How to argue against God's will = evil

[Peter_Plato]

If we lowly humans are incapable of creatively ascertaining any more options, (and we have been on this earth theologizing and philosophizing for a long, long time) then that gives considerable doubt to the claim that God can effectively “find a way” which is, apparently in principle, impossible to be disclosed by reason. This isn’t like particle physics where the number of entities to take into account is huge: we are dealing here with roughly only a few relevant entities: moral evil, free will, suffering, purpose, and maybe a couple others. That no philosopher has as yet arrived at any conclusion which is even remotely airtight, in my opinion says something about the irresolvability of the problem.

If by reason we cannot find a way that doesn’t defeat itself, and leave it up to God, then two things may follow. Such a “way” then is literally above reason and logic, and so you arrive at the difficulty of allowing absurdities to flourish. Or, you commit yourself, by necessity, to a type of blind fideism which neglects humans’ contributions by dint of their own reason - and so you open the playing field to a lot more unsubstantiated claims and wishful thinking. I don’t think we want to do this, in all due respect.

The short answer is that evil is parasitic on what is, what exists. Evil distorts the good of being because it detracts or takes away from the full flourishing of beings. Evil does not exist on its own. When the host is gone, evil no longer exists.

The nature of God as self-existent, omniscient, omnibenevolent omnipotence means that evil is not omniscient, omnipotent nor self-existent because it is completely contingent on the existence of beings that can be perverted, harmed, etc. If God is necessary then evil is contingent and therefore, unnecessary. If evil is unnecessary, then the only reason it can exist, given God’s omnipotence, is if allowed to exist by God. That means God is not under any necessity to allow evil, except perhaps to bring about greater good, which is possible given omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

 

[Viewscreen]

Some things are just “too wrong” compared to what? What would too good to be true look like? My guess is that there are unimaginable possibilities that would render your “too wrong” judgement a nonstarter.

All that this is based on is the **speculation **that God will, somehow, bring out the redeeming feature in all bad, even the worst, of things. Sort of like needing the rain and the pain to compliment the bliss and the kiss.

I grant of course that this is “possible.” But the real reason I doubt it is that there’s* no evidence* to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, the pure phenomenology of the most heinous and unpardonable evil runs wholly counter to such a conclusion - that it would be better had this evil never happened at all, no matter what goods were exchanged for it. That is what I mean by “too wrong” and I believe this sentiment is shared by the majority of humans.

Lastly, you could say that the existence of a God who is all-LKP, would grant such a conclusion… But that shifts the burden of proof for the existence of such a God in a world that is in the* first place* evil - so, again, you are only speculating. You have to first start out from the world being evil, and then argue a case for your God. Not argue a case for your God, and then avoid the responsibility of acknowledging the evil in this world, writing it off as it were.

 

[Viewscreen]

The short answer is that evil is parasitic on what is, what exists. Evil distorts the good of being because it detracts or takes away from the full flourishing of beings. Evil does not exist on its own. When the host is gone, evil no longer exists.

The nature of God as self-existent, omniscient, omnibenevolent omnipotence means that evil is not omniscient, omnipotent nor self-existent because it is completely contingent on the existence of beings that can be perverted, harmed, etc. If God is necessary then evil is contingent and therefore, unnecessary. If evil is unnecessary, then the only reason it can exist, given God’s omnipotence, is if allowed to exist by God. That means God is not under any necessity to allow evil, except perhaps to bring about greater good, which is possible given omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

I don’t see how you engaged with my post here.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All that this is based on is the **speculation **that God will, somehow, bring out the redeeming feature in all bad, even the worst, of things. Sort of like needing the rain and the pain to compliment the bliss and the kiss.

This not my point at all. Evil is not a necessary complement of good. Evil may be contingent upon or parasitic of the good, but not necessarily so. Evil needs good to flourish, but good does not depend upon evil to exist. Good exists, evil is merely a detraction from the good that does exist, but need not be for good to exist.

I grant of course that this is “possible.” But the real reason I doubt it is that there’s* no evidence* to support such a conclusion. On the contrary, the pure phenomenology of the most heinous and unpardonable evil runs wholly counter to such a conclusion - that it would be better had this evil never happened at all, no matter what goods were exchanged for it. That is what I mean by “too wrong” and I believe this sentiment is shared by the majority of humans.

