The Overwatch Problem

[Phage0070]

This is what I view as an interesting apologetics question revolving around a heavily adapted version of “The Problem of Evil”. I am interested in hearing some different responses to this quandary.

---

Before getting into the meat of the question, there are a few basic premises to discuss. Disagreement in these premises will most likely derail the discussion of the question, but those objections will be interesting conversation as well. The first premise is the relationship between free will and worldly action. My view is that we, and God in the spiritual context, consider them to be two distinct things that may or may not occur in tandem. For example:

1. A paraplegic’s inability to move their legs and walk prevents them from taking the worldly action of walking, but it does not restrict their free will to desire or intend to walk. It only effects the success of those intentions.
2. My inability to fly like Superman does not restrict or remove my free will to desire or intend such action. It only effects the success of those intentions.
3. A rapist’s free will intent to rape someone is judged by God independently of their success in achieving that goal in the world; even if prevented for whatever reason from actually going through with it, the sinful intent “counts”.
4. Equivalently, someone with pure intent to behave as God intends cannot be faulted for being forced to do evil, or prevented to do good, by events in the material world. Indeed, judgment may lie entirely within intention rendering worldly events a side issue.

The conclusion here is that the physical world cannot be considered a barrier to the exercise of free will, only a barrier to the physical manifestation of that will.

---

The second premise is that there are sins of commission, and sins of omission. Committing an evil action is of course ethically unacceptable, but it is also unethical for one to fail to take action in preventing an evil action if possible. For example:

Suppose there is a hypothetical evil action about to take place; the rape in the previous examples for instance. There is a third party individual observing this occurrence and presented with a button that will 100% stop the evil action from taking place, with no harm to the third party or either party involved in the rape itself. There is also no direct consequence to the third party for simply walking away; the rapist or victim will never know, and no worldly penalty will be levied.

My view is that the ability to stop or effect the evil action places the third party firmly on the “moral playing field” so to speak. The third party in no way excuses or reduces the responsibility of the rapist for their actions, but failure to take action to prevent the evil act would be unethical.

This is of course an idealized example, where in reality the attempt to stop such an act would carry significant danger and uncertainty to the third party. With increasing danger and uncertainty the ethical responsibility for inaction of the third party may be expected to decrease somewhat, the level of which likely being subject to differences in opinion, but the idealized instance seems clear.

The conclusion is that failure to take a zero-risk action to prevent evil action is unethical.

---

Now we get to the question itself:

1. If God is omniscient, he is a witness to every evil action ever attempted, or to be attempted in the future.
2. If God is omnipotent, he has access to a zero-risk decision to prevent said evil actions. Doing so would not be a violation of the free will of anyone, and would be effectively moot with regard to his judgment of those involved.
3. Evil actions have taken place, and continue to take place on a daily basis.

Conclusion: God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not completely ethical.

Thoughts?
(PS: As a side note, I would like to preempt the inevitable “God needs that evil to bring out the good in people,” response. This is unconvincing to me because it means God’s plan requires the commission of evil acts; behaving ethically would paradoxically in some cases be contrary to God’s will. Being omnipotent God would be able to create a plan that didn’t require evil actions, and his hatred of sin would seem to demand such a thing.)

 

[stephe1987]

I believe premise #2 is false. God interfering like that would, in fact, violate free will of the humans.

Intent to do something is a sin, yes, but not as great of a sin as actually committing said sin. Sometimes, people change their minds at the last minute. They may intend to do something horrible and then “chicken out.” People can also have passing thoughts, “what if’s” of sorts, which are also not sins. Venial, at best, but not a mortal sin that will break one’s friendship with God if left unrepented.

This life is testing people to see who chooses to do what is right. Sometimes there are people who stop us, laws and punishments, physical handicaps, etc. Of course humans are supposed to help prevent crime, etc. That is part of our test: Do we help those in need, or do we ignore them? How do we punish criminals? Are we fair and just in their trial? Do we properly help victims? We can choose to do what God tells us to do in the Bible (i.e. Heaven, living in God’s presence, etc.), or we can choose to go against Him (i.e. Hell, the eternal absence of God, etc.).

