A solution to Hitetlens first dilemma

[Anonymous_1]

I have posted this from another thread. Comments are appreciated.

I have been scouring over this problem all day. I hope this answer suffices.

1. God does not interfere with people’s free will.
2. God only tolerates “evil” as long as it is a “necessary evil”.
3. An evil is “necessary evil” if,

a) it brings along some greater good, which cannot be done without this evil or,
b) prevents an even greater evil from happening. (lets call these “substantial benefits”)

Premises:
A.) Proceeding from His omnipotence and benevolence, God can not permit unjustifiable evil.
B.) Being incapable of achieving some impossible end does not negate free-will.

The dilemma:
There is a possible evil that is not necessary, that God must allow in order to respect our free-will. This evil is unjustifiable because of a lack of substantial benefits. An allowance of such an evil is in conflict with His nature. A prevention of such an evil jeapordizes our free-will.

To differentiate between a possible/theoretical evil and evil which exists as a result of Gods permissive will is logically absurd.
1.)Only that which is tolerated in concordance with Gods permissive will exists.
2.)(A) Proceeding from His omnipotence and benevolence, God can not allow unjustifiable evil.
3.) This theoretical/possible evil is unjustified
4.)Therefore this theoretical evil can not exist.
5.) There exists no dilemma.

Counter-point:
Gods disallowance of a certain possible/theoretical evil negates free-will.

Solution:
1.) (B)Being incapable of achieving some impossible end does not negate free-will.

No evil is neccesary as a means to achieve somethine good(substantial benefit). Evil was never neccesary.

If anything need be clarified let me know. I hope you find this to be a sufficient and reasonable solution to the problem you have presented. I will continue to pray for you.

5With these weapons we break down every proud argument that keeps people from knowing God.

If this suffices, I hope it helps you come closer to God my friend.

 

[Anonymous_1]

up!

 

[Anonymous_1]

all these views and no replies? Is the arguement valid?

 

[m134e5]

Anonymous_1:

If anything need be clarified let me know.

All of it please. You have not received responses to this thread because it is WAY too deep for most of us. Most of us aren’t philosophers here.

 

[Hitetlen]

My friend, I have read your post many times, and I am still possibly confused. Let me point out why, so we can step forward.

Anonymous_1:

Premises:
A.) Proceeding from His omnipotence and benevolence, God can not permit unjustifiable evil.
B.) Being incapable of achieving some impossible end does not negate free-will.

I agree with you, and here comes my question:

Do you mean that if a human being wants to achieve something “evil”, but the laws of nature prevent him to carry it out that does not curtail his free will? Just like we can wish to fly by slapping our arms, but we cannot do it - and that does not negate our free will? If this is what you mean, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but many posters chastised me for this very argument. They say that in order to have “true” free will, it is necessary that one should be able to carry out the evil deed.

Anonymous_1:

To differentiate between a possible/theoretical evil and evil which exists as a result of Gods permissive will is logically absurd.

This I don’t understand.

Anonymous_1:

1.)Only that which is tolerated in concordance with Gods permissive will exists.
2.)(A) Proceeding from His omnipotence and benevolence, God can not allow unjustifiable evil.
3.) This theoretical/possible evil is unjustified
4.)Therefore this theoretical evil can not exist.
5.) There exists no dilemma.

Aha. This sounds like john doran’s argument. Logical, but not reasonable. I already answered it when he brought it up, and he (as usual) never returned to it. I will rephrase your point, just so we can ascertain if I understand you correctly:

1. Since God is benevolent, God only allows “necessary” evil.
2. Whatever “evil” exists must be necessary, because otherwise God would have “weeded it out” already.

This is one on the possible logical conclusions, but it is not a sound argument. From the existence of “evil” there can be two conclusions:

1. the evil necessary, because it was allowed by God.
2. God is not benevolent.