In a fantasy world it may be theoretically better if World War II had never taken place, but given the political and historical antecedent conditions, it could very well have been an unavoidable evil. The majority of humans might agree that World War II was, in fact, undesirable, but that is a moot point. Human choices for good and evil are part of the world we live in - it is the real situation we find ourselves in.

To make an assessment of how much evil is too much to warrant God’s allowance of it requires a calculus that must include not only acquisition of goods, pleasures and such, but also the development of human virtues, which may, in God’s eyes, far outweigh the value of traditional utilitarian goods. Wars and times of conflict allow opportunity for the development of virtues such as courage, commitment, loyalty, perseverance, etc. that may atrophy in an indolent, materialistic society. I suspect your evil calculus is limited in its accounting formula by putting too much value on acquisition and comfort, and less on personal virtues. God may keep a more complete set of books than you.

Lastly, you could say that the existence of a God who is all-LKP, would grant such a conclusion… But that shifts the burden of proof for the existence of such a God in a world that is in the* first place* evil - so, again, you are only speculating. You have to first start out from the world being evil, and then argue a case for your God. Not argue a case for your God, and then avoid the responsibility of acknowledging the evil in this world, writing it off as it were.

I honestly have no idea what you are getting at here. I began with a good world, one that is good because it exists. Existence is the good in question, and God, as the first Cause of all that exists is the ultimate good. Good is necessary because God is necessary. Evil is parasitic of that good as a disease is parasitic on the physical body of a living thing. I started with Being as the good then argued that evil is not a necessary aspect of being or good, but may be allowed by God to bring about greater good, overall.

The key, it seems to me is the role of humanity in this endeavor. If we are free beings with an active role in creating a destiny that far exceeds our expectations, then …

God could not force free beings to be a certain way but must “work with us” to cooperatively form us. If we are “open ended” in terms of what we are to become and if the final goods are concomitant with our growth towards our destiny, then we would have no way of assessing whether it was all worth it until the final ends are achieved, until the story, so to speak, comes to an end.

That is the time to make the final tally and not before.

 

[shoe]

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good and does not stop the evil in the world, then there are only two possible conclusions (that I see at least). Either God allows evil for a greater good, or God is indifferent to human good. The former proposition makes no sense, as there is such senseless evil as to admit no reason for its existence. Some things are just too wrong, and have no redeeming quality, no silver lining. At least I think so.

I think that when we feel grieved by all the injustices caused by senseless acts of evil, our grievances over those acts of evil are in reality good indicators for the existence of God; since a grievance over an injustice is made from an assumption that an objective moral standard is in place, making it possible for us to be able to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil. And these objective moral standards can exist only if a transcendent Being who is personally present everywhere in every moment exists.

 

[Viewscreen]

This not my point at all. Evil is not a necessary complement of good.

That may be so, but Good must be a necessary complement of evil, or you have no argument.

Evil may be contingent upon or parasitic of the good, but not necessarily so. Evil needs good to flourish, but good does not depend upon evil to exist. Good exists, evil is merely a detraction from the good that does exist, but need not be for good to exist.

This all may or may not be true. I don’t know if I should accept such a black and white definition of good and evil, but it’s a moot point regarding the actual Problem of Evil.

In a fantasy world it may be theoretically better if World War II had never taken place, but given the political and historical antecedent conditions, it could very well have been an unavoidable evil. The majority of humans might agree that World War II was, in fact, undesirable, but that is a moot point. Human choices for good and evil are part of the world we live in - it is the real situation we find ourselves in.

Yes, human choices are a part of the world we live in. So? Does that mean God has to allow for the results of those bad choices? Not at all. God has the power to stop moral evil, but doesn’t care to do so.

To make an assessment of how much evil is too much to warrant God’s allowance of it requires a calculus that must include not only acquisition of goods, pleasures and such, but also the development of human virtues, which may, in God’s eyes, far outweigh the value of traditional utilitarian goods. Wars and times of conflict allow opportunity for the development of virtues such as courage, commitment, loyalty, perseverance, etc. that may atrophy in an indolent, materialistic society. I suspect your evil calculus is limited in its accounting formula by putting too much value on acquisition and comfort, and less on personal virtues. God may keep a more complete set of books than you.

