• Do not add comments to posts once the thread has been closed for review. A closed thread means there should not be any further comment. Commenting in closed threads can result in a ban.

Why does God allow suffering? Bear in mind, those that don't need a perfect distraction, suffer less

How less than perfect can God's answer to suffering be?

  • It has to be perfect!

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • It's a matter of chance!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It depends on what you've said!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It depends on the Devil!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It depends on lots of things!

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • It doesn't matter.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It matters a little bit.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I wish it mattered less...

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • I'm thankful for whatever God can give (selah)

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • Total voters
    6

David's Harp

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2021
738
496
Scotland
✟25,448.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So God made us sick so that we would appreciate Him giving us the cure. Munchausen by proxy.
But a lot of people wouldn't consider themselves sick and in need of a cure. They go on with their lives happily ignoring God.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
5,981
2,992
✟200,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well, I never said you have to have a desire to have an ability. But I'll run with that if you say so.

Your argument presupposes that idea, and has no force without it. For example, in #548 you conclude, "God chose to create an inferior product." Yet given the argument you provide such a conclusion is not valid. It depends on the invisible premise that one who does evil has a desire to do evil. From this you reason that since humans do evil God must have instilled a desire to do evil. You do not admit the possibility that evil has occurred because of an ability but not because of a desire.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure what I said at the outset holds. You are denying the idea of free will, albeit in a roundabout way. Your argument which moves from the existence of evil, to the desire for evil, to the necessity of evil is a denial of the possibility of free will. The person who believes in free will can point to the ability to do evil and the existence of evil without affirming the necessity of evil. You think the necessity of evil follows from the existence of evil (and the desire to do evil); yet this conclusion contradicts free will. If we cannot not-do evil then we do not have free will.

(N.B. Theologically you are mixing up the doctrines of free will and Original Sin)

One must have the ability to do evil if one is to have free will
One must have the desire to do evil if one is to have the ability to do evil
One must have the desire to do evil if one is to have free will
Having free will means having the desire to do evil
God gave man free will
God gave man the desire to do evil

And this is simply your argument in fuller form. It isn't a different argument than you've been giving all along.

See, my angle isn't the free will bit here. I'm not offering my own definition of free will, I'm using pretty much whatever you guys throw at me (until the special pleading fallacies start). You jumped in to a conversation with someone who insists God has free will but won't do evil. You say a desire to do evil is necessary for free will, and you're consistent by saying that God lacks the desire to do evil, so He also lacks free will, and that's fine. But this means that God made us want to do evil. God is the tempter. God created evil by creating evil desires before man ever acted on them.

I don't say that a desire to do evil is necessary for free will. That's what you've been saying all along, albeit in the fine print. I'm just pointing this out.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Mink61
Upvote 0
Christian Counseling
  • Bible-based counseling
  • Available 24/7
  • Cancel Anytime
As a BetterHelp affiliate, we may receive compensation from BetterHelp if you purchase products or services through the links provided.

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟453,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I don't say that a desire to do evil is necessary for free will. That's what you've been saying all along
I never claimed any such thing. I went along with it when you claimed it, but I never proposed it.

It only took you a handful of posts before you had to start making stuff up, Zippy.

Here's where it started:
God can create a being with free will and with zero desire to do evil
So yeah, quit making stuff up, bro.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Larnievc
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,412
1,758
✟211,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, it is.

Free will means possessing the ability to make choices. Free will has little to do with the consequences of those choices, or the choices themselves.

If we don't have choices, we don't have free will.
If we don't have the ability to make those choices, we don't have free will.
As I pointed out before, the freewill does not come from God, it comes from within ourselves.
If a robber put a gun to your head and said your money or your life, did this robber give you freewill to give him your money? No. The choice of dying or giving him your money comes from within yourself, not from the robber. Same with God; if God provides punishment for rejecting him, that choice to reject or not does not come from God, it comes from within yourself
 
Upvote 0
6

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,237
555
partinowherecular
✟51,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
If a robber put a gun to your head and said your money or your life, did this robber give you freewill to give him your money? No. The choice of dying or giving him your money comes from within yourself, not from the robber. Same with God; if God provides punishment for rejecting him, that choice to reject or not does not come from God, it comes from within yourself
This would seem to be a rather simplistic interpretation of free will, because it ignores the fact that outside agents are actually the source of every free will choice that you have. When the robber asks you 'your money or your life' he's given you a choice that you didn't have before. In fact every single choice that you make is a choice that's been forced upon you by an outside source. Thus oddly enough free will is the product of the constraints that have been placed upon us, and a rather odd way of delineating our freedom.

