The Free Will Problem

[Syele]

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

Maybe because we are unconvinced?

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.

The more limited our abilities the less we are capable of understanding. If I never burn my finger because I never was able to see fire, then I cannot fully appreciate any warning that says something is Hot. What honor is there in not causing harm if you didn’t have any capability of it in the first place? A level of understanding is required to make decisions that mean anything.

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.

if someone doesn’t want something and its forced on them it violates their freedom. If they do want something and they get it, it does not. I do not see how this is contradictory.

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.

Read Revelation.And promised from a God who never breaks thema re hardly cheap. If God is limited by human abilities, then He’s not much of a God is he?

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.

Nah this existence DOES matter. It is the place where our decision is made about all of eternity. I’m saying it the time it exists is very very small.

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.

Amazing, you can tell by my faith I never suffered? You know nothing of my life! What an amazingly rude assumption!

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

Naturally they pretend it doesn’t exist, it easier that way.

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.

Scriptures tell us the nature of God. they are not textbooks on math. and as far as pi being 3 it neither says “pi” nor does it claim it is not rounding off. You did learn rounding off in math class, yes? If you are bound and determined they are not to be considered seriously, then why even bother discussing this with people who believe they tell about God?

 

[ateista]

The more limited our abilities the less we are capable of understanding. If I never burn my finger because I never was able to see fire, then I cannot fully appreciate any warning that says something is Hot.

Exactly. And if there is nothing “hot” why would you need that understanding?

What honor is there in not causing harm if you didn’t have any capability of it in the first place? A level of understanding is required to make decisions that mean anything.

We would still be free to love or reject God. And that is the only choice that really matters - according to the apologists.

Read Revelation.And promised from a God who never breaks thema re hardly cheap.

Do you know that the Jews put God on trial and convicted him for breaking his covenant with them? Pretty courageous act, I would say.

Naturally they pretend it doesn’t exist, it easier that way.

Don’t try to wiggle out. Show me one person, who knowingly, deliberately and intentionally chooses to the tortured for eternity. You said that people choose to go to hell. You talk the talk, now show me one example to support your assertion. People do not “choose” to be tortured, they are “thrown in hell” - where the fire is not quenched - to quote Jesus.

Scriptures tell us the nature of God. they are not textbooks on math. and as far as pi being 3 it neither says “pi” nor does it claim it is not rounding off. You did learn rounding off in math class, yes?

The scriptures say to build a circular structure with 10 cubits wall-to-wall with a circumference of 30 cubits. Even if there would be a “rounding off” the circumference would have been 31 cubits. Clearly it was written by very ignorant humans, ignorant even by the standards of their own times. So why take it seriously?

 

[Syele]

Exactly. And if there is nothing “hot” why would you need that understanding?

So let me get this straight, you are saying a loving God would remove all danger from the earth, we never would know even minor things like what Hot is? How is that not removing free-will? You cannot chose something you know nothing about.

We would still be free to love or reject God. And that is the only choice that really matters - according to the apologists.

we wouldn’t. Love is not only an emotion. DO you just love people you know nothing of? How would we know of God? Ever paper can be misused and cause papercuts, and DANG do they hurt. SO no paper or fire or cars (you know how many people die in car accidents?) or planes or buildings (thoise can collapse and hurt people, ya know?) Your Utopia you are painting isn’t sounding all that appealing to me.

Do you know that the Jews put God on trial and convicted him for breaking his covenant with them? Pretty courageous act, I would say.

yep.

Don’t try to wiggle out. Show me one person, who knowingly, deliberately and intentionally chooses to the tortured for eternity. You said that people choose to go to hell. You talk the talk, now show me one example to support your assertion. People do not “choose” to be tortured, they are “thrown in hell” - where the fire is not quenched - to quote Jesus.

You know the teaching on it and you reject it. Rejecting it doesn’t make it go away. If I tell my Daughter “the stove is on, will burn you if you touch it!” She doesn’t have to believe me, but if she disobeys and touches it anyhow it will still burn her. No matter how certain she is that I am wrong.

