The Free Will Problem

[ateista]

You are saying I am wrong. Can you explain why you are right? I think time cannot exist in its entirety for us, can you explain why it is impossible for the source and controller of temporal existence?

I will explain below.

The past exists? How do you define “exist”. If you define it as only “what is”, then clearly “What was” does not exist. If you do not, how do you define it?

The past does not exist, it existed. If there was an observer who has perfect memory, then he can retain the acquired information about the past (when it was present and actually existed) and as such he can know what the past was. For everyone else the past is unknowable.

How would you argue the truth of your proposition?

Very simple. Suppose we talk about the color of an apple. We can measure the reflected light and find that it falls between two limits which we call red.

Now we take two observers - standing side by side - where one will see a red apple, while the other one - who is colorblind - will see a grey apple. The same “thing”, the color of the apple will be both red and not red at the same time under the same circumstances for two observers.

This seems to be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, but it is not. The color from the two vantage points (two observers) can be different, because the color is an attribute and their percepting faculties are different.

Existence, however is not an attribute, and cannot be treated as such. Both philosophers and theologians have discarded the idea that existence can be treated as an attribute.

Suppose it is relative. Now what?

If you can bring up arguments and show that existence can be relative, I will contemplate it.

If everything, including all concept and theories, are physical, we run into a form of the EAAN dilemma. Why should I trust your theory any more than I trust a rock?

It is your choice. I certainly find Plantinga’s argument unconvincing (to be very polite about it).

But if you wish to doubt the reliability of your senses, go ahead and test them. Put your hand close to a fire, and see if your senses will tell you not to go any further. Doubt your senses and actually put into the fire and see if it burns, or just seems to be burning. Simple test, works any time.

 

[ateista]

I would call the other apple an imaginary apple that is green, tart, and slightly bruised. The fact that is is imaginary could be considered an aspect of it. When we say things are “real” or “imaginary” it seems to me that we are saying whether or not the thing in question has the attribute of existence.

And how would you tell apart that imaginary apple from another imaginary one which is red, tart and slightly bruised? What method would you use? No matter how you put it, imaginary or non-existent … it is non-existent. It has no attributes, it does not exist.

 

[ateista]

I think the ultimate lesson we are to learn from all of the suffering is that suffering is the consequence of going our own way and rejecting God. For us to learn this, God has allowed us to go our own way to learn for ourselves.

We are all off on our own with our freedom and learning about this together. God has given us the free will to make our own decisions in this world, and that results in people harming each other. By God not interfering, he is letting us see for real what the consequences are of turning away from him. God doesn’t plan individual scenarios of suffering for each of us and force us to go through them, we are simply out on our own finding out what its like without God.

So the pain we inflict on each other is not specifically planned by God, and isn’t necessarily the exact amount that we each need to have. And since we’ve made our own choice to leave God, it is just for God to allow us to leave and harm one another and wait for us to turn back to Him.

You are the first one who suggests this. In many treads I have been challenging the participants on these boards, and in every one of them they asserted that God only allows suffering if and when it serves a higher purpose.

They always asserted that our lack of knowledge prevents us from knowing what that higher purpose may be, but from God’s alleged benevolence it clearly follows that pain and suffering can only be allowed if it is compensated by some unspecified “greater good”, which cannot be achieved otherwise.

The pain and suffering that serves no “higher purpose” is gratituous and as such evil.

What you say is different. You say that God allows unnecessary pain and suffering. Essentially you say that God uses some people as teaching implements, and allows their pain and suffering as teaching devices. I am not sure if you have really considered that aspect of what you saying.

Now here comes the funny part. I purposefully amplified the aspect of how impossible it is to say that all suffering is proportional to some “greater good”… and I did not do that before.

Now that I did, and it is obvious that either God constantly interferes with our freedom in order to stop the pain and suffering at the “necessary” level, or trusts the random acts of our nature to somehow prevent unnecessary suffering - now you realize that both are absurd, and as such you started to sing to a different tune - so to speak.

Let’s see if you keep it up now, that I also point out that to use people as teaching devices for the sole purpose of teaching (that harming others for no good reason is immoral…) is not benevolent - it is evil and immoral.