Since both conclusions are logical, we MUST step beyond the simple logic, and use real-world arguments to decide which one actually reflects reality. And that can only done by examining actual problems on a case-by-case basis. In such a quest I have an “unfair” advantage. To show that the actual conclusion is #2 (God is not benevolent) all I have to do is posit ONE example where “gratituous” evil occurs, which could have been prevented by God, but it was not. And that is a piece of cake.

Anonymous_1:

No evil is neccesary as a means to achieve somethine good(substantial benefit). Evil was never neccesary.

That is surprising. Does it mean that there are NO evils at all? Are all evils unnecessary?

 

[Liberian]

Hitetlen:

Do you mean that if a human being wants to achieve something “evil”, but the laws of nature prevent him to carry it out that does not curtail his free will? Just like we can wish to fly by slapping our arms, but we cannot do it - and that does not negate our free will? If this is what you mean, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but many posters chastised me for this very argument. They say that in order to have “true” free will, it is necessary that one should be able to carry out the evil deed.

Hitetlen,

Please pardon me for stepping into the middle of a discussion, but I submit to you that being physically prevented from doing some act does not interfere with our free will. If we were somehow controlled into not desiring to do that act, then that would interfere with our free will.

Jesus spoke of this in the Sermon on the Mount when He said that anybody who lusted after a woman had already committed adultery with her in his heart. Certainly the external effects of desiring versus committing are different, but the damage to the soul is the same.

• Liberian

 

[Hitetlen]

Liberian:

Please pardon me for stepping into the middle of a discussion, but I submit to you that being physically prevented from doing some act does not interfere with our free will. If we were somehow controlled into not desiring to do that act, then that would interfere with our free will.

You are most welcome to join. This discussion has barely started, even though it is a continuation of another thread. Your remark is very pertinent. I strongly agree with your observation, but I am afraid that we are a small minority in this case.

If our freedom of will is NOT restricted by our inability to act, that has important ramification to the “problem of evil”. As I argued before (and was promptly chastised for it ) if only God would limit our ability to carry out an evil deed (for example a murder would be impossible) the world as we know it would be incomparably better. No wars, no murders, no rapes, you name it, they would all disappear. What a difference it would make!

Liberian:

Jesus spoke of this in the Sermon on the Mount when He said that anybody who lusted after a woman had already committed adultery with her in his heart. Certainly the external effects of desiring versus committing are different, but the damage to the soul is the same.

Now I am not sure that I like your particular example. An instance of desire (either to have sex or commiting a murder) is very different from actually committing it. Especially as it pertains to “lust” or sexual desire, since that is an involuntary reflex.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I realize I am saying this incredibly late in the game, but why can’t the answer to the so-called problem of evil simply be that God allows free-will, because to control a person’s will is slavery/rape, and that naturally if we have free-will some of us are going to behave badly?

 

[Hitetlen]

Lazerlike42:

I realize I am saying this incredibly late in the game, but why can’t the answer to the so-called problem of evil simply be that God allows free-will, because to control a person’s will is slavery/rape, and that naturally if we have free-will some of us are going to behave badly?

That is quite acceptable, if one does not want to argue that God is also omnibenevolent. A benevolent being, who is also omnipotent is not “supposed” to allow evil acts, which he can prevent. (By the way, you are never too late to make constructive arguments.)

 

[Lazerlike42]

Hitetlen:

That is quite acceptable, if one does not want to argue that God is also omnibenevolent. A benevolent being, who is also omnipotent is not “supposed” to allow evil acts, which he can prevent. (By the way, you are never too late to make constructive arguments.)

But doesn’t benevolence require respecting a persons freedom of will?

 

[Thal59]

Maybe we can look at it more simply.

Evil is anything that is counter to the will of God. If God never allowed any kind of evil, His only recourse regarding all of us, who have all sinned, would either be to destroy us, or ensure we were never created in the first place.