This illustrates the difference between man's free will and God's free will. God's free will supposedly isn't the product of constraints that have been placed upon Him by an outside source, ours are.

But this leads to a question, is God's free will truly without constraints? For example, can God make a square circle? What else can't God do? Just how severely does the Law of Non-contradiction limit what God can and cannot do? In the end is God's free will just as constrained as our free will? And thus the only true free will choices to be made, if any, are ours?

Lotta questions.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
5,981
2,992
✟200,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I never claimed any such thing. I went along with it when you claimed it, but I never proposed it.

It only took you a handful of posts before you had to start making stuff up, Zippy.

Here's where it started:

So yeah, quit making stuff up, bro.

You are contradicting yourself, plain and simple. Go back and re-read my posts. It's all there, even in the details. Your oft-repeated conclusion in this thread that humans do evil by necessity is itself contrary to the very notion of free will, as is your (false) claim that Christians believe that no human has ever gone without committing evil.

Else, try writing an actual formal argument for your position.

Here's where it started:

Such a premise is an empty gesture which you implicitly contradict:

God can do anything logically possible
Having free will and having zero desire to do evil are not mutually exclusive properties
God can create a being with free will and with zero desire to do evil
A being with zero desire to do evil is better than a being that has a non-zero desire to do evil
God chose to create an inferior product.

To repeat myself: why did you conclude that, "God chose to create an inferior product"? You are implicitly relying on a disjunctive syllogism:

A: God creates beings with free will and zero desire to do evil
B: God creates beings with free will and non-zero desire to do evil
  • A or B
  • ~A
  • Therefore, B
You defend ~A by appealing to the idea that since humans do evil, they must therefore have a desire to do evil.

Well, I never said you have to have a desire to have an ability.

Your idea is that, "Humans do evil, therefore they must have a desire to do evil." You conclude that God must have given humans a desire which necessarily causes them to do evil. This is a contradiction of free will. A "free will" which co-exists with necessitation towards evil is not a free will at all, and your claim that by positing such a chimera you have accepted the theist's understanding of free will is straight up nonsense.

The theist's claim is, "Humans do evil, therefore they must have the ability to do evil." They do not fallaciously presuppose that this ability entails necessitation (as this would be the exact opposite of free will). The theist is the one who separates ability from (necessitarian) desire. You are the one who conflates them.

Nor does the theist, upon observing the existence of evil, conclude that a necessitarian desire must therefore exist. Rather, they conclude that a non-necessitarian ability exists, as I pointed out in my very first post (and which should have precluded this whole strange discussion). Indeed I would submit that it is highly irrational to conclude that when a human acts they must have been necessitated towards that act; and at the very least it begs the question at hand (i.e. free will).

I'm tired of repeating myself and I'm tired of your laziness. 'Not sure that I will post again in this thread. 'Not sure that I need to.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟453,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I'm tired of repeating myself and I'm tired of your laziness.
I catch you fibbing, so you come back with the flamethrower, lol. I must be on to something to have you so worked up so quickly, eh Zippy? I'm lazy because I don't put as much detail into my posts as you want me to? lol, tough noogies.

If you think some conclusion is implicit in something I've said, it's fair to state "If that's true then...". But if you come back and tell me I claimed the thing you think is implicit that's called "a lie". If you need to lie to make your argument, your argument is bad.

You defend ~A by appealing to the idea that since humans do evil, they must therefore have a desire to do evil.
If they have free will, then yeah. Are you claiming people freely choose things they don't want or what?

The theist is the one who separates ability from (necessitarian) desire. You are the one who conflates them.
I've conflated nothing.

A If you have the ability to do X, then you can do X. If you cannot do X, then you do not freely choose to not do X.
B If have the ability to do X, but you do not have any desire whatsoever to do X, then you won't choose to do X.

Do you disagree with B? Do you think folks freely choose to do things they have zero desire at all to do? And if so, doing things you don't want to do is what free will looks like to you? Why are you choosing to do things if it isn't because you want to do those things?

Your idea is that, "Humans do evil, therefore they must have a desire to do evil." You conclude that God must have given humans a desire which necessarily causes them to do evil.
Sex will necessarily happen sometimes, somewheres because people desire sex so much.
Does that mean that anytime someone chooses to have sex it was against their will?