The scriptures say to build a circular structure with 10 cubits wall-to-wall with a circumference of 30 cubits. Even if there would be a “rounding off” the circumference would have been 31 cubits. Clearly it was written by very ignorant humans, ignorant even by the standards of their own times. So why take it seriously?

As I said, it’s not a math text.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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?

The child got to live for 12 years. God could have given him no life at all. Are you suggesting that the child would have been better off if he hadn’t been born? Does God owe each of us a 70year life? Our lives are a gift, and the worst suffering for this child was probably listening to his parents whine about how terrible his life was.

God doesn’t owe any of us anything.

 

[OTavern]

God does not change - being outside of time - and as such there is no past or present or future for God, so “choice” (free or not) is not applicable.

Imagine space and time to be like a “bubble” inside eternity. Even though God may influence or effect change inside the bubble, these changes need not affect the Eternal nature of God. Being unconstrained by anything within the space/time bubble, God would be “free” of it and free to change anything inside it, but not be essentially altered by it.

In one sense, you are correct that choice is not applicable to God, except that it would appear to beings inside the bubble that God “makes choices” as He “responds” to events within the past-present-future of the space/time continuum.

While the inside of the space-time bubble could be a “dynamic” place with God responding in a timely manner “consistent” with His unchanging Nature (the dynamic arena inside the bubble would be directly the result of the unchangeableness of God interacting with the “free causative agents” inside).

…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…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.

Assume that every action of each individual free will, your “causative agent,” has an infinite chain of repercussions upon each and every physical/social/emotional being so affected (including possible effects to the genetic makeup of all the following generations of human beings). God would need to consider not just immediate effects (like suffering), but a “widely cast net” of subsequent effects including the entire post-event web of consequences all the way along the space and time continuum.

If therefore God must take into account all the repercussions of our actions on all co-existing and future generations, how could you possibly know what a “genuinely loving being” would do? A genuinely loving, outside of space-time, eternal Being would have to keep an infinite web of effects in mind, along with anticipating the responses of a multitude of free causative agents, to do His job well. How can you even pretend to judge God from your individual, limited perspective within the space time bubble?

Imagine a book written by an author where the characters inside the story “self-determine” the story as it is written; the author does not merely create the characters, but allows them to create themselves and subsequent events as the story unfolds. The story is not completely scripted, contexts and settings are established but characters ad lib, so to speak. The author (God) may have a consistent intent to “make the best story” and respond during the writing of the book to every act of the free agents inside the story by dynamically creating events in anticipation of how each of these additions will carry the story to the best possible ending, given the freedom of the characters to be “partners” in determining the end. The author would continually be aided or rebuffed by certain protagonists and antagonists within the story as it unfolds.

When the story finally comes to completion (the space time bubble terminates) then God, the author, would know the result and in some sense have 'brought it about" but always at every instance having respected the freedom of each agent within the context of the story to “play their part” while adjusting circumstances for maximal growth and benefit to all present and future characters in the story.

Bear in mind that the Author resolved prior to encapsulating the story within the setting of space and time that this story would best be written in “partnership” with all the characters in order to have the “lively quality” to it that a simply “determined” one by the author would not have.

Remember, too, that the Author would have the “best ending” always in mind and would continually be adding elements in every chapter with the final, not proximate, goal of writing the best story.

Ateista, as a character in chapter 27, might question the Author’s intent in adding certain events into this chapter, say a birth defect, but Ateista has only a certain vantage point and cannot see the overall story and the effects of this particular event on the final outcome. From Ateista’s limited perspective, the birth defect inflicted on one child is simply unforgivable and irreconcilable with a “good” author, but Ateista does not have access to the story overview, so how can he be in a position to make such a judgement?