The notion of evil being either necessary or unecessary is a nonsense argument since it is not always possible to see the “good” that might result from an evil event. So, to some minds, the only basis we have for judging such “potential” necessary evils, is to weigh them against what we might consider an obviously indisputable evil; in other words, something of such magnitude that no good could come of it. For instance, the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children after an earthquake.

I, myself, fell for this angle a long time ago. One time in my life, I was angry at God for a number of what I perceived to be unjustifiable evils that God made no attempt to prevent, rectify, or rescue victims from. I was angry at God! I remember speaking angrily to Him… presuming of course that He was listening, that He didn’t care about such people. That as the creator who put us here, He had a responsibility towards us that He was obviously shirking.

“What do you care, God? All you have to do is snap your fingers and poof!, the poor soul who lived a tragic life and died in turmoil is perfected in grace, beauty, health, happiness…”

That’s when it hit me. What difference does it make how many “unnecessary” evils one endures so long as God can make everything right, perfect, and joyous for that person forever in the twinkling of an eye? Is this not what He promised? That he would wipe away your every tear?

What difference will it make to you one million years into eternal bliss if you were robbed by a mugger and no “good” ever resulted from it? If you were one of the thousands who died in the earthquake, would you find yourself lamenting to friends in Heaven a million years from now… “Boy, I was killed in an earthquake at the age of 52, and to this day, I still hold a grudge against God because I didn’t live to be able to buy my own BMW.”

I had to jump into the thread titled, " A solution to Hitetlens first dilemma." Its only a dilemma to someone who doesn’t have God.

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Lazerlike42:

But doesn’t benevolence require respecting a persons freedom of will?

In most instances, probably: yes, but definitely not always.

If you saw someone about to kidnap a child, you would not hesitate to curtail the kidnapper’s “free will”, would you? Even without omniscience you could reasonably surmise that a kidnapped child would go through some very traumatic experience, and possibly would be seriously abused, maybe even sexually assualted and murdered.

True, without omniscience you would run the risk that you are mistaken and the “kidnapper” is just a very good father, who wishes to rescue his child from an abusive family. That is a risk, which of course does not apply to an omniscient being.

So for God, there is the question: allow the kidnapper’s free will to go unhindered, and allow the child to be sexually molested and murdered, or step in and slap the kidnapper down. For me the question would be clear cut: to hell with free will, and let’s rescue the child. And I am not omnibenevolent.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Evil is anything that is counter to the will of God.

My definition of evil is different, and that causes a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication. My definition is very simple: to cause harm wilfully, or to cause pain when it is not necessary.

Thal59:

If God never allowed any kind of evil, His only recourse regarding all of us, who have all sinned, would either be to destroy us, or ensure we were never created in the first place.

Yes, preferably the second one.

Thal59:

The notion of evil being either necessary or unecessary is a nonsense argument since it is not always possible to see the “good” that might result from an evil event. So, to some minds, the only basis we have for judging such “potential” necessary evils, is to weigh them against what we might consider an obviously indisputable evil; in other words, something of such magnitude that no good could come of it. For instance, the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children after an earthquake.

I, myself, fell for this angle a long time ago. One time in my life, I was angry at God for a number of what I perceived to be unjustifiable evils that God made no attempt to prevent, rectify, or rescue victims from. I was angry at God! I remember speaking angrily to Him… presuming of course that He was listening, that He didn’t care about such people. That as the creator who put us here, He had a responsibility towards us that He was obviously shirking.

“What do you care, God? All you have to do is snap your fingers and poof!, the poor soul who lived a tragic life and died in turmoil is perfected in grace, beauty, health, happiness…”

I agree with you.

Thal59:

That’s when it hit me. What difference does it make how many “unnecessary” evils one endures so long as God can make everything right, perfect, and joyous for that person forever in the twinkling of an eye? Is this not what He promised? That he would wipe away your every tear?