That is a decent point you raise about virtue. However, the improvement of character and so on does not have to be at the expense of so much meaningless suffering. Suffering that is preventable by a God who does not prevent it.

I honestly have no idea what you are getting at here. I began with a good world, one that is good because it exists. Existence is the good in question, and God, as the first Cause of all that exists is the ultimate good. Good is necessary because God is necessary. Evil is parasitic of that good as a disease is parasitic on the physical body of a living thing. I started with Being as the good then argued that evil is not a necessary aspect of being or good, but may be allowed by God to bring about greater good, overall.

I don’t quite like the fact that you allude to evil in such knowing terms, that it is “parasitic” of the good. Neither of us really knows what evil is. Neither of us knows, either, what good is. What would do know, all we know, is that good is clearly preferable over evil.

The key, it seems to me is the role of humanity in this endeavor. If we are free beings with an active role in creating a destiny that far exceeds our expectations, then …

Back to the argument at hand: the issue is, why does a God allow for evil, moral or otherwise? There is no inconsistency in our being able to decide on our own whether we wish to be “good” or “bad” and an all-loving God. That is not the problem. The problem is when we act out our choices (often at the expense of others) with God turning a complete blind eye to these kinds of injustices. For an all-loving God this is simply not possible.

God could not force free beings to be a certain way but must “work with us” to cooperatively form us. If we are “open ended” in terms of what we are to become and if the final goods are concomitant with our growth towards our destiny, then we would have no way of assessing whether it was all worth it until the final ends are achieved, until the story, so to speak, comes to an end.

That is the time to make the final tally and not before.

But God can “work with us” and our free will to accept or reject him without incurring any senseless evil on innocents! He can, theoretically if he is all powerful, put us in the “corner”, and prevent us from doing unnecessary harm, while simultaneously respecting our free will. Why does he not do that? Otherwise, if he allows evil for the purpose of character development, why does he not limit suffering to a level that isn’t grotesque?

If you say there is no compliment to the worst evil in terms of some higher good, then I say you have no argument. Some evil is meaningless, and God is responsible for not taking action against it.

Actually, that is the one argument I think might work in your defense: that for every evil, no matter how great, there is some equally worthwhile good. You have changed my mind.

 

[jochoa]

I honestly don’t think that’s the case. Only a handful of valid conclusions may be reached, starting from a given set of premises. If you find an actual disagreement with my reasoning, let me know. Otherwise, you are the one speculating.

Please consider the following questions:
What are the “given set of premises” your conclusions are being derived from?
If there is the Creator, what do you ascribe the Creator’s purpose for Creating to be?

Let me put it this way: if you’re playing baseball and the ball is hurtling towards you (and you’re the pitcher) there’s only a handful of things you can do to deflect it or otherwise remove its influence away from you. You can try hitting the ball with your bat, by either whacking it or punting it, whichever way you can. Or you can try getting out of its way by running, etc. There’s a bunch of things you can do. One thing you can’t do, however, is teleport yourself out of there. Or maybe you could, in some universe. The point is, there is a logical cap when it comes to how we can get out of any given situation. Just so, there’s an end-point when it comes to rationalizing yourself out of a philosophical problem.

This example is excellent regarding how you have limited the possibilities by assuming a limited purpose. In your example you seemingly present the purpose is to prevent being hurt from being hit by a baseball. Please know, it is a little difficult to understand the scenario for it seems the person in the scenario is up to bat, and also the pitcher for the team. If my understanding is correct, then there is an additional purpose to consider which sheds light on an additional means to approach the situation.
Assuming the purpose is to win the game by scoring runs which requires getting on base, the batter, who is the pitcher, could remain in the way of the baseball’s path in order to be hit by the ball. In doing so, s/he will receive a free base, placing him/her in the position to score a run to help win the game.

Thanks for the excellent food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[Peter_Plato]

That may be so, but Good must be a necessary complement of evil, or you have no argument.

