good. Choice can bring evil into existence, and it has.

Evil, by your definition, doesn´t even require choice. The lack of opportunity to be good is sufficient to bring about a lack of good.
A stone, unable to do good, would be evil.

And I´ll tell you what: Even if accepting this ominous "freewill" to exist, for the sake of the argument: There is no doubt that this is not absolute freedom of choice. There are countless factors that limit our choices. So "freewill", at best, is not an on/off thing but a matter of degree. Limiting a particular choice does not make "freewill" go away, else "freewill" has never been there. So limiting one more or less choice is not that big of a deal as you would me believe.
The conditions we exist in do not allow us to be all good. Whatever good we try to do, it will be perceived as lack of good by someone somewhere. Here I see a natural catastrophy occuring, and I can choose between, say, 100 injured people to help. I can do good to one of them, and to 99 others this is the lack of good. Lack of good is a necessary consequence of creating physical existence in combination with limited resources, and in combination with consciousness. Even with everybody doing the very best they can, there will be lack of good (i.e. evil, by your definition). It is a systemic logical property of this sort of existence that we are thrown into. Don´t tell me your god wasn´t aware of this when creating things and conditions the way he created them.

I personally don´t think that the definition of "evil" as being merely the lack of "good" is a good idea. I see how it promises to help your case, but since it does not even do that, I´d suggest to go with the self-suggesting notion: good and evil are conceptual antagonists.

Agree with everything except the last bit. If I want to have a picnic with everyone, ie that's my plan, and I know some people will say "no", when they do not show up for the picnic it was not part of my plan.

Again, you simply ignore what you claim is so special about your god: you are not omnisicient, and you are not the creator of the guests, the place where the picnic is to take place, and the conditions the invited guests live under.
Omniscient is not "basically the same as knowing, but just a little more of it". Omnisicience is a category of its own, with a lot unique features and implications. You can´t have one of them without accepting the others. Creating guests in order to wish they will come, although knowing for sure they won´t come, but knowing you will get that which you actually want and would have gotten without creating them makes no sense at all. Unless not only a hypothetical end result, but also the way it is reached is exactly your plan.

Now, certainly, God works things so that He comes on top in the end and He gets His picnic, but He would have preferred if we all went along with His original plan, not His backup as it were.

Original plan vs. backup plan does not make sense for an entity like we are hypothetically assuming. Once this entity sets something in motion, it knows every little detail of what´s going to happen as a consequence.There is no alternative, not even a hypothetical one. Everything must and will happen exactly the way it knows it will happen. Every "I wish it would..." as we know it is based on a rest of uncertainty. Even if I know a book by heart and read it for the hundredth time, there are a lot of factors that will make this time different - unpredictable factors. I will experience something new every time, due to the uncertainties in the context of which I reread this book. Would everything be exactly as I know it will be, there would be no point in reading it. By the same token there is no point in reading a book for the first time, if I know the book and everything else that will happen while reading it in detail. There aren´t any options. What will occur is merlely an exact repetition of what happened in my mind before. Ultimate boredom, no options, no change, no experiences. No reason to act. Sometimes I feel like you guys aren´t even aware what you do to your god by cursing him with omniscience.

Interestingly you hypothetize a god who gets it his way in the end, yet picture him as being concerned with our freedom. Quite apparently he doesn´t give us freedom exactly where it would make a difference.

And, also interestingly, you picture him as having an original planA to this PlanB that apparently takes place. Is this PlanA a poor one, or why did he prefer to create things the way that PlanB was required?
What was wrong with PlanA? And if there was something wrong with it, why did god have it, in the first place?

You are right, within your definition of your world (That is you would really prefer if we got rid of the "allow" in what you said and simply have a world in which God did not allow only good people to exist, because everyone that would exist without God intervening to make sure they did not would be good. Certainly, God this world. As a theistic evolutionist, I think this probable--since most theories of what happened before the 10^-42 second of the big bang require the creation of an infinite number of universes. However, when your argument is taken like this it isn't an argument against evil in this world, merely it asks a question to which the Christian can only say "He probably did, but in all honesty we cannot know--at least on this side of eternity." It, however, fails to say anything about our situation.