What difference will it make to you one million years into eternal bliss if you were robbed by a mugger and no “good” ever resulted from it? If you were one of the thousands who died in the earthquake, would you find yourself lamenting to friends in Heaven a million years from now… “Boy, I was killed in an earthquake at the age of 52, and to this day, I still hold a grudge against God because I didn’t live to be able to buy my own BMW.”

Here we disagree. One cannot “undo” the past. If a father slaps his child, and later gives him a candy bar, that does not undo the injustice of the previous act.

Thal59:

I had to jump into the thread titled, " A solution to Hitetlens first dilemma." Its only a dilemma to someone who doesn’t have God.

That is very true, though I still say that your analysis is faulty as far as the “compensation” for the previous injustice goes. But I think that this difference in opinion cannot be bridged.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Hitetlen:

In most instances, probably: yes, but definitely not always.

If you saw someone about to kidnap a child, you would not hesitate to curtail the kidnapper’s “free will”, would you? Even without omniscience you could reasonably surmise that a kidnapped child would go through some very traumatic experience, and possibly would be seriously abused, maybe even sexually assualted and murdered.

True, without omniscience you would run the risk that you are mistaken and the “kidnapper” is just a very good father, who wishes to rescue his child from an abusive family. That is a risk, which of course does not apply to an omniscient being.

So for God, there is the question: allow the kidnapper’s free will to go unhindered, and allow the child to be sexually molested and murdered, or step in and slap the kidnapper down. For me the question would be clear cut: to hell with free will, and let’s rescue the child. And I am not omnibenevolent.

I think there is a problem with this analogy. If I saw the person going to kidnap the child, my interference would have nothing to do with the person’s free-will. He is still exercising his free-will, I am merely making it, as was mentioned earlier, physically difficult. That has nothing to do with his free will. However, if God were to prevent him, that would be an infringment on the will. The man would have recourse against me, he could fight back against me. Even if I were almost infinitely stronger than him, he could still put up an effort. God would be different though. God, being omnipotent and truly and completely infinitely stronger, the man could not fight back. The man could not choose to continue to exercise his will. Any action of God against the man would be impossible to overcome.

What’s more, we have to consider how God would actually prevent the kidnapping. My response would be the physical restraint of another body. My arms, a physical force outside of himself, would be responsible for limiting him. God would not be able to do this unless He were to come down incarnate and physically restrain the man. Whatever means God would use to prevent him would not be an outside phyiscal force capable of being resisted, but something more internal, even if it were not truly some internal aspect of the person himself. All of this is very confusing, but what I am trying to get at is that I don’t think it would really be possible for God to prevent us from committing evil acts without infringing on our free-will, whereas human beings like you and I can.

You see, the will is not in the action, it is in some internal movement of the will. A person’s will can be set upon one thing without his body completing the action. Now in terms of people interacting with one another, the way that we restrain the wills of others is not the same as the way God would. Somehow, part of free-will has got to be found in being capable of attempting to exercise the will, because the choice to act upon the will is also in and of itself a movement of the will. Therefore, an individual may be incapable of exercising the will due to external factors, such as my arms restraining a man from kidnapping a child. This would not infringe upon the will, because the freedom of the will to attempt to act upon the initial will would be permitted. However, for God to restrain a kidnapper would require God to inhibit this secondary will to act upon the initial will.

Now you may say that you, the free-will should be ignored in the case of the kidnapping of the child. That is in line with benevolence. You would be restricting his actions, not his will. His will to kidnap the child would have been exercised freely, and his will to undertake that action would have been exercised freely; you would simply be preventing an action of the already freely exercised free-will, and you would also not be infringing on his free-will to fight you back in whatever way he might try. The situation for God would be completely different. God could not prevent the actions from being undertaken because this would infringe upon the secondary will to act, and the will to fight against the restraint. God would have to commit one wrong, that of the true and complete abrogation of the will, to prevent another, the kidnapping of the child.