On another note, such a blatant act “stopping” someone would without a doubt “prove” the existence of God. Another aspect of “free will” is that we can choose to believe or not believe. God is leaving things “up in the air” a little, and thank goodness: if we sin, we can be forgiven, repent, change our belief system, etc. In fact, many people go through several different phases before finally settling on what they believe as middle-aged and older adults. With angels, who have direct access to God (who know for certain that He exists), their choices are for some reason permanent. Lucifer rejected God and can never go back to Him, even if he someday realizes the error of his ways. Humans are lucky in that respect. Free will is a gift, but it’s also a curse because we can choose to do terrible things. God will not “force” us to go to Heaven, choose what is right, etc.

We also have to remember that this life is temporary. Some people have horrible things happen to them. But look at the grand scheme of time. Our lifetimes are infinitely small compared to eternity. Life does not last forever and it will be over before we know it. People are born every day, and people die every day. This life is not intended to be permanent.

I believe God lets things play out, only interfering in very small ways if at all (hence, the saying “look for God in small things”), and lets humans make their own choices during this life. When this life is over, humans will be judged on the choices they make.

If you have further questions on these “problems,” I suggest you look at the questions on this website: godandscience.org/apologetics/criticisms_evil_suffering.html
This one is particularly relevant to your question: godandscience.org/apologetics/evil_free_will.html

 

[paul_c]

I believe premise #2 is false. God interfering like that would, in fact, violate free will of the humans.

Intent to do something is a sin, yes, but not as great of a sin as actually committing said sin. Sometimes, people change their minds at the last minute. They may intend to do something horrible and then “chicken out.” People can also have passing thoughts, “what if’s” of sorts, which are also not sins. Venial, at best, but not a mortal sin that will break one’s friendship with God if left unrepented.

This life is testing people to see who chooses to do what is right. Sometimes there are people who stop us, laws and punishments, physical handicaps, etc. Of course humans are supposed to help prevent crime, etc. That is part of our test: Do we help those in need, or do we ignore them? How do we punish criminals? Are we fair and just in their trial? Do we properly help victims? We can choose to do what God tells us to do in the Bible (i.e. Heaven, living in God’s presence, etc.), or we can choose to go against Him (i.e. Hell, the eternal absence of God, etc.).

On another note, such a blatant act “stopping” someone would without a doubt “prove” the existence of God. Another aspect of “free will” is that we can choose to believe or not believe. God is leaving things “up in the air” a little, and thank goodness: if we sin, we can be forgiven, repent, change our belief system, etc. In fact, many people go through several different phases before finally settling on what they believe as middle-aged and older adults. With angels, who have direct access to God (who know for certain that He exists), their choices are for some reason permanent. Lucifer rejected God and can never go back to Him, even if he someday realizes the error of his ways. Humans are lucky in that respect. Free will is a gift, but it’s also a curse because we can choose to do terrible things. God will not “force” us to go to Heaven, choose what is right, etc.

We also have to remember that this life is temporary. Some people have horrible things happen to them. But look at the grand scheme of time. Our lifetimes are infinitely small compared to eternity. Life does not last forever and it will be over before we know it. People are born every day, and people die every day. This life is not intended to be permanent.

I believe God lets things play out, only interfering in very small ways if at all (hence, the saying “look for God in small things”), and lets humans make their own choices during this life. When this life is over, humans will be judged on the choices they make.

If you have further questions on these “problems,” I suggest you look at the questions on this website: godandscience.org/apologetics/criticisms_evil_suffering.html
This one is particularly relevant to your question: godandscience.org/apologetics/evil_free_will.html

Well said.

I agree with you and add the point that God doesn’t see life the say way the OP does. Life IS a test as you said. Could god keep “bad” things from happening? Sure he can. We believe he does that in heaven. But life isn’t heaven, not is it meant to be. Its a time of trial to see whether we will choose God or separate outselves from good and all kinds of situations are needed to fully test that out, both the good and the bad. Most if not all people will be tested by the good and the bad, success and failure, good health and bad health. Christ suffered and so will all of us. Its how we react to these things that matter. Do we continue to persevere in love, or do we turn to bitterness and hate if things go poorly or conversely, arrogance if things go well for us?

