Couldn't God Create a Better World?

[tonyrey]

No, the onus is on the theists to explain how it is possible that someone who, by their own definition can do everything, nevertheless cannot create a universe with less suffering.

 

[belorg]

belorg;7855531:

… anything that is feasible! The onus is on you

to show that it is feasible - and there is only one way of doing that!

The onus is on you to show that it is possible. If you find it so difficult you have to dodge the question your argument is hardly convincing…

There is no dodging the question, and it is in fact easy to show its possible. I know a guy who was ninety-six when he died peacefully in his sleep, one week after his ninety-three- year-old wife had passed away in a similar way. Niether of them had ever been seriuously ill and they have been extremely happy throghout their lives. I also had a friend who died of cancer aged 47, after suffering for a long time.
So, a world with only people living without considerable suffering is feasable.

Not every theist agrees with Calvin that every drop of rain falls with the express command of God!

Not every theist’s belief is as logically consistent as Calvin’s.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no dodging the question, and it is in fact easy to show its possible. I know a guy who was ninety-six when he died peacefully in his sleep, one week after his ninety-three- year-old wife had passed away in a similar way. Niether of them had ever been seriuously ill and they have been extremely happy throghout their lives. I also had a friend who died of cancer aged 47, after suffering for a long time.
So, a world with only people living without considerable suffering is feasable.

There is a considerable gap between “some” and “all”! How could all the causes of accidents and disease be eliminated?

Not every theist’s belief is as logically consistent as Calvin’s.

Nor as limited!

 

[Spock]

There is a considerable gap between “some” and “all”! How could all the causes of accidents and disease be eliminated?

Who said anything about “all”? The topic is a “better world”, not a “perfect world”.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello Spock,

Who said anything about “all”? The topic is a “better world”, not a “perfect world”.

God created this world with the best motivation possible, that we should love all our neighbours as we love ourselves. He gave us commands not to steal, kill, commit adultery etc, if we could live by these commandments, this world would be perfect.

A billion people live in grinding poverty and close to starvation on less than a dollar a day, half the world population lives on less than three dollars a day, we live with constant wars.

We cannot act justly towards one another, we exploit people so we can have more for ourselves, which mean others have less.

I am convinced that if we could act justly towards one another, love and forgive then there would be no suffering in this world. God would then take away all the earthquakes, and natural disasters that cause us grief.

We can’t do this on our own, this means we have to endure our time on Earth, and God will put all things right in a greater good life after death.

Blessings

Eric

 

[Spock]

God created this world with the best motivation possible, that we should love all our neighbours as we love ourselves. He gave us commands not to steal, kill, commit adultery etc, if we could live by these commandments, this world would be perfect.
A billion people live in grinding poverty and close to starvation on less than a dollar a day, half the world population lives on less than three dollars a day, we live with constant wars.
We cannot act justly towards one another, we exploit people so we can have more for ourselves, which mean others have less.

Obvously a lot of misery could be “fixed” if we would be more helpful, loving,etc… toward each other. There is no doubt about that, and this part of your analysis is fine. The rest, however, is not.

I am convinced that if we could act justly towards one another, love and forgive then there would be no suffering in this world. God would then take away all the earthquakes, and natural disasters that cause us grief.

There is absolutely no reason why this should be assumed. God does not need “excuses” to get rid of harmful microbes, tsunamis, etc. Or stop Alzheimer’s disease.There is no “reason” not to send rain to the drought-stricken areas, or stop a lightning-induced wildfire. He could do all that and more. Yet, he does not do it. That is all. And there is no explanation.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello Spock,

There is absolutely no reason why this should be assumed. God does not need “excuses” to get rid of harmful microbes, tsunamis, etc. Or stop Alzheimer’s disease.There is no “reason” not to send rain to the drought-stricken areas, or stop a lightning-induced wildfire. He could do all that and more. Yet, he does not do it. That is all. And there is no explanation.

If God did all these things you suggest, there would still be wars, and injustice, we would still exploit each other. Why would God reward us on this Earth if we cannot love all our neighbours as we love ourselves?

Blessings

Eric

 

[tonyrey]

Who said anything about “all”? The topic is a “better world”, not a “perfect world”.

To be precise it is whether “a world with **only people living without considerable suffering **is feasible” - for which no explanation has been given apart from the example of two old people!

 

[razredge]

No, the onus is on the theists to explain how it is possible that someone who, by their own definition can do everything, nevertheless cannot cretae a universe with less suffering.

IOW the theist must prove that creating a universe with less suffering is logically impossible.

Plantinga did a great job on effectively solving this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

Plantinga’s argument is that even though God is omnipotent, it is possible that it was not in his power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil; therefore, there is no logical inconsistency involved when God, although wholly good, creates a world of free creatures who chose to do evil. The argument relies on the following propositions:

1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize.
2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.

Plantinga refers to the first statement as “Leibniz’s lapse” as the opposite was assumed by Leibniz. The second proposition is defended through the notion of “transworld depravity”.