 

[Syele]

To sum it up: every instance of suffering is necessary, and the amount of suffering is precisely the necessary amount to achieve the greater good. God, despite his omnipotence is unable to reach the desired greater good without the suffering involved. Even the smallest decrease of suffering would deny the forthcoming of this greater good?

So, does God interfere or not?

God will not allow His elect to suffer to no purpose. This is promised in scripture. There are many ways God can accomplish this. He can intervene and stop something from happening. He can tell a person to intervene (they have the free will to do so or not). He can use additional suffering for an additional benefit. There are tons of possibilities. So does He intervene or not? That depends on His will and if it is necessary or not.

And what about the rest? They can go to hell? Is it possible that their suffering is not necessary?

The non-elect have not been given the same promise. They are completely subject to the consequences of their own choices and the choices of other people whether those consequences are ultimately beneficial to them or not.

 

[ateista]

God will not allow His elect to suffer to no purpose. This is promised in scripture.

So you say that each and every suffering (of the elect) is ultimately beneficial to the sufferer (and not to someone else) and that suffering is necessary to achieve that greater good (whatever it is)? I would like to make sure that I understand you correctly.

Let me reiterate the example of that drunkard who beats up his children on a regular basis. His beating is necessary for the children, and they will gain some possible benefit from those beatings, which God could not make possible without those beatings? Furthermore, the beatings are never, ever excessive, rather precisely enough to make that benefit possible, but not more?

This is important, so please make sure that my perception is correct. Thank you.

The non-elect have not been given the same promise. They are completely subject to the consequences of their own choices and the choices of other people whether those consequences are ultimately beneficial to them or not.

So for them it is possible to suffer without gaining benefits? God allows them to suffer for no particular purpose? Again, I would like to be sure that I understand you correctly.

And an afterthought: of course you maintain that God is love, God is caring and benevolent? Right?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You are the first one who suggests this. In many treads I have been challenging the participants on these boards, and in every one of them they asserted that God only allows suffering if and when it serves a higher purpose.

I didn’t realize my views were so unorthodox! You have to understand that most of us didn’t come to believe in God through studying these questions and coming to a logical conclusion, instead it seems obvious to most of us that there must be a creator. So it’s natural that we have different answers to these questions.

They always asserted that our lack of knowledge prevents us from knowing what that higher purpose may be, but from God’s alleged benevolence it clearly follows that pain and suffering can only be allowed if it is compensated by some unspecified “greater good”, which cannot be achieved otherwise.

The pain and suffering that serves no “higher purpose” is gratituous and as such evil.

That position seems hard for them to justify. If I intentionally smash my hand with a hammer, does that pain serve some purpose? Not that I’m aware of. Jesus also said that the rain falls on the just and the unjust, which I take to mean that not every bad thing should be taken as having personal significance.

What you say is different. You say that God allows unnecessary pain and suffering. Essentially you say that God uses some people as teaching implements, and allows their pain and suffering as teaching devices. I am not sure if you have really considered that aspect of what you saying.

Now here comes the funny part. I purposefully amplified the aspect of how impossible it is to say that all suffering is proportional to some “greater good”… and I did not do that before.

Now that I did, and it is obvious that either God constantly interferes with our freedom in order to stop the pain and suffering at the “necessary” level, or trusts the random acts of our nature to somehow prevent unnecessary suffering - now you realize that both are absurd, and as such you started to sing to a different tune - so to speak.

Let’s see if you keep it up now, that I also point out that to use people as teaching devices for the sole purpose of teaching (that harming others for no good reason is immoral…) is not benevolent - it is evil and immoral.

The key that you’re missing is that because of our free will, it isn’t God using suffering to teach. God isn’t inflicting the suffering when one of us harms another. God also isn’t inflicting the suffering when we suffer the natural consequences of turning from God, such as losing the joy that comes from seeing and knowing God. I believe that being separated from God is the source of the pain that Adam and Eve started to feel when they left the garden.

So all suffering is one of three things

1. suffering caused by other people
2. suffering we cause to ourselves
3. suffering from loss of knowing and seeing God

(I suppose there may be other types of suffering, like sickness and dying. I’m not completely sure what to say about that… but I do believe from experience that a close relationship with God relieves suffering)

If you accept that we have free will (and I think that’s the problem, you don’t really accept that we can make choices that aren’t predetermined by our natures, and thereby become responsible for things that happen) then it’s not an action of God. God is allowing it, but not choosing it.

