R
razredge
Guest
I’m trying to answer the “Why Couldn’t God Create a Better World?” problem here rather than “What is the Meaning of Life?”.
The atheists wouldn’t agree with you that life without God is ‘undeniably unfulfilling’
- Status
The atheists wouldn’t agree with you that life without God is ‘undeniably unfulfilling’
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, of course-because they haven’t come to realize it yet. My point was that what really makes this world less-than-good is the absence of God-which is reportedly the way man wanted things in the garden and the way we may well continue to want things now.
B
belorg
Guest
Because the Catholic heaven is a place filled with freew-willed beings and no suffering, a world that, according to Plantinga, God cannot create.
And, if this is true, God could create a world in which every human being lives to old age. So, to answer the original post: yes, God could create a better world.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Hello belorg;
How would mankind respond to an end to suffering? Would we stop killing each other, would all wars stop, would we seek to feed the billion people living on a dollar a day in grinding poverty and close starvation? Would we become more faithful to our husbands and wives, stop stealing and cheating?
Would it be worth God banishing suffering, would we respond to God in ways that show we love our neighbour as we love ourselves?
Blessings
Eric
Just supposing that today God made it so that every one would live to an old age, and all diseases were overcome, so there would be no more suffering from illness.
How would mankind respond to an end to suffering? Would we stop killing each other, would all wars stop, would we seek to feed the billion people living on a dollar a day in grinding poverty and close starvation? Would we become more faithful to our husbands and wives, stop stealing and cheating?
Would it be worth God banishing suffering, would we respond to God in ways that show we love our neighbour as we love ourselves?
Blessings
Eric
I
Infidel
Guest
We can only speculate. I will speculate below.
Since God would not have to “exert” himself (a simple “will” would do the trick), I am curious what do you mean by asking “would it be worth”? It certainly would be worth to all those who lived a longer and healthy life - so there would be an incredible benefit immediately. If humans would not have to expend a huge amount of resources of health care (more than 30some percent of the GDP in the US) there would also be a huge surplus, which could be used to alleviate poverty.
Let’s look at the facts. Most humans are more than willing to help those in need. Look at the outpour of donations when a disaster strikes. If they had an additional 30% of disposable income, it stands to reason that some of it would be used to help world hunger - for example. That is still another incredible benefit.
I wish we would stop wars, and violence. Again, some of the violence would stop, especially the violence due to economic reasons. (Some people turn to crime because they are hungry.) But not all. There would still be violence - very probably.
My question is: “so what”? There would be net gain, a lot of it. To reach that net gain, God would not have to so anything special, merely “will” that it would happen.
T
tonyrey
Guest
How do you assess “considerable”? Such a vague term weakens your argument…
“That is feasible” is a dogmatic statement which certainly requires justification. If you had written “seems” you would be in a slightly stronger position…
In view of the extreme complexity, vastness and variety of the universe it is highly presumptuous to claim to be able to design a better one - which is what your feasibility notion implies. The archsceptic David Hume admitted that a certain amount of suffering is inevitable but he failed to explain at what stage it becomes excessive. Unless you can explain how it can be prevented your argument collapses. Where there are countless individuals pursuing different goals there is bound to be conflict and suffering. The element of chance also plays a large part in the outcome of events. Sooner or later accidents and natural disasters are bound to occur. How could you guarantee that no one is ever in the wrong place at the wrong time?
T
tonyrey
Guest
To will that every evil choice doesn’t happen is to defeat the purpose of creating us with free will…
T
tonyrey
Guest
What about when they are faced with the prospect of imminent death?!
R
razredge
Guest
Actually as is discussed in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=560184
We do not have free will in Heaven or Hell.
Yes, if it was true that would certainly be the case - but that leads to the paradox, if everyone lives to old age, then free will would not be possible as you would not be able to kill a person and prevent them from doing so.
So this shows why God couldn’t really create a better world as he could always create a world better than that one and so on and so forth till it becomes obvious that this would reduce freedom.
I
Infidel
Guest
Is that the official, infallible dogma of the Church? Just curious.