 

[momor]

Well said.

I agree with you and add the point that God doesn’t see life the say way the OP does. Life IS a test as you said. Could god keep “bad” things from happening? Sure he can. We believe he does that in heaven. But life isn’t heaven, not is it meant to be. Its a time of trial to see whether we will choose God or separate outselves from good and all kinds of situations are needed to fully test that out, both the good and the bad. Most if not all people will be tested by the good and the bad, success and failure, good health and bad health. Christ suffered and so will all of us. Its how we react to these things that matter. Do we continue to persevere in love, or do we turn to bitterness and hate if things go poorly or conversely, arrogance if things go well for us?

How true. And the good life can be just as much of a test as suffering. When all is going well and we are on top of the world it is hard to remember our need to be humble and accept our limitations and offer ourselves to God. Those who suffer see this much more clearly.

 

[Phage0070]

I believe premise #2 is false. God interfering like that would, in fact, violate free will of the humans.
…
Intent to do something is a sin, yes, but not as great of a sin as actually committing said sin.

Then how do you explain that the application of our free will is constantly violated in such a manner? Our capacity to sin if our free will was allowed unfettered reign in the material world would be much higher than it is now; for instance that flash of anger when someone cuts you off while driving where you wished you had laser eye-beams (silly hypothetical example).

If it is the case that God restricting our actions violates our free will, then God constantly violates our free will in a seemingly arbitrary way.

Furthermore, the position that actually committing the physical act of the sin is worthy of more punishment doesn’t excuse God for his involvement. God acting immorally with the goal of allowing humans to dig themselves a deeper hole sinfully speaking still proves the conclusion correct.

On another note, such a blatant act “stopping” someone would without a doubt “prove” the existence of God.

I’m not sure I agree on this point either. My free will to fly like superman is stopped in such a way as to appear perfectly natural, as is my potential for sinning in ways that would require super powers. I am confident that God could prevent our physical actions in such a manner as to remain unprovable that God intervened; after all, it is God we are talking about.

 

[paul_c]

Then how do you explain that the application of our free will is constantly violated in such a manner? Our capacity to sin if our free will was allowed unfettered reign in the material world would be much higher than it is now; for instance that flash of anger when someone cuts you off while driving where you wished you had laser eye-beams (silly hypothetical example).

If it is the case that God restricting our actions violates our free will, then God constantly violates our free will in a seemingly arbitrary way.

Furthermore, the position that actually committing the physical act of the sin is worthy of more punishment doesn’t excuse God for his involvement. God acting immorally with the goal of allowing humans to dig themselves a deeper hole sinfully speaking still proves the conclusion correct.

I find it very curious that you are setting up a series of arguments to try to condemn God of immorality. This is a fool’s errand. God does not set up men to sin. He allows men to be tested and they sin or don’t sin of their own accord.

I’m not sure I agree on this point either. My free will to fly like superman is stopped in such a way as to appear perfectly natural, as is my potential for sinning in ways that would require super powers. I am confident that God could prevent our physical actions in such a manner as to remain unprovable that God intervened; after all, it is God we are talking about.

I dont’ think the real issue is whether God’s direct interference would prove that there is a God. After all, when Jesus rose from the dead and when he did his miracles, that was proof of God. The real issue is that God wants us to chose to love him or not of our own free will and he lets us make that choice, albiet in a structure environment.

 

[Phage0070]

I find it very curious that you are setting up a series of arguments to try to condemn God of immorality. This is a fool’s errand.

The fact that you consider it a fool’s errand does not address the argument itself. If it is indeed a fool’s errand, then a response should be all the easier. An unbeliever presenting such an argument is not going to be persuaded of it’s falsehood simply by your conviction that it must be faulty.

Furthermore, the end result of the argument is not necessarily God’s immorality. It could be any number of things, including some of the premises being false. For instance, I have encountered a Protestant Christian who took the position that there is no moral imperative to prevent evil actions when possible.

I dont’ think the real issue is whether God’s direct interference would prove that there is a God. After all, when Jesus rose from the dead and when he did his miracles, that was proof of God.