The “past suffering and anguish of that child cannot be “erased” or “undone” by fixing his body later,” however what if the sufferings and anguish of that child have meaningful and crucial impacts on subsequent events all the way through the story that will be revealed when the story reaches its final conclusion. This is not the mere “fixing” of his body, but of bringing about a final resolution.

What if the anguished child plays a critical role in bringing others to a certain understanding that leads to immense good much later in the story? Would you yourself tolerate some suffering to be the agent of great good? What if you didn’t know the final outcome while suffering but came to understand later on?

Suppose also, that part of the unfolding of the story is for the author to get all the characters “on side,” to bring about “happily ever after.” What if the story will not end until all are “onside?” What if some choose deliberately to refuse to “ever” be onside? What then?

Perhaps the Author simply “closes” the book, terminates the space-time continuum and leaves the rebellious characters in the darkened non-existence of sealed space-time. Paradise lost.

 

[ateista]

So let me get this straight, you are saying a loving God would remove all danger from the earth, we never would know even minor things like what Hot is? How is that not removing free-will? You cannot chose something you know nothing about.

Exactly, he should. That is what a loving creator would do. Do you give a chance to your child to poke a wire into a live socket? No, you remove the wires, and cover the sockets, so he cannot accidentally electrocute himself.

we wouldn’t. Love is not only an emotion. DO you just love people you know nothing of?

Love is an emotion, which should manifest itself in deeds, otherwise it is just an emtpy word. And I am unable to feel emotions (love or hate) toward those people I know nothing about.

How would we know of God?

I don’t know anything about him as a first hand experience. I don’t think you do either.

Ever paper can be misused and cause papercuts, and DANG do they hurt. SO no paper or fire or cars (you know how many people die in car accidents?) or planes or buildings (thoise can collapse and hurt people, ya know?)

Paper cuts? Our skin could be stronger. Cars? It is easy to devise anti-collision gizmos. Some are already there, though still too expensive. Buildings collapse if they are made of inferior materials.

Your Utopia you are painting isn’t sounding all that appealing to me.

Interesting. So you prefer the world with rapists, murderers, torturers, embezzlers… You have some strange taste, my friend.

You know the teaching on it and you reject it.

Hogwash. I only know that some people believe in some ancient text, which is choke-full of absurdities and contradictions. That is what I know. I also know that even those who believe it cannot agree which parts should be taken **literally **and which parts should be interpreted **allegorically **and then cannot agree how to interpret those parts.

And this is the “teaching” I should base my whole life upon? And if I make a “mistake”, I will not get a friendly warning from above? One strike and you are out? And that is how a “loving” creator behaves?

So let’s get to the bottom of this: “No person has ever knowingly, deliberately chosen to be tortured forever”.

Therefore your choice of word: “CHOOSE” is a deliberate misdirection to explain away the fact that God created some people, about whom he knew that they will make some choices that God does not like. God did not take pains to tell them what those choices are, did not tell them what the consequnces will be. And then he will “reward” their ignorant actions with eternal punishment.

And that is the God who is loving, caring, forgiving, just and merciful. Whoa!

Rejecting it doesn’t make it go away.

Accepting it does not make it real.

If I tell my Daughter “the stove is on, will burn you if you touch it!” She doesn’t have to believe me, but if she disobeys and touches it anyhow it will still burn her. No matter how certain she is that I am wrong.

If you are a loving parent then you gently hold her hand and carefully move it closer to the hot surface so she will feel the heat without burning her. And while doing it, you explain the consequences, in plain simple words which she can understand. Furthermore, you guard that stove and make it impossible for her to touch it accidently.

Only a callous, uncaring parent leaves the stove on and “tells” the child not to touch it.

As I said, it’s not a math text.

That is no excuse. If it is the word of God, on which we must rely, then there is absolutely no excuse to have **any errors **in it.

 

[ateista]

The child got to live for 12 years. God could have given him no life at all. Are you suggesting that the child would have been better off if he hadn’t been born?

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.