There is no paradox at all. The point was that God could eliminate the death due to illnesses and natural causes, and that act would lower the suffering. Not one word has been said about preventing murders.
It is not obvious at all. The slippery slope you imagine does not exist.
Of course, we (humans) impose serious limits on the freedom of criminals, and no one argues that we should not. We put criminals in jail, with the sole aim of taking away their freedom to commit more crimes. If and when we are aware of a crime to be committed (planned, but not executed yet), it is our duty (and possibly moral obligation) to notify the authorities so that the crime could be prevented - by arresting the criminals, and thus curtailing their freedom. Controlling and eliminating someone’s freedom is the responsible action to do, if that freedom would lead to undesirable consequences. No one campaigns for allowing unbridled rampage of psychopaths - except some posters on these boards
and if that policy would be implemented in real life, I bet they would be very upset.
T
tonyrey
Guest
To quote you, have you been there?!
- Why would God give us free will and then take it away?
- Love implies the power to choose to love.
- Even Sartre believed we are “condemned” to be free.
In the biocycle death is necessary for life and development.
Precisely! This is the best of all the possible worlds which have the advantages of this world. It is as absurd as comparing chalk with cheese to describe this life with life after death because they are different stages of existence.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
I don’t get what is so hard to understand about this?
But wait there is more!
God has in His infinite Mercy and Love, turned suffering into a means in which we can become sanctified, so like always He has been loving enough to take the **** that we willed to have (suffering) and brought a greater Good from it (our sanctification).
:extrahappy: Praise be to God! :extrahappy:
- God created the world where there was NO suffering!
- God gave man free will but not the freedom from consequences!
- Man commits sin and thus by use of FREE WILL introduces suffering and death (the consequences of sin)!
- God does not remove suffering because mankind has so willed to have it by its own free choice!
- If God did remove suffering it would be a contradiction to the Free Will he willed man to have! God cannot not will what He wills!
But wait there is more!
God has in His infinite Mercy and Love, turned suffering into a means in which we can become sanctified, so like always He has been loving enough to take the **** that we willed to have (suffering) and brought a greater Good from it (our sanctification).
:extrahappy: Praise be to God! :extrahappy:
R
razredge
Guest
Well i thought otherwise at first, but was told otherwise in the aforementioned thread.
The problem with free will in heaven is it poses the question “why didn’t God just create us in heaven in the first place”
F
fhansen
Guest
But in a sense He did, in Eden. So there must be a reason for our time “served” here on earth, which has to do with the edifying/forming/correcting of those very wills. And this makes sense of Scriptures’ description of God as the Potter.
I
Infidel
Guest
(Emphasis mine.) I hope you are aware that not even all Catholics agree to that naive analysis. There was death and suffering way before humanity appeared on the scene, and not even the Catholic Church denies this fact.
R
razredge
Guest
Yes, it is simply naive to think that death entered the world because Adam ate a fruit he wasn’t supposed too.(Emphasis mine.) I hope you are aware that not even all Catholics agree to that naive analysis. There was death and suffering way before humanity appeared on the scene, and not even the Catholic Church denies this fact.
People who ascribe too such views of God will have a hard time explaining the problem of evil.
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
Yes well sadly those that dont believe that these things entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve and that God transformed them into something that will benefit us are not exactly practicing Catholics are they?(Emphasis mine.) I hope you are aware that not even all Catholics agree to that naive analysis. There was death and suffering way before humanity appeared on the scene, and not even the Catholic Church denies this fact.
I dont expect you Infidel to believe this but you razredge are going against your Catholic Faith if you dont.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you really believe we would be worthy to share life with God before we have had the opportunity to demonstrate we are capable of unselfish love?
What explanation do you have? If you have none your faith seems to have a precarious foundation. Perhaps “Credo quia absurdum”!
C
Credo_in_Deum
Guest
No actually we naive Catholics dont have a hard time with that one. Perks of the Faith I guess.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Jesus said:(Emphasis mine.) I hope you are aware that not even all Catholics agree to that naive analysis. There was death and suffering way before humanity appeared on the scene, and not even the Catholic Church denies this fact.
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
The death caused by sin is spiritual not physical…
- Status