It is not wrong to prevent an evil act by means of some form of outside pressure, beit physical, political, judicial, or otherwise. However, it is wrong to abrogate the free-will of a person. It is also wrong to prevent one wrong by committing another. The only way that God could possibly prevent these evil actions without infringing on the will would be if, perhaps, He were pantheistic.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Hitetlen:

Here we disagree. One cannot “undo” the past. If a father slaps his child, and later gives him a candy bar, that does not undo the injustice of the previous act.

That is very true, though I still say that your analysis is faulty as far as the “compensation” for the previous injustice goes. But I think that this difference in opinion cannot be bridged.

Remember that we Catholics would say that the injustice would be compensated through Purgatory. Also remember that Heaven is eternity. It has been described as the “eternal now.” That evil act in the past would, in a certain but real sense, not exist or have existed in Heaven.

 

[Thal59]

OK, Hit, here’s a few problems:

1. God, if exists, must be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

1A. True, but you cannot solve the “dilemma” by focusing on only a few of the attributes that God has in perfect measure. All of His attributes must be weighed together. Since we do not know all of His attributes, and cannot conceive of them in a state of perfection, we can never come to a logical conclusion.

1. Omniscient means that God knows everything that can be known.

2A. Not true. There may be many things whose complexity is such that the finite human mind can never grasp or comprehend. If the above statement was true, God’s omniscience would be limited to only those things that can be known by finite minds.

1. Omnipotent means that God can perform everything but logically contradictory acts.

3A. Also untrue. Again, that which the finite human mind might find as logically contradictory may be beyond our understanding. We cannot limit God to human standards of logic. If we apply ANY limit to His power, He is no longer omnipotent.

1. Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows unnecessary (or avoidable or justifiable/justified) pain and suffering.

4A. Four strikes yer’ out. Read the letters I have bolded only. God has many times inflicted a death penalty on some who have grossly offended Him. How can a God who is omnibenevolent do this? By taking into consideration His perfect justice, as well as other attributes. If God is “all-just” then every evil we do would be punished with death. But we cannot say that because some evils appear to go unpunished God is not all-just because we are failing to take into account His “all-merciful” attribute. (Refer to answer 1A above.)

Now consider a few lines from your reply to my last post:

“My definition of evil is different, and that causes a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication. My definition is very simple: to cause harm wilfully, or to cause pain when it is not necessary.”

This definition is based on what you consider evil, not on what God may consider evil. The contradiction is evident when one compares this definition to your definition of omnibenevolent as I had highlighted it…

Omnibenevolent means that God does not cause nor allows… justifiable… pain and suffering.

Do you see the contradiction? To say that evil is to “cause pain when it is not necessary,” infers that necessary pain is not evil. (i.e. good or justifiable) Yet you also state that God cannot allow even “justifiable” or necessary pain.

One last monkey wrench in the works…

“Here we disagree. One cannot “undo” the past. If a father slaps his child, and later gives him a candy bar, that does not undo the **injustice **of the previous act.”

You are mistakenly assuming that for a father to strike a child, it is unjust. This ignores the element of discipline when a child may have merited correction due to his gross disobedience. When you state that “one cannot undo the past” you again, when referrencing this to God, limit His “omnipotence” to mere human standards. God can do anything.

Therefore, the premise of your original thread was wrong four times over to begin with. (See 1A,2A,3A,4A.)

The basis for your definitions of evil and omnibenevolence are contradictory. (Blue text.)

Your analogy (Red text) is twice flawed in that you place a limit on God’s omnipotence, and you fail to recognize that striking a child can be just and deserved, as well as capable of leading to correction; you merely label it as an injustice.

Four false premises, two contradictory definitions, and one twice-flawed analogy.

There’s you dilemma.

Thal59

 

[Leon_Miguel]

Hitetlen:

So for God, there is the question: allow the kidnapper’s free will to go unhindered, and allow the child to be sexually molested and murdered, or step in and slap the kidnapper down. For me the question would be clear cut: to hell with free will, and let’s rescue the child. And I am not omnibenevolent.