I appreciate an honest "I don´t know" over a poor explanation any day.

Since I was working with a definition of your world that you were not, I'd rather actually not bother defend them since we were talking past eachother. But, I have to ask you, quatona, what is your world's significance?

I´d like to answer this question, but I am afraid I don´t understand what it is you are asking for. Care to reword it for me?
On a side-note: Better not say "your world". It is not my idea of an ideal world. It is merely a hypothetical that considers as many claimed properties of your god as possible. As a matter of fact, the idea of an omniscient omnipotent creator god is so weird to me, for so many different reasons, that I am just trying to make the best out of this mess that it appears to be, to me. I have problems understanding why such an entity would want to create something at all, to begin with.
"My world" is the world as it presents itself to me, without any such creator entity. I have no problems with the way things are. I wouldn´t have problems if the things were differently. It´s just the way it is, and I have to deal with it. Whilst if you want to sell this to me as a the product of a genial masterplan, and want to tell me that I have produced these conditions, I have major problems.

You're asking why didn't God create a world in which there people choose good consistently. And really, we can't know if He did or not. But what has it at all to do with this world?

I don´t know. I am not the one who believes in this god. I have no clue what the idea of a god existing has to do with this world. I was hoping you could explain it to me.

That was why I assumed God would be insuring that only good people would exist; because I assumed you wanted the world to have been otherwise somewhat like our own. But if it is merely a world in which God doesn't have to play the part of a family planner and everyone is good, then who cares? Is such a world possible. Yes. But it doesn't play into this world at all. Since my idea of your world was completely different from your own, my arguments don't really apply so I didn't bother answer them (Since your basic response was anyway that you didn't mean a world like that.)

Ok. To clarify: Actually, I don´t want anything in particular when discussing these things. I am toying around with theistic concepts and try to make sense of them. An omniscient omnipotent creatorgod who at some point says "Uh, darn, that was not part of my original plan, I didn´t want that to happen, but fortunately I have PlanB in my pocket" does not really make sense to me. "Wanting" and "being the omniscient author" seem to be irreconcilable. There can´t be any difference between what you want and what you get, in this case (not even if "freewill" and its known consequences were part of the equation).

This was made under the argument that God's restriction would be immoral. In which case, as you agree below, for God to commit it He would cease to exist as God, that is He would no longer be omni benevolent. But, since your world was apparently not like that then it doesn't really matter.

Ok. I guess what I have a problem with is the following reasoning:
"1.God is good and ultimately moral.
2. [insert assumption about a property or action of god]
3. If God wouldn´t do/be 2., he would be immoral, because he would be different than he is, hence could not be ultimately moral."
The problem lies in the fact that one could insert any assumption about god at 2, and make it prove itself this way.
Of course, since you experience a world in which "freewill" and "evil" exist, and since you believe in a god who can´t be the author of evil by definition, there is a need for you to assume evil to have caused itself, or something. I still haven´t understood how this could be possible, but nevermind.
I personally experience a world in which "freewill" is a nonsensical concept, and in which "evil" is merely the description of a perception. So I have no need to reconcile those concepts with my reality. Since I don´t believe in a god, either, I am free of the problem to reconcile my reality or named concepts with a god.
"Where does evil come from?", for me is an equally meaningless question as "Where does bad taste come from?"
and the explanation
"God, being the pure good, made everything good, and we are the ones who created evil" is equally absurd as the explanation "God made everything taste good, but we with our "freewill" we chose things to taste bad." would be.

Thanks for the conversation!
quatona

 

[elman]

God can do *anything*, he can also make it so we can all be happy and enjoy life, have the same opportunities, and love Him. He gives us no evidence for his existance, the only "evidence" *you* have, are the metaphores of Him. "God is love", "God is nature" etc.

He gives us evidence but you have to want to see it and be willing to see it. He forces nothing on you.

 

[EverlastingMan]

quotona I'll edit this post to deal with your points later on.