Evil is now a factual, temporary detraction from the good, but not a necessary one - given eternity, where evil will no longer exist. Eternal good, without trace of any evil, would appear to overwhelmingly outweigh the impact of all temporary evil, thus nullifying the problem of evil.

I don’t quite like the fact that you allude to evil in such knowing terms, that it is “parasitic” of the good. Neither of us really knows what evil is. Neither of us knows, either, what good is. What would do know, all we know, is that good is clearly preferable over evil.

If neither of us knows the nature of good or evil then we cannot legitimately argue that the existence of evil does or does not disprove the existence of God. That effectively disables the problem of evil. The fact that we prefer good over evil tells us nothing about the possible justification God may have for allowing it. The statement you made that we have no idea what evil or good is clearly disqualifies us from making a ruling about whether God is right or wrong in allowing evil.

 

[Viewscreen]

Evil is now a factual, temporary detraction from the good, but not a necessary one - given eternity, where evil will no longer exist. Eternal good, without trace of any evil, would appear to overwhelmingly outweigh the impact of all temporary evil, thus nullifying the problem of evil.

You still miss the point. The issue isn’t “oh well, things are going to be perfect anyway, so why worry?” The issue is,… why are things so terrible now with a supposedly all-loving God? Why does he allow this, now, even if things will be so grand in the hereafter? Why not make things at least bearable in the here and now, instead of there existing so much unnecessary suffering?

Come to think of it, the Compliment Theory is the only thing I see which can make sense of this.

If neither of us knows the nature of good or evil then we cannot legitimately argue that the existence of evil does or does not disprove the existence of God. That effectively disables the problem of evil. The fact that we prefer good over evil tells us nothing about the possible justification God may have for allowing it. The statement you made that we have no idea what evil or good is clearly disqualifies us from making a ruling about whether God is right or wrong in allowing evil.

All we have to know is that God, being all-loving and therefore all-good, prefers good to evil, which most theists accept. And on that basis we can question the inclusion of evil in the creation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You still miss the point. The issue isn’t “oh well, things are going to be perfect anyway, so why worry?” The issue is,… why are things so terrible now with a supposedly all-loving God? Why does he allow this, now, even if things will be so grand in the hereafter? Why not make things at least bearable in the here and now, instead of there existing so much unnecessary suffering?

Evil is not the same as suffering. Suffering is a different issue. Yes, suffering is a complementary sensation to emotive states like pleasure or contentment, and it also accompanies the attainment of goods and virtues like fitness, learning, courage, etc. It is not clear that suffering is unnecessary, nor that it is unbearable. Pain thresholds can be changed and pain acts as a warning signal to potentially hurtful/harmful choices. Suffering is relievable but often offers important clues to the meaning of life.

Evil is a different kettle of fish. I supposed we were talking about evil all along when you suddenly veer off evil towards suffering, instead. Free will has been offered as a defense to the problem of evil, not to the problem of pain or suffering. I thought you were aware of the difference.

 

[Viewscreen]

Evil is not the same as suffering. Suffering is a different issue…

Not altogether is it a different issue. “Evil” comes in many forms, one of which is natural evil. The classic example given is of a deer that is horribly burned and endures such pain before it finally dies.

Yes, suffering is a complementary sensation to emotive states like pleasure or contentment, and it also accompanies the attainment of goods and virtues like fitness, learning, courage, etc. It is not clear that suffering is unnecessary, nor that it is unbearable.

How is suffering not a type of evil? In my, and most others estimation, it clearly is. That said, there is much suffering in the world that doesn’t need to happen. Or so it seems to me. Perhaps there is such a thing as karma, I don’t know. One thing’s for sure: sometimes suffering quite literally IS unbearable - as in the case of horrible burnings and cancer wards, or mental psychiatric patients… Frankly, I find your dismissal of suffering as being an innate evil, at least some of the time, bewildering.

Pain thresholds can be changed and pain acts as a warning signal to potentially hurtful/harmful choices. Suffering is relievable but often offers important clues to the meaning of life.