The problem then becomes how much evil should God telorate before He intervenes?

Suppose that terrorists, despotic dictators and serial killers are removed. We now look at the world and see that murderers and rapists are the most evil people in our world and so they too can be removed. We look again and see that armed robbers and drug dealers are now the most evil and so they also need to be removed. Pretty soon we are down to people like you and I and before long we are left with no-one.

 

[Hitetlen]

It is not wrong to prevent an evil act by means of some form of outside pressure, beit physical, political, judicial, or otherwise. However, it is wrong to abrogate the free-will of a person.

I fail to see the difference. In some instances there is a treatment called lobotomy performed on extremely violent persons. There people actually have some physical damage in the brain, and that is the cause of their violent behavior, not because they are sociopaths. (Michael Crichton’s book: “Terminal man” deals with this problem.)

Now to perform a lobotomy is wrong in your opinion, since it interferes with the person’s free will. Putting him in jail or a loony house, is OK, because it “only” physically restrains him. Makes no sense to me.

Lazerlike42:

It is also wrong to prevent one wrong by committing another.

OK, let’s examine this proposal. Indeed two “wrongs” don’t make a “right”. I see nothing wrong with preventing a violent act, and this view is echoed by the generally accepted notion that self-defense (or the defense of a weak person) is OK, even if it leads to the death of the attacker.

When we deal with human interactions, conflicts occur quite frequently. It would be nice if we could solve these conflicts by peaceful means, but that is not always possible. To stay peaceful needs the effort of both parties, to have a confrontation (or war) can be initiated by one of them.

If such confrontation occurs, obviously one party is “more right” than the other, though sometimes (rarely) both may have a valid point. There is one agressor, and one victim. What is wrong with choosing the side of the “underdog”?

Lazerlike42:

The only way that God could possibly prevent these evil actions without infringing on the will would be if, perhaps, He were pantheistic.

Sorry, I don’t understand this.

 

[Hitetlen]

Lazerlike42:

Remember that we Catholics would say that the injustice would be compensated through Purgatory. Also remember that Heaven is eternity. It has been described as the “eternal now.” That evil act in the past would, in a certain but real sense, not exist or have existed in Heaven.

Yes, I know, and that presents a real difficulty in conversations like ours. Of course, if the person’s mind is wiped clean when entering heaven, he will not remember the past injustices. But that is not something the church teaches, at least I don’t think so. If he does remember, then the past was not erased. If he remembers and does not care any more, then he was brainwashed (even though the method might be “gentle”).

 

[Hitetlen]

Lazerlike42:

Now you may say that you, the free-will should be ignored in the case of the kidnapping of the child. That is in line with benevolence. You would be restricting his actions, not his will. His will to kidnap the child would have been exercised freely, and his will to undertake that action would have been exercised freely; you would simply be preventing an action of the already freely exercised free-will, and you would also not be infringing on his free-will to fight you back in whatever way he might try. The situation for God would be completely different. God could not prevent the actions from being undertaken because this would infringe upon the secondary will to act, and the will to fight against the restraint. God would have to commit one wrong, that of the true and complete abrogation of the will, to prevent another, the kidnapping of the child.

You know this is very surprising. I have read many times that God is “allowed” to do things because he is supreme, but the same thing is not “allowed” for us. (Select any of the atrocities from the Old Testament, genocides or what have you.) Never have I seen the reverse, that it is OK for us to do something, but it is not OK for God to do it.

Your argument says that when a senseless violence is ordered by God, it is fine, but to prevent one by God is a big no-no. Don’t you see that there is something wrong with this picture?

How come that carrying out the “free will” of the guy with the bigger gun is allowed by God, but the carrying out the free will of the victim is not? Why should the victim of a rape submit to the will of the attacker?