Does God owe each of us a 70year life? Our lives are a gift, and the worst suffering for this child was probably listening to his parents whine about how terrible his life was.

God doesn’t owe any of us anything.

I disagree. If we consider the parent-child analogy, then we can conclude that the parents owe that child safety, health, food, shelter. It is their absolute duty toward that child, whom they brought into existence, without the child’s consent.

This is their unshakeable duty until the child becomes like their parents.

Using that analogy God owes us everything all the way up until we become adults - that is until we become like him, until we become gods ourselves. That is God’s duty, if the parent-child analogy applies.

If that analogy is not applicable, then we are just God’s pets. And in that case he owes us good care just like any person owes that care toward a pet.

God’s responsibilty cannot be shrugged off.

 

[ateista]

If therefore God must take into account all the repercussions of our actions on all co-existing and future generations, how could you possibly know what a “genuinely loving being” would do? A genuinely loving, outside of space-time, eternal Being would have to keep an infinite web of effects in mind, along with anticipating the responses of a multitude of free causative agents, to do His job well. How can you even pretend to judge God from your individual, limited perspective within the space time bubble?

I just chose a snippet to redisplay, but that is just to save bandwidth.

Before I go any further, let me ask your opinion. From your post it seems that you think that every instance of suffering we observe there must be a higher purpose that would explain its necessity to us, if only we would be aware of it? That is my impression, but I would like to know for sure.

Once I know your view, I will return and give a detailed answer.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.

I disagree. If we consider the parent-child analogy, then we can conclude that the parents owe that child safety, health, food, shelter. It is their absolute duty toward that child, whom they brought into existence, without the child’s consent.

This is their unshakeable duty until the child becomes like their parents.

Using that analogy God owes us everything all the way up until we become adults - that is until we become like him, until we become gods ourselves. That is God’s duty, if the parent-child analogy applies.

If that analogy is not applicable, then we are just God’s pets. And in that case he owes us good care just like any person owes that care toward a pet.

God’s responsibilty cannot be shrugged off.

Oh my goodness… I think I’m starting to understand the atheist mind… they’re people who disapprove of God and think they could do better. And make demands on God.

I really believe that logic can’t prove or disprove God, and that the logic will only help us ‘defend’ to whatever our personalities or attitudes predetermine that we will believe.

 

[ateista]

Oh my goodness… I think I’m starting to understand the atheist mind… they’re people who disapprove of God and think they could do better. And make demands on God.

Well, not really. Atheists do not believe that God (or any gods) exists. We have to go by what the believers say about God. That is the only source of information we have.

And we find those descriptions and attributes self-contradictory and at odds with what those word and phrases mean and seriously inconsistent with the world as we know it.

If you would say that you believe that God is cruel and uncaring, then at least what you say would be substantiated by the state of affairs we all can observe in reality.

I am not making demands on God. How could I? I merely try to point out to the apologists that their claims do not mesh with reality, and as such they cannot be accepted.

I really believe that logic can’t prove or disprove God, and that the logic will only help us ‘defend’ to whatever our personalities or attitudes predetermine that we will believe.

Don’t forget the indoctrination since childhood, when the critical skills are nil, and the authority of the parents is absolute. I experienced it in a mild form, and still took me a long time to see how absurd those teachings are.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, not really. Atheists do not believe that God (or any gods) exists. We have to go by what the believers say about God. That is the only source of information we have.

And we find those descriptions and attributes self-contradictory and at odds with what those word and phrases mean and seriously inconsistent with the world as we know it.

If you would say that you believe that God is cruel and uncaring, then at least what you say would be substantiated by the state of affairs we all can observe in reality.

I am not making demands on God. How could I? I merely try to point out to the apologists that their claims do not mesh with reality, and as such they cannot be accepted.

If you ultimately see the world as a bad thing, then your logic makes perfect sense. If you see the metaphorical glass of milk as half empty, I suppose you could spend your life complaining that the hypothetical God stole half your milk. And none of the explanations will be good enough.