[/font][/font]
Still no proof that you have to have freewill to love.

us38! I just told you that was not what we were talking about here, and that I we fussed over this later! And then you go and say that. Seriously man.

Your mother has instinctual love for you. This is what I said originally. You never addressed it. Instinctual love still applies. Saying "well, she conceived, not created" is an ad hoc distinction.

Dear god man. What do you call addressing? Lets think about this shall we? By saying "Your mother has instinctual love for you," you clearly meant more that simply "Your mother has instinctual love for you." You clearly meant that if my proposition that instinctual love is like God playing back His own voice, then that this instinctual love was nothing more than either my mother or God playing back their own voice. I said, "No, it's not. It's not like my mother playing back her voice, because she's not the one who made it my instinct. It's not like God playing back His voice to Himself, because it's not addressed to Himself." If that isn't addressing something than absolutely nothing you or I have said in this thread addresses anything at all.

I made a distinction, in the very 1st post that had this topic, that said "Of course, this only applies to a creator." That is not an ad hoc distinction. Was I applying this distinction to a particular case, yes. Duh, you raised a particular case. It's perfectly legitimate to deal with a particular case.

Yeah, I realized that.

Then why the devil were you saying I had to prove it?!

Yes, I've read that a thousand time. You also say that it takes away the pleasure and benefits of loving god. You never explain why.

Well, you haven't responded to it. You have responded to the benefits argument, but haven't bothered about this one. Please stop bringing up the benefit argument as if it was the sole justification I provided for my stance. Even if you prove without a doubt that the benefit argument is wrong, the taperecorder argument would stand, and my point would stand.

BTW, a huge chunk of my argument got ignored here. you quoted it, but you didn't respond to it all.

You're right, sorry I was working on it while doing calculus homework and I jumped around the post and then forgot I had skipped over some stuff. I had left the triplet for later so I could think about it a bit and then I forgot. I'll post a reply shortly, but at the moment I have to run off and do something.

EDIT:

Tell that to your beating heart or your digesting stomach. Your sweat glands might also be interested to hear this. I imagine your kidneys and pancreas might care, too.

A good point. I assumed in that argument that an instinct could be controlled, which actually was against the list of assumptions I had in the first place.

In other [words], you're wrong.

Mmhmm.

And you still fail to show that loving god intinctually would reduce the pleasure or benefits.

And I pointed out exactly where I had addressed it earlier. The complaint was not valid.

Fine then, I apologize.

It is undeniable that you ignored alot in my last post. Just go look at the quote triplet. You didn't really address any of it.

Yes, like I said before I forgot. I'll edit this post to have my responses later, so don't bother quote me again yet.

Verwirrung

-- D[/quote]

 

[loudatheist101]

He gives us evidence but you have to want to see it and be willing to see it. He forces nothing on you.

Ughh, another metaphor. What evidence is there that you think "He" will show if we look for it? "Nature"? "Love"? Other metaphors? Well, why don't you look at death, suffering, pain, starvation, etc. More evidence there is no all powerful, all loving, all powerful god. And then there's the science evidence doubting a god.

 

[Red530]

God does not create evil. -_- Please understand this. I know what the Bible says, but the Bible is taken too literally. He creates the free will for us to create evil.

Why does he allow it? - So that humans may learn from our mistakes. If there was no evil in the world, life would be boring and we'd all be acting like robots.

 

[loudatheist101]

God does not create evil. -_- Please understand this. I know what the Bible says, but the Bible is taken too literally. He creates the free will for us to create evil.

Why does he allow it? - So that humans may learn from our mistakes. If there was no evil in the world, life would be boring and we'd all be acting like robots.

...You do not see my point. Why would he allow evil, suffering, pain, etc. So we can learn from our mistakes? Why doesn't this perfect being make us perfect? "Cause that would be boring". So he lets things like the Holocaust and suffering happen so the world is not as "boring"? Is God like, 8 years old? I don't mean to offend anyone but come on....