So God is letting us “learn the hard way” what happens when we turn away from him. If we stop listening to him, and if he respects our freedom, that’s the only way we can learn.

 

[Syele]

So you say that each and every suffering (of the elect) is ultimately beneficial to the sufferer (and not to someone else) and that suffering is necessary to achieve that greater good (whatever it is)?

beneficial to the sufferer? yes and often also beneficial to others.
necessary? sometimes. there are times the benefit could come about through an alternate means **if **God were to stop allowing the free-will of humans, but God does not remove our free will. So some suffering may happen as a result of the free-will people have. Everything we do can affect ourselves and those around us.

Let me reiterate the example of that drunkard who beats up his children on a regular basis. His beating is necessary for the children, and they will gain some possible benefit from those beatings, which God could not make possible without those beatings?

Assuming the children are elect, it might not be **necessary but God will ensure that they receive a benefit **for their good as a result if not on this earth than in heaven as rewards.

Furthermore, the beatings are never, ever excessive, rather precisely enough to make that benefit possible, but not more?

enough for what? You cannot beat someone so much that God becomes powerless to make a benefit happen as a result. IF the Drunken father beats the child to death, the child will benefit into eternity and God may use the story of it in a way that stops some other child from getting beaten to death. Drunken Fathers are not more powerful than God. If God says He will make all things benefit for good, then He can and He will.

So for them it is possible to suffer without gaining benefits? God allows them to suffer for no particular purpose?

God chose His elect before the foundation of the earth based on the choice He foresaw they would make for Him or against Him. He gave everyone enough Grace to be able to make that choice and then chose based on responses. This means they chose to NOT be elect. God allows people to make their own choices even if said choices are stupid ones and allow them to suffer for no benefit to them.

And an afterthought: of course you maintain that God is love, God is caring and benevolent? Right?

Yes, but you left out Just.

 

[ateista]

I didn’t realize my views were so unorthodox! You have to understand that most of us didn’t come to believe in God through studying these questions and coming to a logical conclusion, instead it seems obvious to most of us that there must be a creator. So it’s natural that we have different answers to these questions.

Very true, and I am glad to see a new perspective.

The point was in many discussions that God’s alleged benevolence prohibits the existence of unnecessary pain and suffering. The usual example was a doctor, who performs an act which seems to be cruel to the ignorant bystander (cutting deep into the abdomen of some helpless person) but it is known to be beneficial to the ones who understand the need of this seemingly cruel behavior.

We, humans cannot know the reasons, but God does, so we cannot make a true evaluation in our ignorance. If God chose to reveal his reasons, we would understand the need for the inexplicable pain and suffering, just like the ignorant bystander outside the operating room.

A benevolent and just entity will allow pain and suffering inasmuch as it serves some higher purpose, but not one iota more. This simply follows from the concepts of benevolent and just.

So I am surprised to see your take on the subject.

That position seems hard for them to justify. If I intentionally smash my hand with a hammer, does that pain serve some purpose? Not that I’m aware of.

It could be explained. If it is the first time, and you were unaware of the consequences, then you learned to avoid it later. That could be construed as a higher purpose. If you already knew that it will cause pain, then there are two possibilities. One is that this pain has some special significance to you (like some poeple to whip themselves to simulate Christ’s suffering). The other one is that you are crazy.

The key that you’re missing is that because of our free will, it isn’t God using suffering to teach. God isn’t inflicting the suffering when one of us harms another. God also isn’t inflicting the suffering when we suffer the natural consequences of turning from God, such as losing the joy that comes from seeing and knowing God. I believe that being separated from God is the source of the pain that Adam and Eve started to feel when they left the garden.

So you say that the unncessary and gratituous pain inflicted on others is simply punishment for the original sin? Sort of like a “demo” of hell?

So all suffering is one of three things

1. suffering caused by other people
2. suffering we cause to ourselves
3. suffering from loss of knowing and seeing God

(I suppose there may be other types of suffering, like sickness and dying. I’m not completely sure what to say about that… but I do believe from experience that a close relationship with God relieves suffering)

Yes, you did forget the pain and suffering stemming from random natural causes. Those which affect not just “sinful” humans, but also innocent beings like animals. When this was mentioned before, all the posters asserted that it was the result of the original sin. God is “sorry” to see the innocents suffer, but his hands are “tied”, much as he would want to alleviate the suffering of innocents, he cannot do it.