Transworld depravity

Transworld depravity is explicitly defined as:

A person P suffers from transworld depravity if and only if the following holds: for every world W such that P is significantly free in W and P does only what is right in W, there is an action A and a maximal world segment S´ such that

   1. S´ includes A's being morally significant for P
   2. S´ includes P's being free with respect to A
   3. S´ is included in W and includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A
   4. If S´ were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.

Plantinga says that “What is important about the idea of transworld depravity is that if a person suffers from it, then it wasn’t within God’s power to actualize any world in which that person is significantly free but does no wrong—that is, a world in which he produces moral good but no moral evil” and that it is logically possible that every person suffers from transworld depravity.

BTW, that there is an element of chance within the framework of design is not something most classical theists will agree with.

Well take that up with the classical theists then

 

[Spock]

If God did all these things you suggest, there would still be wars, and injustice, we would still exploit each other. Why would God reward us on this Earth if we cannot love all our neighbours as we love ourselves?

Out of love, mayhaps? Toward the innocents? Like the toddlers or the animals, who are not guilty of anything? Besides, not everyone is guilty of wars, of injustice, of exploitations, etc… most of us love our neighbors, most of us are not guilty of exploitation, most of us are going out of our way to help the downtrodden.

Justice demands that no innocents should suffer for the deeds of the guilty ones. Just think about it.

 

[Spock]

Plantinga did a great job on effectively solving this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

Actually, Plantinga himself realized that his reasoning is insufficient. But even if it were correct, he did not show that a world with less suffering is also logically unfeasible. And, of course it would be very easy do it. All God would have to do is eliminate a few diseases (like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s) from the world.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Justice demands that no innocents should suffer for the deeds of the guilty ones. Just think about it.

*Doesn’t Justice also demand that one can do what they see fit with their own personal property? Since God is the Creator of everything then isn’t it His Just right to do what He wants with it? I wonder what it is you have Spock that hasn’t been given to you and if you don’t possess anything that hasn’t been given to you (including your very existence) then who are you to tell the giver what He can or can’t do? Wouldnt that be unjust of you since your trying to deprive the giver of His rights? Think about it
*

 

[Spock]

Doesn’t Justice also demand that one can do what they see fit with their own personal property?

No, that is not “justice”. It is merely a way to express property rights - which is just a human concoction. Not all human societies acknowledged the concept of “my” and “yours”.

Since God is the Creator of everything then isn’t it His Just right to do what He wants with it?

In my vocabulary “justice” means “balance”. In other words, a guilty person should be punished according to his deed. A good person should also be rewarded according to the merits of his deed. And one of the basic pillars of justice is that innocents should not suffer. It seems that in your usage “justice” simply means whatever God wants to do - which translates to “might is right”. So, I am afraid we do not have a good foundation for a conversation, being unable to agree on such a basic concept. Oh, well, it happens. Maybe some other time.

By the way… you seemed to bypass the “love” part of my post. Why is that?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

In my vocabulary “justice” means “balance”. In other words, a guilty person should be punished according to his deed. A good person should also be rewarded according to the merits of his deed. And one of the basic pillars of justice is that innocents should not suffer. It seems that in your usage “justice” simply means whatever God wants to do - which translates to “might is right”. So, I am afraid we do not have a good foundation for a conversation, being unable to agree on such a basic concept. Oh, well, it happens. Maybe some other time. ]

You missed the point Spock. If all things exist and continue to exist only because God wills them to do so then what exactly is unjust about God willing that they no longer exist? See the problem Spock is your trying to impose certain laws or rights to yourself when you have no right to do so. If God was under no obligation to make you then He is also under no obligation to keep you in existence. This is why I have the stance that everything God does is just and if it is Just it is Good.

By the way… you seemed to bypass the “love” part of my post. Why is that?

*I didnt bypass love. I just figured you would already know that love is connected with good. *

 

[Spock]

This is why I have the stance that everything God does is just and if it is Just it is Good.

As I said we have no common ground. Your definition of “just” and “good” and “love” are incoherent, meaningless for me. You say that God keeps the rapist in existence, therefore rape is “good”? God keeps the torturer in existence, therefore torture is “love”? Thank you for your remarks.

One more thing. If I express disagreement, it does not mean that I “missed” what you said. It means that I don’t agree with what you say. Good bye.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

As I said we have no common ground. Your definition of “just” and “good” and “love” are incoherent, meaningless for me. You say that God keeps the rapist in existence, therefore rape is “good”? God keeps the torturer in existence, therefore torture is “love”? Thank you for your remarks.

One more thing. If I express disagreement, it does not mean that I “missed” what you said. It means that I don’t agree with what you say. Good bye.

*I know you don’t see it the same and that’s why I’m saying you’re missing the point. You are a creation that owes everything to the Creator. You are not nor can you ever be in a position to claim you merit or are owed anything but what the Creator gives you. Furthermore I’m not saying rape and torture are good. I am saying Gods permitting of them because God can bring a greater good from them is what is GOOD! Here are some examples for you.