 

[Red530]

I'm talking in my perspective that it would be boring, and God would be controlling us like robots. To me, acting like robots = boring. You may beg to differ. ~_~

We do not need to be perfect. What's the point of being perfect if we don't learn that something is bad?

 

[loudatheist101]

I'm talking in my perspective that it would be boring, and God would be controlling us like robots. To me, acting like robots = boring. You may beg to differ. ~_~

We do not need to be perfect. What's the point of being perfect if we don't learn that something is bad?

Well I'm sure those people in Katrina, Holocaust, AIDS sufferers, starving kids, homeless people, etc would beg to differ too as I do. Even though I am neither of those things. I'm not asking God to turn us into robots, I'm simply asking our "all powerful Creator" to not allow so much evil in this world, he surely can stop it.

 

[EverlastingMan]

The point I was trying to emphasize was this one: the christian theology inserts god as the unique creator from nothing (that´s actually what seems to bring about the idea of a god existing). If you want me to accept this uniqueness, I would like you not to equivocate it away the next moment. You don´t create a time machine from nothing. You merely manipulate that which is and transform it.

That wasn't what we were talking about mate. You were instigating that God had to create evil for it to exist, and I was saying He did not have to. God did not make the time machine, He made making the time machine possible. That was my point.

1. I wasn´t aware that "evil" was defined that way for purposes of this thread, and that this was the definition the OP referred to.

True, it wasn't necessarily. But if you want to pose this as a problem for the Christian worldview, as did the OP, then it must be discussed in those terms.

2. If going by this definition, evil is the lack of god, and this is an impossibility if we follow the Christian teaching that god is omnipresent. Evil can´t exist.

True and false. God is the embodiment of good, evil cannot have an embodiment (God being omnipresent and all). Evil exists as an action, which I suppose I should have mentioned before.
NOTE: Evil as an action is for all I know merely my personal understanding. I have never bothered to look into it, but it makes a great deal of sense to me.

3. On another note, if defining something to be the lack of something, it is not something that is there just like the thing the lack of it is. It is a mere theoretical concept. Evil cannot be created, then.

You are assuming that evil has some material/spiritual substance, it does not.

Even if nobody is being good, evil doesn´t exist, if following your definition. A lack of something is not something existing.

Again, evil is an action and as such has no existence outside of that.

Evil, by your definition, doesn´t even require choice. The lack of opportunity to be good is sufficient to bring about a lack of good.
A stone, unable to do good, would be evil.

However, the definition of evil would exclude said situation from ever arising.

And I´ll tell you what: Even if accepting this ominous "freewill" to exist, for the sake of the argument: There is no doubt that this is not absolute freedom of choice. There are countless factors that limit our choices.

A limitation in what we may choose does not limit freewill. If I have a choice between apples and oranges, my freewill is no more limited than the person who gets to choose between apples, oranges, bananas, and pears. My choice is limited, but choice isn't freewill.
But I think that you may have meant that our choices are influenced by outside things.

So "freewill", at best, is not an on/off thing but a matter of degree.

Not really. You do not limit my freewill when you try to persuade me to choose the apple, you merely convince me that apples would be better than oranges.

Limiting a particular choice does not make "freewill" go away, else "freewill" has never been there.

Wait, what?

So limiting one more or less choice is not that big of a deal as you would me believe.

I don't follow.

The conditions we exist in do not allow us to be all good. Whatever good we try to do, it will be perceived as lack of good by someone somewhere.

Whether or not I perceive you to be doing right or wrong has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you in fact are.

Here I see a natural catastrophy occuring, and I can choose between, say, 100 injured people to help. I can do good to one of them, and to 99 others this is the lack of good.

No. Whatever lack of good the others experience is the exact same amount that they would have had if you had not come along. You're choosing to help one of them brings good where there was none.

Lack of good is a necessary consequence of creating physical existence in combination with limited resources, and in combination with consciousness.

Wait, what?

Even with everybody doing the very best they can, there will be lack of good (i.e. evil, by your definition). It is a systemic logical property of this sort of existence that we are thrown into. Don´t tell me your god wasn´t aware of this when creating things and conditions the way he created them.