This is an excellent point. Some people received dramatic proof of God’s existence, such as Thomas or Lazarus of Bethany.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Though, absolutely speaking, God can create a world without physical evil and a world where he stepped every time to stop moral evil, it does not follow that god is constrained or is under moral obligation to do so. Moral obligation exists only among equals or those that are under authority of another.

(PS: As a side note, I would like to preempt the inevitable “God -]needs/-] that evil to bring out the good in people,” response.

God can use evil to bring good.

behaving ethically would paradoxically in some cases be contrary to God’s will.

I fail to see the rationale behind this.

 

[Phage0070]

…it does not follow that god is constrained or is under moral obligation to do so. Moral obligation exists only among equals or those that are under authority of another.

Then in what sense can we consider God to be “good”? If God is indeed subject to a fundamentally different moral standard rather than being treated differently only based on ability and knowledge, then calling God good is at best meaningless and at worst deceptive.

God can use evil to bring good.
…
I fail to see the rationale behind this.

Those two concepts are linked. If God can use evil to bring good, and God intends to use evil to bring good, then having that evil not occur would be contrary to God’s design.

To put it another way: If acts of evil are required to bring out the good in people, then if everyone refused to commit evil acts there would be some types of good that God could never bring out in people. If God could bring out those types of good in people despite everyone choosing to do no evil, then allowing that evil to occur isn’t necessary to his plan.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Then in what sense can we consider God to be “good”? If God is indeed subject to a fundamentally different moral standard rather than being treated differently only based on ability and knowledge, then calling God good is at best meaningless and at worst deceptive.

You’re using the term “good” in a vacuum. Do remember that the Christian god also says that evil will be punished and that all sufferings will be rewarded, for eternity.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

I had a conversation about this with my family not too long ago.
Desiring to commit an evil is a sin, but not the same as actually doing it.

If you shoot at a black shadow in a window, but it turns out to be a dummy, you are guilty of the sin of intent to murder but not murder itself.

 

[paul_c]

The fact that you consider it a fool’s errand does not address the argument itself. If it is indeed a fool’s errand, then a response should be all the easier. An unbeliever presenting such an argument is not going to be persuaded of it’s falsehood simply by your conviction that it must be faulty.

Furthermore, the end result of the argument is not necessarily God’s immorality. It could be any number of things, including some of the premises being false. For instance, I have encountered a Protestant Christian who took the position that there is no moral imperative to prevent evil actions when possible.

I’m now grasping the paradox, which I didn’t the first time around. To paraphrase:

1. It is a moral imperative to stop evil when you can
2. God could stop evil if he chose to .
3. therefore God must be immoral.

So in my mind, God is all powerful so of course #2 is correct
and God can’t be immoral since he set the rules of what is moral and what isn’t

So the issue is with statement 1. And I think its a matter of perspective. Most people see death as the ultimate evil, but for God its just a transition to the after life. We see illness as evil, but to God its just a circumstance of life. We see suffering as evil, but to God it can be a way to eradicate arrogance in the suffering. Man’s actions might be contrary to God’s laws and will, but if God did not allow free will, then there would be no love because love must be freely given. So God has allowed free will, and with it sin, to enable love. But sin will not ultimately prevail. the men that go to heaven, will be those that use their free will for love. Those that will be separated from God will be those that use their free will for evil.

 

[Prophesy]

C.S. Lewis does well in explaining this. But keep in mind that there are somethings to address. Not having the ability to fly is not an evil, the fact that human’s cannot behave in a way that is contrary to reason (flying by waving our arms despite the fact that we would be poor birds).

But as the previous poster aware, perceived evil isn’t necessarily actual evil.

-Prophecy

 

[Phage0070]

…God can’t be immoral since he set the rules of what is moral and what isn’t…

This is in essence an end-run around the entire debate. Once you take this position God could lie, God could cheat/steal/murder/rape/etc, and still you would call him good. It is the position that there is no philosophy, demeanor, or character that God could take which would make him an evil god. Such a position makes calling God “good” meaningless, as it is referring to a completely different standard than for everyone else.

In essence this is the concession that God is not ethical, by the standards applied to humans.

 

[Phage0070]

Desiring to commit an evil is a sin, but not the same as actually doing it.