Those of us who see the glass as half full, and as half a glass more then we ever deserved, don’t need a perfect explanation, we’re just thankful and trying to find out who it is we should give our thanks to.

Don’t forget the indoctrination since childhood, when the critical skills are nil, and the authority of the parents is absolute. I experienced it in a mild form, and still took me a long time to see how absurd those teachings are.

Every generation learns to see things differently than their parents, and even enjoy rebelling. Yet each generation comes back to the idea that there is meaning to life and there must be a God.

 

[OTavern]

Before I go any further, let me ask your opinion. From your post it seems that you think that every instance of suffering we observe there must be a higher purpose that would explain its necessity to us, if only we would be aware of it? That is my impression, but I would like to know for sure.

Once I know your view, I will return and give a detailed answer.

With ominous foreboding… that I am about to be picked apart like a dove by a hawkish foe, I am in. :doh2:

Keep in mind that I “ain’t the Nazz… just a buzz, some kinda temporary” so I do not have access to the “big” picture either, I can only speculate to understand in my own limited way.

Yes, every instance of suffering must have a higher purpose, but that cannot be known, to us, until the sequential space time continuum comes to resolution. God, being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent would only allow suffering to come about given it is the best option considering all subsequent possible events.

Since, being omniscient, similar to a master chess player, he could foresee, all consequent “possible” events, but given emerging free agency he would have to wait for events determined by free agency “in time” to “play out.”

“Sin” or evil chosen freely and willfully by beings “in time” add complications, since God can only make the best of what has been chosen by human agency. Much suffering is directly connected to choices made by agents other than God, He can only make the best of a bad situation.

Events would only proceed once “allowed” by God. Perhaps the relativity within time and space is related to this “playing out” of freely determined choices “in time.”

I would even venture to claim that the time “continuum” is only necessary because of “free will” on the part of “emerging” beings – beings who have not fully “become.” A uni-directional sequence of events in time is only necessary to allow this development into “Being.”

Eternal time could in fact be multi-dimensional but constrained into the “sequential” format we experience because we need time to freely “become,” to determine ourselves “in reality,” through emerging free will.

Space-time could in fact be a kind of incubator for human and perhaps other forms of free agency – a capsule or bubble in eternity that limits the effects of evil to a “temporary” state which can be dissipated and rendered innocuous in Eternity. This would explain the “transitory” sense of existence we feel “in our bones.”

 

[ateista]

If you ultimately see the world as a bad thing, then your logic makes perfect sense. If you see the metaphorical glass of milk as half empty, I suppose you could spend your life complaining that the hypothetical God stole half your milk. And none of the explanations will be good enough.

But I don’t see the world as a “bad thing”, I see it less good than it could be - if there was a caring deity. As a matter of fact, I see huge progress - in general, not in every detail. I believe that the “good old times are today”. However all that good and change comes from us, from hard working people. God makes no contribution - one that we could recognize as such.

When I contemplate a new drug, which will alleviate a lot of suffering, I think that the same drug could have been made available a few years before - through some undetectable act of God - and then even more suffering could have been avoided.

Those of us who see the glass as half full, and as half a glass more then we ever deserved, don’t need a perfect explanation, we’re just thankful and trying to find out who it is we should give our thanks to.

If so, then give your thanks to the scientists and the manufacturers. They are the ones who provide that half-full glass.

But I know what you mean. Every year at Thanksgiving Dear Abby publishes the same column. Its essence is: no matter how bad you are off, be thankful, because it could be worse. That is the disposition which is utterly alien to me.

You mention: “more then we ever deserved” and that makes me very sad indeed. The whole worldview you present is so self-deprecating, so hopeless. You view yourselves as despicable sinners, who have no hope to get out of your predicament - unless God will lend a helping hand, through some special “grace”. And to get that you must lower yourselves on your knees and beg for forgiveness. Even though you might lead an exemplary life, always strive to be good, to do good, helping others, all that is not enough. You cannot be saved by works alone.