I hope to have answered this above.

I personally don´t think that the definition of "evil" as being merely the lack of "good" is a good idea. I see how it promises to help your case, but since it does not even do that, I´d suggest to go with the self-suggesting notion: good and evil are conceptual antagonists.

The definition of evil as the lack of good does not exclude that property from being applied.

Again, you simply ignore what you claim is so special about your god: you are not omnisicient, and you are not the creator of the guests, the place where the picnic is to take place, and the conditions the invited guests live under.

It's rather hard to build an example under those conditions. Most examples tend to focus on only one of those features.

Omniscient is not "basically the same as knowing, but just a little more of it". Omnisicience is a category of its own, with a lot unique features and implications. You can´t have one of them without accepting the others.

Yes I realize that.

Creating guests in order to wish they will come, although knowing for sure they won´t come, but knowing you will get that which you actually want and would have gotten without creating them makes no sense at all. Unless not only a hypothetical end result, but also the way it is reached is exactly your plan.

I do not know how you arose at the conclusion that God would get what He wanted without making us. If He wants us, then He can't get us without creating us.

Original plan vs. backup plan does not make sense for an entity like we are hypothetically assuming.

I didn't mean "original" vs "backup." I meant "preferred" plan vs. "what was actually going to happen." That is God would have preferred a. but He knew that b. was going to happen, not a.

Once this entity sets something in motion, it knows every little detail of what´s going to happen as a consequence.There is no alternative, not even a hypothetical one. Everything must and will happen exactly the way it knows it will happen. Every "I wish it would..." as we know it is based on a rest of uncertainty. Even if I know a book by heart and read it for the hundredth time, there are a lot of factors that will make this time different - unpredictable factors. I will experience something new every time, due to the uncertainties in the context of which I reread this book. Would everything be exactly as I know it will be, there would be no point in reading it.

Personally mate, I reread books because I liked what happened the first time that I read it, not because I'm looking for something new. I would be quite happy if I could cry again when I read the Mill on the Floss.

By the same token there is no point in reading a book for the first time, if I know the book and everything else that will happen while reading it in detail.

No. It is not the knowledge of doing something that brings pleasure, but the actual performance.

There aren´t any options. What will occur is merlely an exact repetition of what happened in my mind before. Ultimate boredom, no options, no change, no experiences. No reason to act. Sometimes I feel like you guys aren´t even aware what you do to your god by cursing him with omniscience.

The same thing happens every time I ride "Superman". I do it anyway. Why? Because it is the action that is actually anything.

Interestingly you hypothetize a god who gets it his way in the end, yet picture him as being concerned with our freedom. Quite apparently he doesn´t give us freedom exactly where it would make a difference.

Hahahaha. Yes, I admit. Heaven and hell make no difference.

And, also interestingly, you picture him as having an original planA to this PlanB that apparently takes place. Is this PlanA a poor one, or why did he prefer to create things the way that PlanB was required?
What was wrong with PlanA? And if there was something wrong with it, why did god have it, in the first place?

Like I said, plan a was preferred over plan b even though He knew it would not happen. God would have preferred if we did not go screw everything up. But He knew we would.

I´d like to answer this question, but I am afraid I don´t understand what it is you are asking for. Care to reword it for me?

I mean, who the devil cares? Yes there may, or may not, be a world where everything is happy skippy loveliness. Does it say anything at all about the problem of evil here?

On a side-note: Better not say "your world". It is not my idea of an ideal world. It is merely a hypothetical that considers as many claimed properties of your god as possible. As a matter of fact, the idea of an omniscient omnipotent creator god is so weird to me, for so many different reasons, that I am just trying to make the best out of this mess that it appears to be, to me. I have problems understanding why such an entity would want to create something at all, to begin with.

Duly noted. Anyhow, presumably a benevolent God would want to share existence.