Which is the most outrageous “explaining away” the unexplainable.

Rabbi Kuschner had a wonderful book on the subject: “When bad things happen to good people”. I strongly urge everyone to read it. It is the one and only apologist book I have ever read which deals with the problem of evil in an intellectually honest fashion.

If you accept that we have free will (and I think that’s the problem, you don’t really accept that we can make choices that aren’t predetermined by our natures, and thereby become responsible for things that happen) then it’s not an action of God. God is allowing it, but not choosing it.

Yes, I do accept the true libertarian free will.

So God is letting us “learn the hard way” what happens when we turn away from him. If we stop listening to him, and if he respects our freedom, that’s the only way we can learn.

Which still does not explain the suffering of the animals, nor does it mesh with God’s alleged benevolence and his supposedly “just” nature.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Very true, and I am glad to see a new perspective.

The point was in many discussions that God’s alleged benevolence prohibits the existence of unnecessary pain and suffering. The usual example was a doctor, who performs an act which seems to be cruel to the ignorant bystander (cutting deep into the abdomen of some helpless person) but it is known to be beneficial to the ones who understand the need of this seemingly cruel behavior.

I agree with them that God will teach us through suffering sometimes. I just don’t think it can account for all (or even most) suffering.

So you say that the unncessary and gratituous pain inflicted on others is simply punishment for the original sin? Sort of like a “demo” of hell?

It’s not a punishment, it is the direct consequence of living in a world of people with free will who disobey God. God wants us to love each other, but if we ignore his wish, we hurt each other, and pain results. God could intervene but respects our right to live separated from him if we choose to.

Behind this theory is the idea that we have somehow chosen to separate ourselves from God and live in a fallen world.

It is very much like a demo of hell, in fact hell is by definition separation from God, and we live that to various degrees here in this life. And yes this life allows us time to understand the consequences of choosing to turn towards God (God = love) or to choose our own selfish desires which leads to suffering.

Yes, you did forget the pain and suffering stemming from random natural causes. Those which affect not just “sinful” humans, but also innocent beings like animals. When this was mentioned before, all the posters asserted that it was the result of the original sin. God is “sorry” to see the innocents suffer, but his hands are “tied”, much as he would want to alleviate the suffering of innocents, he cannot do it.

Which is the most outrageous “explaining away” the unexplainable.

Yes, it’s mysterious why there is suffering in this world that isn’t the result of other people’s wrong actions. Why do we have to feel pain before we die, for example? Some suffering is necessary, in fact it can be shown that evolution designed us to suffer to help us learn to avoid situations that are harmful to us. But there are other types of suffering that don’t have a clear explanation like that.

I don’t have a complete explanation, other than, I know that a relationship with God allows us to rise above our suffering. But if it’s meant to teach us that we need God to rise above suffering, then why is it so random? It doesn’t seem that it was designed as a perfect lesson from God, instead natural suffering seems random.

So some categories of suffering have what to me seems like a complete explanation, and one category of suffering only has a partial explanation. But since there are so many answers, I suspect that there is probably an answer to that question as well. Just because I don’t know the complete answer, doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer.

Rabbi Kuschner had a wonderful book on the subject: “When bad things happen to good people”. I strongly urge everyone to read it. It is the one and only apologist book I have ever read which deals with the problem of evil in an intellectually honest fashion.

Would you give us a brief synopsis of how he deals with the problem? I’m very interested in what you consider a good answer to be.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Which still does not explain the suffering of the animals, nor does it mesh with God’s alleged benevolence and his supposedly “just” nature.

Another observation I’ve had about suffering:

Suffering and pleasure seem to be opposite sides of the same coin. Have you noticed that? Someone who has a very hard life will experience great pleasure with the smallest things. Someone who has everything that would make most people happy will experience suffering at what seem to us to be trivialities. Perhaps physical/psychological suffering/joy have to balance out by some biological law.

The exception I’ve noticed to this rule is the joy that comes from knowing God. It’s the one pleasure which isn’t always followed by a sense of loss or emptiness. In my experience. Well maybe the other exception is the joy of having selfless love for others. And if God = love they are really the same thing.