All this you bring about suffering having certain meanings and implications is a moot point, because we are not just talking about marginal suffering. That could very well be accommodated in a loving/good God’s scheme - were it to definitively provide goods. We are talking about the very real senseless and utterly meaningless suffering which can only be termed evil.

Evil is a different kettle of fish. I supposed we were talking about evil all along when you suddenly veer off evil towards suffering, instead. Free will has been offered as a defense to the problem of evil, not to the problem of pain or suffering. I thought you were aware of the difference.

I am aware of the difference between moral and natural evil, however both are cases of evil, and that includes suffering. In that sense, evil is certainly not “a different kettle of fish.” It’s the same problem, just in a different guise.

Furthermore, you have not engaged as yet with my pointing out that the offering of free will **in no way **implies the harm acted out in the form of choices on others. I await your response.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not altogether is it a different issue. “Evil” comes in many forms, one of which is natural evil. The classic example given is of a deer that is horribly burned and endures such pain before it finally dies

You are assuming that animals have conscious experiences or awareness of pain. That is not clearly established. In order to have consciousness, physiologically speaking, one must have persistent long term memory, the brain function necessary to form abstract concepts that persist through time and the rational capacity to enable self-awareness. It is not clear that most animals have sufficient capabilities to be aware of themselves experiencing pain. Pain, for most animals, could very well be physiological reaction to trauma to parts of their nervous system without implying some kind of awareness of pain.

Blind sightedness is the condition that occurs with some human blindness sufferers who can walk into a room and navigate around the furniture or obstacles in the room without any conscious awareness of them. Physiologically, their visual system is operating fine, but their consciousness of what their eyes see is not existent. This could very well be the case with animals and pain.

Furthermore, you have not engaged as yet with my pointing out that the offering of free will **in no way **implies the harm acted out in the form of choices on others. I await your response.

If I knew what you were asking I might know where to begin. I have no idea what you mean.

Do you mean free will does not sufficiently account for harm done to others?
That some harm is not the result of free will?
Or that the good or value of free will, ontologically speaking, does not balance harm that results from it?

 

[Viewscreen]

You are assuming that animals have conscious experiences or awareness of pain. That is not clearly established. In order to have consciousness, physiologically speaking, one must have persistent long term memory, the brain function necessary to form abstract concepts that persist through time and the rational capacity to enable self-awareness. It is not clear that most animals have sufficient capabilities to be aware of themselves experiencing pain. Pain, for most animals, could very well be physiological reaction to trauma to parts of their nervous system without implying some kind of awareness of pain.

Blind sightedness is the condition that occurs with some human blindness sufferers who can walk into a room and navigate around the furniture or obstacles in the room without any conscious awareness of them. Physiologically, their visual system is operating fine, but their consciousness of what their eyes see is not existent. This could very well be the case with animals and pain.

Well, my example also applies to human beings. Animal cruelty is only one instance of unnecessary suffering. I personally do believe animals feel pain.

If I knew what you were asking I might know where to begin. I have no idea what you mean.

Do you mean free will does not sufficiently account for harm done to others?
That some harm is not the result of free will?
Or that the good or value of free will, ontologically speaking, does not balance harm that results from it?

Simply put, what I mean is: we can have the free will to make choices, but we needn’t possess the facilities to act those decisions out.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Simply put, what I mean is: we can have the free will to make choices, but we needn’t possess the facilities to act those decisions out.

So free will should be inconsequential and nothing important hinge on it? Sounds like a strategy to avoid all responsibility.

My suspicion is that learning responsibility under the constraints of the laws of physics is precisely why we live in a material world. Since the fall, humans have been deliberately limited in the consequences of our choices by constraints inherent in the causal order - a kind of quarantined environment that mitigates possible harm. I have an even stronger suspicion that this world is a process of formation or preparation for an afterlife that will entail virtually limitless powers for those trained in Love to be capable of handling unlimited responsibilities.

Consider Matthew 17:20:
**
I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."**

The possibility that humans have this sort of inheritance is precisely the reason we must learn that our choices have grave consequences so that the power of will is not taken lightly.

Ponder Jesus’ words in Luke 16:10

Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

We are being tested to the very depths of our being because so very much will indeed count on it.

Try 1 Corinthians 2:9-16:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”
but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
**The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

“For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.