"My world" is the world as it presents itself to me, without any such creator entity. I have no problems with the way things are. I wouldn´t have problems if the things were differently. It´s just the way it is, and I have to deal with it. Whilst if you want to sell this to me as a the product of a genial masterplan, and want to tell me that I have produced these conditions, I have major problems.
I don´t know. I am not the one who believes in this god. I have no clue what the idea of a god existing has to do with this world. I was hoping you could explain it to me.

Well, if we're talking about God here, than He has a whole lot to do with it. Creating it, ending it, ect.

Ok. To clarify: Actually, I don´t want anything in particular when discussing these things. I am toying around with theistic concepts and try to make sense of them. An omniscient omnipotent creatorgod who at some point says "Uh, darn, that was not part of my original plan, I didn´t want that to happen, but fortunately I have PlanB in my pocket" does not really make sense to me.

You're right. But that wasn't what I meant.

"Wanting" and "being the omniscient author" seem to be irreconcilable. There can´t be any difference between what you want and what you get, in this case (not even if "freewill" and its known consequences were part of the equation).

No. In a world where you give others choices there may be great differences between what you want and what you get.

Ok. I guess what I have a problem with is the following reasoning:
"1.God is good and ultimately moral.
2. [insert assumption about a property or action of god]
3. If God wouldn´t do/be 2., he would be immoral, because he would be different than he is, hence could not be ultimately moral.

The problem lies in the fact that one could insert any assumption about god at 2, and make it prove itself this way.

Well, no. One could only insert a statement which God is not or does not do. That which He does in fact do would lead to a self contradictory statement.

Of course, since you experience a world in which "freewill" and "evil" exist, and since you believe in a god who can´t be the author of evil by definition, there is a need for you to assume evil to have caused itself, or something. I still haven´t understood how this could be possible, but nevermind.

Way back up this post somewhere, I said basically that God made it so that we were capable of creating evil. Thus, He didn't have to create it, merely make it possible for us so that we could have choice.

I personally experience a world in which "freewill" is a nonsensical concept, and in which "evil" is merely the description of a perception. So I have no need to reconcile those concepts with my reality. Since I don´t believe in a god, either, I am free of the problem to reconcile my reality or named concepts with a god.
"Where does evil come from?", for me is an equally meaningless question as "Where does bad taste come from?"
and the explanation
"God, being the pure good, made everything good, and we are the ones who created evil" is equally absurd as the explanation "God made everything taste good, but we with our "freewill" we chose things to taste bad." would be.

Certainly, the "problem of evil" really means "the problem of evil for those who believe in God."

Thanks for the conversation!
quatona

My pleasure.

 

[loudatheist101]

Ok, so you people believe evil by humans is "free will" and not lazyness by God, well then how do you explain natural "evil"? Like Hurricane Katrina, floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc? The tornadoes this week that happened recently killed 8 kids in a High School, where was God? Our all powerful all loving creator? Why does he let these things happen?

 

[quatona]

I'm talking in my perspective that it would be boring, and God would be controlling us like robots. To me, acting like robots = boring. You may beg to differ. ~_~

Being a robot with the illusion of having free will would not at all be boring.

 

[Red530]

Of course it'd be horrible to have the ILLUSION of free will, but having free will wouldn't.

God doesn't allow it, we do. God didn't direct a hurricane to come their way, or AIDS to be brought up.

Dude, we're in the way of the hurricanes. God's ultimate plan or w/e was not for us to build metropolis on coast lines in the way of hurricanes. We brought ourselves into that trouble. Please act mature and get that through your head.

God created AIDS, but he didn't mean it to be directed towards humans. It started in monkeys, I remember learning, and should have stayed in monkeys, but no, we got it by a mistake and now it is apparently ruined.

Starving kids in Africa? That's not God's fault, it's their government. I'm sure if we starved in America we'd blame the government.

And homeless people? It is our fault for letting them on the streets and dumping them out and making our house payments too high to dump them out. And some of the times it's their fault as well: gambling. *ca-ching*

God doesn't allow or create evil, but creates the will for us to create it ourselves and make mistakes and suffer the consequences. I am sure as hell happy he allowed us to create evil, because without it we'd be blank with goodness in our hearts and that's it. There should be evil in the world. The war in Iraq is letting me learn how horrible a mistake it was to go over there, or how horrible it was for Hitler to bake those pour souls in the furnace. Learn-learn-learn.