 

[ateista]

beneficial to the sufferer? yes and often also beneficial to others. necessary? sometimes. there are times the benefit could come about through an alternate means **if **God were to stop allowing the free-will of humans, but God does not remove our free will. So some suffering may happen as a result of the free-will people have. Everything we do can affect ourselves and those around us.

If there is just one instance when some suffering is not necessary, then God is not omnibenevolent. Free will does not help you there. He could prevent the unnecessary suffering through some natural means or even through some miracles. Since you (presumably) believe in miracles, every one of them is a violation of free will.

Assuming the children are elect, it might not be **necessary but God will ensure that they receive a benefit **for their good as a result if not on this earth than in heaven as rewards.

Well, apart from bringing in the idea of heaven, which is just an assumption, if any suffering is not necessary then it is gratituous, and allowing such suffering contradicts God’s benevolence.

God chose His elect before the foundation of the earth based on the choice He foresaw they would make for Him or against Him. He gave everyone enough Grace to be able to make that choice and then chose based on responses. This means they chose to NOT be elect. God allows people to make their own choices even if said choices are stupid ones and allow them to suffer for no benefit to them.

Which is again the sign of indifference or even worse. Definitely contradicts God’s “goodness”. To create beings who will “reject” him and then toss them into hell is very cruel - in my book.

Yes, but you left out Just.

I did, because I was hoping you will bring it up. “Justice” is not to punish someone to a greater extent than they deserve, or not to reward someone disproportionately. Allowing undeserved suffering or giving undeserved rewards is capricious and grossly unjust.

Summary: if there is unnecessary suffering, then God is not benevolent, not loving, not caring, and definitely not just. And one more thing, he is not even merciful.

 

[MattS]

I read through page 4, and then this last page, so someone might have already said this in one of the other pages.

The thing you were missing in all those analogies was that God doesn’t take a different track through time or anything, God is outside of time. He isn’t constrained by time, rather He’s an outside viewer of time (that can interact with time as well). With the movie analogy, a decent way to put it would be that God has all the film laid out in front of Him and is able to see all the frames at once.

 

[john_doran]

This can be summarized as such: the freedom we had in the past was contingent upon the lack of existence of its future (our current present).

In other words: even though there were free choices in the past, there **are **no free choices in the past now.

not true, since “X is free” is true of any free choice at any point in time it is made.

“i am now making a free choce” is true of any free choice being made by me whenever i’m making it.

ateista:

If your morning self and your afternoon self would exist simultaneously then the fact that your afternoon self already chose cornflakes makes your morning self’s “choice” a foregone issue.

they don’t exist “simultaneously” - they exist at different times: one in the morning, and one in the afternoon.

In the morning you could not have possibly chosen anything else - even though you may have thought otherwise, you may have been under the illusion that you actually made a choice.

sure i could, and if i had made another choice, there would have been porridge or eggs in my stomach at a later time, instead.

ateista:

If you could have, then it would lead to a logical contradiction - namely that your afternoon self both chose and did not choose cornflakes in the morning. Since the contents of your stomach are the already digested molecules of cornflakes, they cannot be anything else.

there’s no logical contradiction at all: if morning me makes a different choice, afternoon me has different stomach-contents.

 

[ateista]

Would you give us a brief synopsis of how he deals with the problem? I’m very interested in what you consider a good answer to be.

Sure. Actually it will be a good answer for most of the points raised in this dialog.

Let me point out that I don’t find his answer to be “good”, but I find it the “best” I have ever seen from a religious person. I find it intellectually honest.

His son suffered from Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrom, also known as premature aging. It is a very rare disease, the poor kids who suffer from it, age about 5-10 times faster than normal, and die at about age 8-13, and they die of excessive age, like a normal person would at the age of 80 or 90.

Obviously he had to ponder, why such things happen. His son was a good kid, who did not deserve such fate. His son was also aware of his condition, he kew he will die very young, and of course never had a good, carefree childhood. Naturally he also pondered the innumerable similar problems, when good people suffer from a fate they definitely do not deserve.

Rabbi Kushner tried to reconcile the attributes of God: love, caring, omniscience and omnipotence with the suffering (or evil) in the world. He realized that they cannot be reconciled in an intellectually honest fashion, at least one of them cannot be true.