---

 

[Viewscreen]

So free will should be inconsequential and nothing important hinge on it? Sounds like a strategy to avoid all responsibility.

I am not saying that in the least. Free will would still retain all its significance with one limitation: you could not hurt anyone by your choices. You could hurt yourself, you could “deny God” and all of that. You could even engage in sinful activity. Whatever. But, you could not intentionally do damage to innocents.

My suspicion is that learning responsibility under the constraints of the laws of physics is precisely why we live in a material world. Since the fall, humans have been deliberately limited in the consequences of our choices by constraints inherent in the causal order - a kind of quarantined environment that mitigates possible harm. I have an even stronger suspicion that this world is a process of formation or preparation for an afterlife that will entail virtually limitless powers for those trained in Love to be capable of handling unlimited responsibilities.

Sounds very speculative.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not saying that in the least. Free will would still retain all its significance with one limitation: you could not hurt anyone by your choices. You could hurt yourself, you could “deny God” and all of that. You could even engage in sinful activity. Whatever. But, you could not intentionally do damage to innocents.
.

So you would have full range of doing evil without causing any harm to others? What about the intrinsic harm that you would be doing to yourself by turning yourself into a moral monster who would see no cost associated with any of your actions?

Perhaps you have been playing so many simulation or war games that your sense of reality has been compromised.

The real world has real consequences and real suffering. That in itself should engender a sense of deep respect for our choices rather than the flippant, “It won’t matter anyway!” that your conceived world would spawn.

One benefit of suffering and evil it would seem to me is to spare us from becoming the shallow self-absorbed beings that would inevitably result in your ideal world. If actually witnessing the sufferings of others because of our actions does not lead to a change of behaviour in the present world, it is far less likely that having no discernable impact on others would lead us to greater moral awareness and virtue.

 

[Viewscreen]

So you would have full range of doing evil without causing any harm to others? What about the intrinsic harm that you would be doing to yourself by turning yourself into a moral monster who would see no cost associated with any of your actions?

What do you mean? There would still be a cost. You could, after all, use your power of free will to degrade yourself.

Perhaps you have been playing so many simulation or war games that your sense of reality has been compromised.

Well, that’s a load of nonsense. I am giving you a hypothetical scenario, not denying reality.

The real world has real consequences and real suffering. That in itself should engender a sense of deep respect for our choices rather than the flippant, “It won’t matter anyway!” that your conceived world would spawn.

One can still respect choices. After all, they are your own and no one is taking away that right of freedom. Anymore than if I put you in prison; you still have the freedom of your own mind, and that is what I bet really matters, not external things… I don’t see how your real free will could be appreciably diminished in a world with more constraints.

One benefit of suffering and evil it would seem to me is to spare us from becoming the shallow self-absorbed beings that would inevitably result in your ideal world.

How could you possibly know that? Furthermore, where is the implication for that happening? To me, it seems almost the reverse. If there were no meaningless suffering, our minds would be a lot healthier, and we would have the opportunity to decide things in a much more open and deep way. We would not be self-absorbed, because we would not have to be nursing our hurt all the time.

If actually witnessing the sufferings of others because of our actions does not lead to a change of behaviour in the present world, it is far less likely that having no discernable impact on others would lead us to greater moral awareness and virtue.

You write as though the only possible impact we could have on others to be negative. What an atrocious mentality to have! In a perfect world, I’d bet we’d all love each other. No need to import your useless suffering.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If there were no meaningless suffering, our minds would be a lot healthier, and we would have the opportunity to decide things in a much more open and deep way. We would not be self-absorbed, because we would not have to be nursing our hurt all the time…

You write as though the only possible impact we could have on others to be negative. What an atrocious mentality to have! In a perfect world, I’d bet we’d all love each other. No need to import your useless suffering.

You didn’t say meaningless suffering in your previous post, you said, “…you could not hurt anyone by your choices.”

If it is true that we would all love each other as you claim, then that should be even more true in our present reality because that same love should make us acutely aware of the pain we cause others. We should be even more loving knowing that we are sparing their suffering. So why are we not loving now having sensitivity to suffering?