No wonder that one of the seven deadly sins is “pride”. What can Christianity offer to those who look in the mirror and take pride in what they see? Who do not see a despicable sinner, rather someone who works hard for themselves and others, who strive to make this existence better?

None of that “really” matters to you. After all this existence has no meaning in and by itself, it is merely a preparatory stage, to get some unspecified bliss later on.

Every generation learns to see things differently than their parents, and even enjoy rebelling. Yet each generation comes back to the idea that there is meaning to life and there must be a God.

When you say that God gives meaning to this life, you are mistaken. This life has plenty of meaning in and by itself.

What you should say is that God gives meaning to death. Death has no meaning for me, life does.

 

[ateista]

With ominous foreboding… that I am about to be picked apart like a dove by a hawkish foe, I am in. :doh2:

My dear friend, I absolutely no intention to pick you apart.

Yes, every instance of suffering must have a higher purpose, but that cannot be known, to us, until the sequential space time continuum comes to resolution. God, being omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent would only allow suffering to come about given it is the best option considering all subsequent possible events.

I agree with your analysis. (How is that for “picking you apart”? ) I think that allowing unnecessary suffering would be evil. So we are perfectly synchronized.

I accept that we - not having the full picture - can only make tentative value judgments which may or may not be correct. Now, of course, there is nothing new there. We never have a “full picture” in any case. When we look at a criminal act, we act on incomplete information. Nevertheless, we must make value judgments, being fully aware that we might be wrong.

So, first observation: you (in general not specifically you) assert that God is good. That is a value judgment. You make it on incomplete information. When I express doubt, I also make a value judgment. Still, many times I was castigated: “How DARE you say that God is not good, you despicable lump of dirt… etc.”. So my question is: “why are you allowed to make positive judgments and I am not allowed to make negative ones?”.

My next little observation is of the practical kind. As you say, the evil acts are only allowed as long as they serve some later good. Nevertheless we see seemingly random acts of violence, for example a drunken father beating his children.

How does God make sure that this person will stop when the “correct” amount of suffering was administered? Mind you, if he would kick one less, the suffering would be insufficient, if he kicked one more it would be unneccessary. We deal here with precise amounts of pain and suffering. And I am not being a smartypants.

If we agree that suffering must serve a higher purpose, we must also agree that the pain must be necessary but not excessive. It makes no sense to say that “approximately this much pain is needed”. “Approximately” just does not cut it. After all we deal with something that is unfortunate, but necessary.

I see two ways of doing it. Either God uses some unkown means to directly interfere with the person’s “free will”, or he leaves it to random chance. Needless to say, if he leaves it to random chance, the probabilities that each beating, each rape, each torture will stop at the mathematically precise moment, when the necessary pain and suffering is reached - is infinitesimal. The only way God can ensure that the pain and suffering is never excessive, if he personally interferes and restricts the person’s free will - which is allegedly something God never does.

I see no solution to this dilemma. Do you?

 

[OTavern]

Still, many times I was castigated: “How DARE you say that God is not good, you despicable lump of dirt… etc.”. So my question is: “why are you allowed to make positive judgments and I am not allowed to make negative ones?”.

I think if your analysis is an attempt to understand, with all sincerity, why evil exists – while I can’t speak for God – I suspect you are forgiven. On the other hand, given all the infinite considerations, I also suspect we need to give God the “benefit of the doubt” so to speak and be patient for the time when all will be absolutely resolved at the end of the space time continuum.

There are all kinds of cautions against making hasty judgements in Scripture. I think that may be because hasty judgements, like despair, anger and hate, tend to determine a course of action which may lead to their own messy consequences. Best not to insert a judgement, or give in to despair, hate or anger, but always act assuming circumstances will be resolved by God in the end – to detach ourselves from the situation. If we insert our own “God-judgements” – like someone calling another “you despicable lump of dirt” –perhaps these are counter-productive in themselves.