He realized that all the alleged explanations are simply cop-outs, rationalizations, be they an appeal to free will or the original sin, or whatever.

So he chose, and chose to believe that God is loving, caring and all-knowing, but not all-powerful. He believes that God knows about all the suffering, would want to allieviate the suffering, but unable to do it, because God is not omnipotent.

If I recall correctly, he never touches on the subject of why would God create a world with all this suffering. It would have been interesting to see his take on the subject.

This is but a short synopsys. It has been many years since I read his book, but I remember his main reasoning. Nevertheless, I cannot show his engaging style, and all the ideas he touches upon. As I said, I would recommend getting it from the library, and read it for yourself. It is a short book, but very captivating.

 

[ateista]

they don’t exist “simultaneously” - they exist at different times: one in the morning, and one in the afternoon.

And what happened to the special relativity for which you argued? What happened to the Minkowski model? Can an event be “already happened” and “did not happen yet” - viewed from a different coordinate system?

 

[john_doran]

And what happened to the special relativity for which you argued? What happened to the Minkowski model? Can an event be “already happened” and “did not happen yet” - viewed from a different coordinate system?

i’m not sure i follow…this is the minkowski model: all 4 dimensional spatiotemporal co-ordinates exist at those co-ordinates.

the relativity of the model lies in the fact that each observer will slice up the 4D spatiotemporal block in a different way.

philosophically, this is called a “tenseless” view of time.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Obviously he had to ponder, why such things happen. His son was a good kid, who did not deserve such fate. His son was also aware of his condition, he kew he will die very young, and of course never had a good, carefree childhood. Naturally he also pondered the innumerable similar problems, when good people suffer from a fate they definitely do not deserve.

Thanks for the summary.

I wonder what makes one person in this scenario complain that religious ideas are a cop-out and complain that God must not be able to help, while another person in that scenario is thankful that they had a child at all and that Jesus died so that in the resurrection their child will have a glorified body with his illness cured.

 

[Syele]

If there is just one instance when some suffering is not necessary, then God is not omni benevolent. Free will does not help you there.

Actually it does. the alternative to freewill is complete control by God at all times. My Daughter has a doll that eats and plays games and talks to her. It “loves” my Daughter, and tells her often “I Love you!” My dd holds very little love for that doll. the Talking drives her nuts. There is no value to the love the doll holds because the doll has no freewill. The doll did not choose to love anyone, it has no choice but to say it loves its owner. It cannot know what love is. God could have made us all that way, with no choice but to love Him and obey Him in everything, with no idea what the world would be like if people could not choose to not love. That choice would have made it so we never suffer. But then what would the point of our existence be, to amuse our maker for a short time? You cannot conclude that the offering of freewill with the consequence of unnecessary suffering means God does not love us. God provided us with the ability to choose good and encourages us to choose good. He then offers a way out if we don’t choose good and regret it. God does not cause the suffering, he allows it. that allowance is also what allows us to be more than what that doll is to my daughter. To make it so the consequences of our actions never hurt another unnecessarily takes away our free will. Then I could go on murder sprees with the idea that “well God will make it valuable to them! I HELPING them!” What kind of loving God would encourage extra suffering that way? Not an omni benevolent one. To benefit the individual at the expense of all humanity is not benevolent.

He could prevent the unnecessary suffering through some natural means or even through some miracles. Since you (presumably) believe in miracles, every one of them is a violation of free will.

Miracles happen to those who believe and ask for them, so they do not violate freewill. I have seen people healed of diseases. Every one of those people wanted to be healed.

Well, apart from bringing in the idea of heaven, which is just an assumption, if any suffering is not necessary then it is gratituous, and allowing such suffering contradicts God’s benevolence.

My view of God includes Heaven and Hell. You cannot disprove my view of God by assuming heaven does not exist. A God who allows people to live on earth with suffering for a very short time, so they can make a choice about Him… a real choice and not a forced one, so they then live for eternity in a place with no suffering at all is very different from a God who allows people to live ONLY on that same earth with no reward for their choices. People live about 100 years if they are healthy and stay out of danger, 100 years is like a tiny fraction of a second when compared to all eternity. A god with no Heaven is a different god than a god with a heaven.

Which is again the sign of indifference or even worse. Definitely contradicts God’s “goodness”. To create beings who will “reject” him and then toss them into hell is very cruel - in my book.