My guess is that in your world love would be non-existent because there would be greater motivation for wanting to do things to others that do cause others suffering in this world but would no longer do so in your imagined world. Individuals would be more egoistic and less loving because there would be no perceptible negative cost to others. Smacking you about and taking your things would be no different, morally speaking, than congratulating you or saving your life. Betraying your trust would not be discernibly different than being loyal. It wouldn’t matter if you fed your children and cared for them or let them starve or were abusive to them. The effects would all be the same so choices wouldn’t matter because nothing would be at stake.

 

[Viewscreen]

You didn’t say meaningless suffering in your previous post, you said, “…you could not hurt anyone by your choices.”

What I meant was, there would be no murders, no rapes, no genocides (i.e., meaningless, senseless suffering) as well as no other possible way to **egregiously **hurt others besides, perhaps, inadvertently: maybe someone deeply bewails another’s free will choices in some relation to him or her self for which there can be no remedy (i.e., a love affair) - there are certainly some allowances that can be made.The point is, with such constraints, suffering would be limited to a reasonable minimum. A rational God who actually cares - would set up such a system. There is no doubt about it in my mind. The only exception to this way of handling evil in the world would be - the Compliment Theory, I suppose.

If it is true that we would all love each other as you claim, then that should be even more true in our present reality because that same love should make us acutely aware of the pain we cause others.We should be even more loving knowing that we are sparing their suffering. So why are we not loving now having sensitivity to suffering?

Not if that pain engulfs us and makes us forget how to love, as it has so many people on this earth… Not when there are such things as ideologies of hate and plenty of false ideas peppering and distracting our minds. Pain, suffering and depression do not help us love. They destroy love, and make us more self-absorbed. Love on the other hand, true love, heals. That is my experience, at least. I can’t speak for all.

The problem, in a nutshell, is evil. Why doesn’t God do something about it?

My guess is that in your world love would be non-existent because there would be greater motivation for wanting to do things to others that do cause others suffering in this world but would no longer do so in your imagined world. Individuals would be more egoistic and less loving because there would be no perceptible negative cost to others. Smacking you about and taking your things would be no different, morally speaking, than congratulating you or saving your life. Betraying your trust would not be discernibly different than being loyal. It wouldn’t matter if you fed your children and cared for them or let them starve or were abusive to them. The effects would all be the same so choices wouldn’t matter because nothing would be at stake.

This is where you and I differ. I think the primary origin for egotism is a lack of love, a lack of acceptance, an influx of pain, of loneliness, of misery. We are proud and egotistic, not because we don’t want to love, but because we **can’t **love, because we don’t even know what love is. We do all sorts of horrible things, not out of self-love, but out of self-hate, and wish to project that hate outside onto others because otherwise it would destroy ourselves. It is precisely because we don’t have the greatest ontological good (love) that we settle for lesser goods (power and such). In a world with so much alleviated pain, the world would be a better place. It truly would be a paradise, compared to what we have here.

That is my sentiment. I may be wrong or right, who knows? This vision feels more right to me than your vision.

 

[Viewscreen]

You wrote:

“My guess is that in your world love would be non-existent because there would be greater motivation for wanting to do things to others that do cause others suffering in this world but would no longer do so in your imagined world. Individuals would be more egoistic and less loving because there would be no perceptible negative cost to others. Smacking you about and taking your things would be no different, morally speaking, than congratulating you or saving your life. Betraying your trust would not be discernibly different than being loyal. It wouldn’t matter if you fed your children and cared for them or let them starve or were abusive to them. The effects would all be the same so choices wouldn’t matter because nothing would be at stake.”

I realize this may require a deeper level of engagement. Yes, I think we do show our love and affection to others through our choices. We would not be barred from doing so in my scenario. And why would we cease from doing so? All humans wish for companionship. All humans yearn to cooperate in all kinds of endeavors. Why would any of that change in the least? Yes, potentially I suppose some remnants of egotism would remain (that is, if the greater commuity of love couldn’t snuff it out), but all the same the world would be a better, not a worse place.

Your fear in a dystopia is misplaced. Not when God is at the controls of a genuine system of justice, not a fake, or ersatz human-based system which is corrupt. God.