My next little observation is of the practical kind. As you say, the evil acts are only allowed as long as they serve some later good. Nevertheless we see seemingly random acts of violence, for example a drunken father beating his children.

How does God make sure that this person will stop when the “correct” amount of suffering was administered? Mind you, if he would kick one less, the suffering would be insufficient, if he kicked one more it would be unneccessary.

I think this is where human free agency as a reality and God’s will clash. Free agency, and therefore, personal identity (which is, I suspect, ontologically dependent upon free agency) must be respected by God. God may be working internally within each involved party (conscience, spiritual promptings, etc.) and trying to “manipulate” external reality to bring about a cessation of the beating, but must then turn to “adjusting” the resulting world to make the best of the situation.

If we agree that suffering must serve a higher purpose, we must also agree that the pain must be necessary but not excessive. It makes no sense to say that “approximately this much pain is needed”. “Approximately” just does not cut it. After all we deal with something that is unfortunate, but necessary.

I see two ways of doing it. Either God uses some unkown means to directly interfere with the person’s “free will”, or he leaves it to random chance. Needless to say, if he leaves it to random chance, the probabilities that each beating, each rape, each torture will stop at the mathematically precise moment, when the necessary pain and suffering is reached - is infinitesimal. The only way God can ensure that the pain and suffering is never excessive, if he personally interferes and restricts the person’s free will - which is allegedly something God never does.

I see no solution to this dilemma. Do you?

Since human free agency, and therefore personal identity, and must be respected by God, and since He must also be limited in the manner of His interference (promptings of conscience, guilt or other emotions, grace, surrounding circumstances and prompts to other amenable agents, etc.), there may be a time that as a last recourse He will bring about the termination of the “evil agent.” This would mean he simply brings the agent to death.

That does not entail death is always due to irreconcilable and irreparable evil in the agent, but in some cases this might be the case. However, death could also be a merciful act where the agent is spared, by God, from further external evil as a last resort. The implications of this would also be far-reaching. Is that agent then removed from space and time? To where? Some state such as Purgatory where they retain free agency, but may continue to be “formed” to their final end, but under different circumstances, perhaps.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

The only evidence you offer to support your claim is apealling to an unspecified authority. This isn’t very convicing, both because it is unspecified and they can still easily be wrong. Would you believe in God soley because Aquinas and Augustine did so? Can you explain to me the basis for your belief?

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.

Maybe my eyes are decieving me and I am actually placing my hand in an electrical field on an alien spacecraft or something like that. Sounds crazy, but maybe Neo would have said the same thing before he took the red pill…

The essence of EAAN is that if their is not an intelligence behind our creation, there is no reason to assume that the cluster of neurons that make up our mind is capable to coming to accurately percieve the truth about reality or philosophical ideas. Being able to correctly understand the world is not necessary for survival, for most animals seem to do fine without it. ** I see no reason to think that evolution has gone far beyond what is necessary and given us a mind that is capable of always understanding reality perfectly.**
Unless, of course, you bring intelligence into the equation. Darwin himself asked, “Who would trust in the convinctions of a monkey’s mind”.

I am going to challenge your assertation that only what exists can be known in the next few days by discussing the distinction between essence and existence. I am still preparing it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If so, then give your thanks to the scientists and the manufacturers. They are the ones who provide that half-full glass.

But I know what you mean. Every year at Thanksgiving Dear Abby publishes the same column. Its essence is: no matter how bad you are off, be thankful, because it could be worse. That is the disposition which is utterly alien to me.

You mention: “more then we ever deserved” and that makes me very sad indeed. The whole worldview you present is so self-deprecating, so hopeless. You view yourselves as despicable sinners, who have no hope to get out of your predicament - unless God will lend a helping hand, through some special “grace”. And to get that you must lower yourselves on your knees and beg for forgiveness. Even though you might lead an exemplary life, always strive to be good, to do good, helping others, all that is not enough. You cannot be saved by works alone.