Joseph is sold by his brothers into slavery. Joseph works as a slave and then becomes in prisoned by a false witness. Joseph later becomes a ruler in Egypt second only to Pharos.

Is God unjust in this? Was God unjust to allow Josephs brothers to sell him? Are Joseph’s brother’s actions still unjust even though God used them to bring a greater good? How about God permitting the wife of Josephs master to bare false witness against him. Was God unjust for that? Is the wife unjust even though God used her unjust actions to bring about a greater good?

The answer is clear that God is just for permitting these things to happen because God is the only one that can bring a greater good from them. Yet this permitting does not justify the persons who committed these acts in the first place. This is how rapists, murders, and etc. are still bad and how God is still good for permitting them to continue existing.
Let’s try another one

Jesus Christ: tortured, mocked, spit upon, assaulted, and murdered. Are the Jews and Romans (and us) justified in doing this to Jesus? No! Is God justified in permitting these things to happen to His only Begotten Son so that all sin might be forgiven and reconcile man back to God? Yes! Did this benefit all of Gods creation? YES!

The last example I give to you is one of Maria Goretti. She was a little girl that was brutally murdered by 20 year old man Alessandro Serenelli because she would not have sex with him. His intent was to rape her but she protested saying it was a mortal sin and that God did not want it and that she didn’t want him to lose his soul. She fought back and was stabbed eleven times. She was rushed to the hospital and later succumbed to her wounds. Before dying she forgave Alessandro Serenelli.

The rest of the story I will let Alessandro Serenelli tell to you: This was taken from a letter he wrote:*

I’m nearly 80 years old. I’m about to depart.

"Looking back at my past, I can see that in my early youth, I chose a bad path which led me to ruin myself.

"My behavior was influenced by print, mass-media and bad examples which are followed by the majority of young people without even thinking. And I did the same. I was not worried.

"There were a lot of generous and devoted people who surrounded me, but I paid no attention to them because a violent force blinded me and pushed me toward a wrong way of life.

"When I was 20 years-old, I committed a crime of passion. Now, that memory represents something horrible for me. Maria Goretti, now a Saint, was my good Angel, sent to me through Providence to guide and save me. I still have impressed upon my heart her words of rebuke and of pardon. She prayed for me, she interceded for her murderer. Thirty years of prison followed.

"If I had been of age, I would have spent all my life in prison. I accepted to be condemned because it was my own fault.

"Little Maria was really my light, my protectress; with her help, I behaved well during the 27 years of prison and tried to live honestly when I was again accepted among the members of society. The Brothers of St. Francis, Capuchins from Marche, welcomed me with angelic charity into their monastery as a brother, not as a servant. I’ve been living with their community for 24 years, and now I am serenely waiting to witness the vision of God, to hug my loved ones again, and to be next to my Guardian Angel and her dear mother, Assunta.

“I hope this letter that I wrote can teach others the happy lesson of avoiding evil and of always following the right path, like little children. I feel that religion with its precepts is not something we can live without, but rather it is the real comfort, the real strength in life and the only safe way in every circumstance, even the most painful ones of life.”

Signature, Alessandro Serenelli

*I don’t take your view Spock because it’s not the reality we live in. To you nothing good could come from Marias murder and that God is evil for permitting it. Yet I believe something good can come from these horrible things and I believe God is the only one that can bring that goodness out of them. God permitted all this to happen for the benefit of Maria and for the benefit of Alessandro Serenelli. Maria is a Saint and Alessandro died a repentant and converted sinner and both of them have touched the lives of countless people in a positive way.

Praise be to God *

 

[belorg]

Plantinga did a great job on effectively solving this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

Plantinga’s FWD is a defense, not a theodicy. So, yes, Plantinga has thought up some far-fetched scenario in which it is logically possible that God cannot create a world with no evil, but FYI the FWD is incompatible with Catholicism… And moreover

 

[belorg]

To be precise it is whether “a world with **only people living without considerable suffering **is feasible” - for which no explanation has been given apart from the example of two old people!

My post, to which you answered, was not about a world **without considerable **suffering, but about a world with **less suffering **than this one. That is feasible, unless you give me a decent argument to show it isn’t.

 

[razredge]

belorg:
I did say it was an answer to the logical problem of evil, not the evidential one (which would require a theodicy)

And why is the Free Will Defense incompatible with Catholicism?

If say X is the current amount of people who live to see their grandkids and don’t die prematurely (or any other definition of a ‘fulfilling life’ you want to use).

Then if God could create a world better than this one so that X+1 people live to old age, then he could also create a world with X + 2 people living to old age, and X + 3 and so on and so forth - so no matter what God could always create a world with less suffering in it.

 

[fhansen]

If say X is the current amount of people who live to see their grandkids and don’t die prematurely (or any other definition of a ‘fulfilling life’ you want to use).

What if this world isn’t supposed to fulfill us-I’m not sure how a life ending in certain death can offer any kind of ultimate fulfillment anyway-but rather its purpose is to get us to realize that a life without God is undeniably unfulfilling?.