If there was zero desire to have sex in every human, why would anyone choose to have sex ever?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,412
1,758
✟211,259.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This would seem to be a rather simplistic interpretation of free will, because it ignores the fact that outside agents are actually the source of every free will choice that you have. When the robber asks you 'your money or your life' he's given you a choice that you didn't have before. In fact every single choice that you make is a choice that's been forced upon you by an outside source.
I don't agree outside sources are forced upon us because we are able to ignore/dismiss these choices from outside sources.
Thus oddly enough free will is the product of the constraints that have been placed upon us, and a rather odd way of delineating our freedom.
By definition, if they were constraints, it would not be free will. There are a lot of people who don't believe in the concept of free will; perhaps you don't either.
 
Upvote 0
10

Mink61

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
182
116
65
Las Vegas
✟24,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
I catch you fibbing, so you come back with the flamethrower, lol. I must be on to something to have you so worked up so quickly, eh Zippy? I'm lazy because I don't put as much detail into my posts as you want me to? lol, tough noogies.

If you think some conclusion is implicit in something I've said, it's fair to state "If that's true then...". But if you come back and tell me I claimed the thing you think is implicit that's called "a lie". If you need to lie to make your argument, your argument is bad.


If they have free will, then yeah. Are you claiming people freely choose things they don't want or what?
Why not? People do that every day. I don't necessarily want or 'desire' to clean my kitchen. I would much rather choose to do something more fun. Yet, I will do it. Maybe...^_^

I've conflated nothing.

A If you have the ability to do X, then you can do X. If you cannot do X, then you do not freely choose to not do X.
B If have the ability to do X, but you do not have any desire whatsoever to do X, then you won't choose to do X.

Do you disagree with B? Do you think folks freely choose to do things they have zero desire at all to do?
Yes. See above.

And if so, doing things you don't want to do is what free will looks like to you?
Free will is about having the ability to make a choice. It's not about having the desire.

Ability=skill, knowledge, capabiity, fitness (mental and/or physical), resources, experiences, competence and capacity. Nothing about 'desire.' Ability is actually power. So, in essence, free will is about having the power to make a decision between 2 or more options.

Why are you choosing to do things if it isn't because you want to do those things?
Because life isn't about doing what we want to do, when we want to do it.

Sex will necessarily happen sometimes, somewheres because people desire sex so much.
Sex doesn't "happen."

Does that mean that anytime someone chooses to have sex it was against their will?
Sometimes, some people will have sex, even though they don't want to have sex, just to keep the peace.

If there was zero desire to have sex in every human, why would anyone choose to have sex ever?
See answer above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟453,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Sometimes, some people will have sex, even though they don't want to have sex, just to keep the peace.
Those folks want to have sex because it brings peace. Just because you don't like every part of an act doesn't mean you don't want to do the act. That addresses most of your post.
 
Upvote 0

Mink61

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2019
182
116
65
Las Vegas
✟24,758.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Those folks want to have sex because it brings peace. Just because you don't like every part of an act doesn't mean you don't want to do the act. That addresses most of your post.
So.
Very.
Wrong.
 
Upvote 0
15

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟453,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So if woman is facing rape or death, she has sex because she 'desires' sex in order to keep the peace?

That's bunk.

And most courts would also say that's bunk.
"Desire" just means "want". You're putting emphasis on it as if it means you "like it a lot" or something.

If a woman has a choice of sex or death, that's rape, and that's bad. But if she chooses sex, she wanted to have sex more than she wanted to be dead.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larnievc
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,237
555
partinowherecular
✟51,128.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The question is do we define it in accordance with Hashem’s teachings.
And that answer is just as meaningless, because everyone thinks that their particular definition of "righteous" is in accordance with God's teachings. So it gets us nowhere.
 
Upvote 0
19

nhisname

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2020
178
66
67
SW MO
✟19,468.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
God did plan a perfect place without suffering in the beginning with Adam and Eve but they chose to disobey and the consequences of that disobedience was suffering thru sin. We are to praise God thru everything that happens to us good and bad by doing this we become more humble and contrite, we grow stronger in our maturity, character, faith and it makes us more dependant on him and less on ourselves. I saw this once, if you're hanging by a thread better make sure it's from his. garment....amen.
 
Upvote 0