The alternative is a world where all people are just God puppets. they can make no choices. they have no freewill. They never make mistakes, they never suffer, they cannot comprehend Love because they never know its opposite. What is the point of such a world? To entertain God for a little while? He doesn’t “throw them into hell” He gives a choice, and people CHOOSE it. Scriptures tell us that God doesn’t want any of us to go there.

I did, because I was hoping you will bring it up. “Justice” is not to punish someone to a greater extent than they deserve, or not to reward someone disproportionately. Allowing undeserved suffering or giving undeserved rewards is capricious and grossly unjust.

God does neither of these things. Suffering is not always punishment.

Summary: if there is unnecessary suffering, then God is not benevolent, not loving, not caring, and definitely not just. And one more thing, he is not even merciful.

God chose to give people choices. Giving us choices gave us the power to be somewhat like Him. That choice means some people will choose wrongly. Wrong choices lead to suffering of both the one who chose wrong and others. To remove our ability to choose would make us no different than a child’s toy. To stop all wrong choices to stop suffering is to remove our freewill. God did not give us the ability with no direction, with no teaching, with no way to know which choice is right, that WOULD be cruel. He gave us Guides to follow, offered rewards for those who choose rightly and shows mercy to those who choose wrong and are sorry for their choices.

 

[ateista]

Thanks for the summary.

You are welcome.

I wonder what makes one person in this scenario complain that religious ideas are a cop-out and complain that God must not be able to help…

The excuses in this scenario are a cop-out, a rationalization. It does not mean that all religious explanations are the same.

while another person in that scenario is thankful that they had a child at all and that Jesus died so that in the resurrection their child will have a glorified body with his illness cured.

You cannot know that, you can only hope for that. But even if you are right, the past suffering and anguish of that child cannot be “erased” or “undone” by fixing his body later. God could have fixed his problem while still in the womb, and no one would have known about it. That is what a genuinely loving being would have done.

You see, this type of argument is what I call rationalization. The principle that prior suffering can be compensated by later actions is ludicruous. (Before anyone jumps in: if the suffering was necessary to achieve some good, and there was no other way to do it, then and only then can the suffering be morally justified.) Can a parent make up for an unjust beating by giving a candy later?

 

[ateista]

the alternative to freewill is complete control by God at all times.

You know, I am getting very tired of refuting this argument over and over again.

God can safely leave the freedom to love or reject him alone, and thus the arguably most important decision can be done freely. It is not necessary to give “total” freedom, which we do not have anyway. Our freedom is curtailed by some physical limitations.

God could remove our freedom to cause intentional harm to others and the world would be immensurably better, and we would still be free agents.

Miracles happen to those who believe and ask for them, so they do not violate freewill. I have seen people healed of diseases. Every one of those people wanted to be healed.

A miracle - by definition - is an intrusion into the autonomy of the world. When I ask why God does not help the sufferers, you say because it would be an intrusion and it would invalidate our “freedom”. You can’t have it both ways.

A God who allows people to live on earth with suffering for a very short time, so they can make a choice about Him… a real choice and not a forced one, so they then live for eternity in a place with no suffering at all is very different from a God who allows people to live ONLY on that same earth with no reward for their choices.

Do you have anyone who came back and testified about about this heaven? The reward - if it meant anything should be here and now. Otherwise it is just a promise, and as we all know, promises are cheap.

People live about 100 years if they are healthy and stay out of danger, 100 years is like a tiny fraction of a second when compared to all eternity.

Besides, you downplay the suffering of others by stipulating that this short, nay miniscule existence does not really matter, as compared to the rewards later. Yes, I have heard this argument before, but only from people who did not suffer themselves. I am constantly amazed how well can people endure someone else’s pain, misery and suffering.

He doesn’t “throw them into hell” He gives a choice, and people CHOOSE it.

Show me someone who knowingly, deliberately and intentionally chooses to be tortured for eternity. I am really interested.

Scriptures tell us that God doesn’t want any of us to go there.

The scriptures tell us lots of things and their opposites, too. It also tells us that the value of “pi” is exactly three. If you believe it, it is your business. But please do understand that it is just an ancient collection of wildly unbelievable stories, which are impossible to take seriously, unless someone a-priori believes them.