 

[loudatheist101]

Of course it'd be horrible to have the ILLUSION of free will, but having free will wouldn't.

God doesn't allow it, we do. God didn't direct a hurricane to come their way, or AIDS to be brought up.

Dude, we're in the way of the hurricanes. God's ultimate plan or w/e was not for us to build metropolis on coast lines in the way of hurricanes. We brought ourselves into that trouble. Please act mature and get that through your head.

God created AIDS, but he didn't mean it to be directed towards humans. It started in monkeys, I remember learning, and should have stayed in monkeys, but no, we got it by a mistake and now it is apparently ruined.

Starving kids in Africa? That's not God's fault, it's their government. I'm sure if we starved in America we'd blame the government.

And homeless people? It is our fault for letting them on the streets and dumping them out and making our house payments too high to dump them out. And some of the times it's their fault as well: gambling. *ca-ching*

God doesn't allow or create evil, but creates the will for us to create it ourselves and make mistakes and suffer the consequences. I am sure as hell happy he allowed us to create evil, because without it we'd be blank with goodness in our hearts and that's it. There should be evil in the world. The war in Iraq is letting me learn how horrible a mistake it was to go over there, or how horrible it was for Hitler to bake those pour souls in the furnace. Learn-learn-learn.

This is really....dumb. To me. I recently read the book "Night" about the Holocuast and, it's disturbing what happend. People would throw infants up into the air and shoot them. Yet, you think God is letting this unbelievable suffering happen so we can "learn". Why couldn't we be born knowing these mistakes? Free will? Yeah right. Those infants thrown up in the sky and shot at for target practice had no free will or choice. God has the power to steer hurricanes out of the way of big cities too. That tornado recently killed 8 kids in a high school. How is it their fualt nature killed them, why couldn't God steer the tornado to an area not filled with a bunch of innocent children learning? I don't know how an all powerful and all loving God could do this.

 

[elman]

Ughh, another metaphor. What evidence is there that you think "He" will show if we look for it? "Nature"? "Love"? Other metaphors? Well, why don't you look at death, suffering, pain, starvation, etc. More evidence there is no all powerful, all loving, all powerful god. And then there's the science evidence doubting a god.

Pain and suffering in this world cannot be completely explained but it does not prove the non existance of a loving God.

 

[elman]

God can do *anything*, he can also make it so we can all be happy and enjoy life, have the same opportunities, and love Him. He gives us no evidence for his existance, the only "evidence" *you* have, are the metaphores of Him. "God is love", "God is nature" etc.

There are a great many things you don't know. One of them is the evidence I have of a loving God.

 

[elman]

Being a robot with the illusion of having free will would not at all be boring.

It might be for the maker of the robot.

 

[quatona]

It might be for the maker of the robot.

True. Then again, for an omniscient omnipotent creator god everything is boring.
(Let alone that you are side-tracking from the point that having "freewill" and having the illusion of "freewill" feels the same.)

 

[loudatheist101]

This is really....dumb. To me. I recently read the book "Night" about the Holocuast and, it's disturbing what happend. People would throw infants up into the air and shoot them. Yet, you think God is letting this unbelievable suffering happen so we can "learn". Why couldn't we be born knowing these mistakes? Free will? Yeah right. Those infants thrown up in the sky and shot at for target practice had no free will or choice. God has the power to steer hurricanes out of the way of big cities too. That tornado recently killed 8 kids in a high school. How is it their fualt nature killed them, why couldn't God steer the tornado to an area not filled with a bunch of innocent children learning? I don't know how an all powerful and all loving God could do this.

Just restating this again, and yes, "free will" that you all talk about is most certainly an allusion. It's all chance. If something good happens, thank God for it! If something bad happens, it's a punishment for sin or, maybe God is trying to tell us something!