No wonder that one of the seven deadly sins is “pride”. What can Christianity offer to those who look in the mirror and take pride in what they see? Who do not see a despicable sinner, rather someone who works hard for themselves and others, who strive to make this existence better?

None of that “really” matters to you. After all this existence has no meaning in and by itself, it is merely a preparatory stage, to get some unspecified bliss later on.

…

When you say that God gives meaning to this life, you are mistaken. This life has plenty of meaning in and by itself.

What you should say is that God gives meaning to death. Death has no meaning for me, life does.

There are so many misunderstandings of what it means to be Christian here. But they’re off-topic, and I’m not sure whether you really see Christianity that way, or if this is a polemical one-sided description to make a point? I’ll just briefly address the points and let me know if you think they’re worth discussion in another thread;

1. By deserving nothing, I mean that we could have never been created at all, and that would not have been an injustice. Even if our lives have problems, they are a wonderful unearned gift.
2. The sin of pride is all about the natural human tendency to see one’s own accomplishments as far greater than other people’s accomplishments, even if they aren’t objectively greater. But when we really have a useful gift, the Christian attitude is that we have to put it to use to glorify Christ through it, and even be ready to show it off.
3. My faith really does give meaning to my life. It’s when I’m suffering that I turn to God to find help. And it’s not just about looking forward to happiness in a future life, God truly can become our friend and give us great happiness in this life in situations that objectively are terrible.

 

[Sarpedon]

Maybe my eyes are decieving me and I am actually placing my hand in an electrical field on an alien spacecraft or something like that. Sounds crazy, but maybe Neo would have said the same thing before he took the red pill…

I just want to clarify that the Church teaches realism, that we do percieve truth through our senses. This is what I believe. The problem is that I see no reason to believe that realism is true without an intelligence programming our minds that way.

 

[ateista]

The only evidence you offer to support your claim is apealling to an unspecified authority.

Sorry, my friend, you lost me. In the post you replied I actually gave an example that the same “thing” can be perceived differently from two vantage points.

I am going to challenge your assertation that only what exists can be known in the next few days by discussing the distinction between essence and existence. I am still preparing it.

I will be happy to read it.

Please keep in mind that I use the word “knowledge” as having information about something. Information presupposes a source, a recipient and a cummunication channel. If either one of these is “missing” we cannot speak coherently about “knowledge”.

 

[ateista]

There are so many misunderstandings of what it means to be Christian here. But they’re off-topic, and I’m not sure whether you really see Christianity that way, or if this is a polemical one-sided description to make a point? I’ll just briefly address the points and let me know if you think they’re worth discussion in another thread;

I am always glad to have a conversaton with you. I don’t know if you are aware that I used to be Christian myself. Not a Catholic, and not a devout one. But I believed, until I saw no reason to believe any longer. So I do know what Christianty teaches. Been there, done it, have the t-shirt to prove it.

1. By deserving nothing, I mean that we could have never been created at all, and that would not have been an injustice. Even if our lives have problems, they are a wonderful unearned gift.

Of course it would not have been an injustice. So far I agree with you. I strongly disagree with the second part. You cannot do anything for someone who does not exist. Existence - in and by itself - cannot be said to be always a positive “thing”. How would you substantiate this assertion?

1. The sin of pride is all about the natural human tendency to see one’s own accomplishments as far greater than other people’s accomplishments, even if they aren’t objectively greater. But when we really have a useful gift, the Christian attitude is that we have to put it to use to glorify Christ through it, and even be ready to show it off.

I never saw a qualification there. Pride is always said to be a sin - a mortal one.

1. My faith really does give meaning to my life. It’s when I’m suffering that I turn to God to find help. And it’s not just about looking forward to happiness in a future life, God truly can become our friend and give us great happiness in this life in situations that objectively are terrible.

I can’t argue about that, because I am not qualified.