If you shoot at a black shadow in a window, but it turns out to be a dummy, you are guilty of the sin of intent to murder but not murder itself.

Do you think the punishment is different, and why?

Also, why does God need to observe the event? Since he absolutely knows that you would have killed someone if he didn’t intervene, what requirement is being filled by letting it actually happen?

 

[Phage0070]

You’re using the term “good” in a vacuum.

Thats my point exactly. If God being “good” doesn’t mean at all the same thing it means for a person to be “good”, then the term is useless and probably deceptive.

 

[Phage0070]

Not having the ability to fly is not an evil, the fact that human’s cannot behave in a way that is contrary to reason (flying by waving our arms despite the fact that we would be poor birds).

Exactly. If intent to fly were a sin, flapping your arms with the intention of flying would make you guilty of that sin regardless of your lack of success.

Note that if only the actual act of flying were a sin, and some people were provided the opportunity to fly and others were not, it would seem to be an unacceptable state where some people are absolutely protected from sin while others are not.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Thats my point exactly. If God being “good” doesn’t mean at all the same thing it means for a person to be “good”, then the term is useless and probably deceptive.

I never said anything remotely close to “goodness” being predicated differently to humans and god.
I said moral duty applies to only to equals, or those under the authority of others. Just because a parents does not have to obey his baby, it has nothing to do with the goodness of the parent…they are different issues.

Also, I already told you that the Christian God promises that evil and goodness will be punished and rewarded accordingly in the next life.

Also it seems, unless I misread you, that you accept that some goods can only be brought through some evils, so there goes another answer to the problem. which is more than atheist theodicies can bring to the table… oh yea, that’s right, atheists have nothing that helps them explain evil.

 

[paul_c]

This is in essence an end-run around the entire debate. Once you take this position God could lie, God could cheat/steal/murder/rape/etc, and still you would call him good. It is the position that there is no philosophy, demeanor, or character that God could take which would make him an evil god. Such a position makes calling God “good” meaningless, as it is referring to a completely different standard than for everyone else.

In essence this is the concession that God is not ethical, by the standards applied to humans.

No, its not an end around the discussion. Its a recognition that someone has to decide what is moral and what is not. Do you think you are in a better position to decide right from wrong than God is? Don’t you recognize how much more limited your viewpoint is than God’s? If you percieve that God is unjust, isn’t the more likely problem your lack of perception rather than God’s lack of morals?

And yes, you can’t judge God by the same standards that you judge a man. You are in no position to judge God because you can’t see what he sees nor know what he knows. In fact, you aren’t even in a position to judge a man, because unlike God, you can’t see into a man’s heart. This is why I told you in a previous post, that its a fool’s errand to try to judge God. You are just not in a position to do so. After all, you can’t even see what’s around the corner, can you? So how can you pretend to see what God sees and make a judgement on God’s actions?

 

[Sullibe]

**"1) If God is omniscient, he is a witness to every evil action ever attempted, or to be attempted in the future.

1. If God is omnipotent, he has access to a zero-risk decision to prevent said evil actions. Doing so would not be a violation of the free will of anyone, and would be effectively moot with regard to his judgment of those involved.
2. Evil actions have taken place, and continue to take place on a daily basis.

Conclusion: God is not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not completely ethical."**

I think both #1 and #2 are flawed.

#1 has God operating in the man-made construct of a timeline. God transcends time so while yes, He is a witness to every evil action ever attempted or will be attempted, I believe it all happens simultaneously along with the results and consequences of those evil actions happening simultaneously.

#2 is flawed because the idea of a zero risk decision is ultimately flawed. Even in your example of the magic 100% stop button interferes with the rapists free will (and to some degree the victim’s). Even if there is no harm to either the victim or the rapist, the will and intent of the rapist has been thwarted and not by the rapists own choices or change of heart. Either his(or her) will has been changed, or he(or she) will simply move onto his(or her) next victim.

God gave human beings free will so that we may freely accept His love and freely love Him. Evil exists because of those people who choose not to accept His love and not to love Him. If God were to take away that choice then free will simply ceases to exist. So yes, creating a zero-risk decision will indeed violate not just one person’s free will but everyone’s free will.