Why doesn't God take free will away from Bad people?

[JoeVig]

simply put, bad free will by bad people makes good people’s free will better! There is always a flip side to hanus acts. It may be very difficult to accept or even comprehend, but the Fathers plan is way above our comprehension level. Let me try on the Hitler and Holocaust for example. I worked in the Emergency Room in Boca Raton Florida. I met dozens of survivors. We have no idea how many hero’s were born of that terrible event. I only met a few. Did many die, surely. But their fate was decided when they were knit in the womb. That’s a fact pretty hard to swallow; none the less, tis true.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, some people try to make a distinction between being free to “will” something, and being free to act on that will.

Yes, and some people try to make ‘free will’ mean ‘free action’. But, as in my “flying” example, we see that there’s no such thing as “unlimited free action”… simply due to our human nature. So, if what you what to argue against is “unlimited free action”, then don’t bother calling it “free will” – since “unlimited free action” is something no one argues for.

If free will is only the “desire” to do something, even when the person is unable to act on it, then this “will” is only limited by the imagination of the person (but STILL limited, by the way ).

No. That’s not a ‘limit’, per se. Your assertion here would mean that ‘free will’ doesn’t exist, only because there are differences in human capacity for reason. That’s an untenable assertion. But hey… you’re free to make it (and we’re free to snicker at its unreasonableness).

But who cares? Who should worry about a poor sucker’s desire to perform something that he is unable to carry out? “Will” without the ability to act on it is just a “daydream”.

And so, by defining ‘free will’ unreasonably, you reason it out of existence. Nice try. Not effective… but nice try.

The libertarian definition of “free will” rests of three components:

Oh… so you’re not discussing Christian notions of ‘free will’? OK, then. No problem. The response becomes “thanks for telling us what you believe… but don’t use it to tell us Christians we’re wrong – since we believe differently than you.”

I keep wondering who was the one who first tried to separate the “will” from the “action”?

Your definition makes “free will” a trivial and inconsequential notion. After all, if I can conceive of something that I am physically incapable of doing, then free will does not exist.

If that’s what you’re arguing for… then have at it. Your arguments are poorly constructed though.

The “will” is always targeted to some specific outcome.

Agreed. However, it does not follow that it’s a specific outcome is necessarily achievable.

As a matter of fact any decent person would be abhorred to see such an extremely disproportional penalty.

OK. So… Catholics are not only ‘irrational’, but also ‘abhorrent’.

Heck, while you’re at it, why don’t you just call us a “basket of deplorables”? Yeah… that’s always a good idea.

And nothing could be more disproportional than an unending, perpetual torture for a simple, finite deed.

Dang. So heaven is ‘disproportional’, and therefore, unjust? Can’t wait to hear God’s response when you tell Him “no thanks… eternal beatitude is disproportional, so I can’t accept it”…

 

[Scowler]

Your definition makes “free will” a trivial and inconsequential notion.

No, actually it is YOUR definition which makes it irrelevant. Because the “will” without the “ability” to carry it out is irrelevant. Who cares what you “will” if you are unable to act on your will? There are several definitions of “free will” accepted by different philosophers. I quoted the libertarian definition, since that is the ONLY one which actually makes sense.

However, let’s accept at your definition, for the sake of discussion. If ALL we need is that someone would be free to “hope, desire, wish, will” something, then we can safely take away their ability to act on that “hope, desire, wish, will” without infringing their free “will”. So there is no reason for God to stay on the sidelines to twiddle his imaginary thumbs, and allow all that atrocity in the name of that “sacrosanct” free will to exist. Let everyone “will” whatever they want.

Who cares if the “bad” people will be prevented from bringing their sick desires into existence? Oh, wait a second… ALL the potential victims would cheer to see the free “ability” of their attackers to be taken away and let their free “will” to allow to exist.

OK. So… Catholics are not only ‘irrational’, but also ‘abhorrent’.

Oh, no - don’t twist my words. Don’t think YOU are the representative of ALL the Catholics - because you are NOT. As far as I can judge, many or maybe even most Catholics find the concept of eternal torture unacceptable, for the same reason I do.

Dang. So heaven is ‘disproportional’, and therefore, unjust?

Actually, heaven as you hope for would be disproportional and thus unjust. But no one complains if someone gets some undeserved “good stuff”, however, to get a disproportional punishment is really disturbing.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Your definition makes “free will” a trivial and inconsequential notion.

No, actually it is YOUR definition which makes it irrelevant. Because the “will” without the “ability” to carry it out is irrelevant.

Actually, it is anything but irrelevant. Free will – that is, the ability to rationally engage one’s intellect and will some thing – is what makes us, at a certain fundamental level, human.

Who cares what you “will” if you are unable to act on your will?

We care deeply. That’s what distinguishes a murder from a tragic accident, a virtuous act from a happy coincidence of events, or any other ‘willed’ thing from an ‘unwilled’ thing. So, even if I’m unable to act on my will, I’m still choosing the good over the evil (I hope), and that counts.

There are several definitions of “free will” accepted by different philosophers. I quoted the libertarian definition, since that is the ONLY one which actually makes sense in my opinion.

There we go. Fixed that for ya. (You’re welcome!)

Here’s the thing: I don’t buy your argument, nor do all philosophers. So, it’s good to know, now, that you’re arguing for something that the Catholic Church defines differently. Of course, on a Catholic forum… with Catholic interlocutors… on a matter of Catholic faith and morals… you’re asking us to argue from a position at odds with Church teaching?

However, let’s accept at your definition, for the sake of discussion. If ALL we need is that someone would be free to “hope, desire, wish, will” something, then we can safely take away their ability to act on that “hope, desire, wish, will” without infringing their free “will”.

Agreed.

So there is no reason for God to stay on the sidelines to twiddle his imaginary thumbs, and allow all that atrocity in the name of that “sacrosanct” free will to exist. Let everyone “will” whatever they want.

Disagree.
All it takes is a few of these events, and we realize that God is inserting Himself into the equation to prevent our actions. We would realize that He prevents us from doing evil. At that point, as you say, free will would be pointless. However, it’s the very fact that we do have (relatively, but not completely unfettered) opportunities to act that makes our free will important!

So, my take on “free will means will, not act” is precisely in line with the question being asked here. Huh… go figure!

Who cares if the “bad” people will be prevented from bringing their sick desires into existence? Oh, wait a second… ALL the potential victims would cheer to see the free “ability” of their attackers to be taken away and let their free “will” to allow to exist.

Yup. I’ve seen this argument take this turn before. It’s the “but… think of the children!” reaction. You’re simply arguing that God’s made a horrendous mistake in the creation of his universe, and He should have made it absolutely perfect. Take that up with Him…

continued…

 

[Gorgias]

Scowler:

OK. So… Catholics are not only ‘irrational’, but also ‘abhorrent’.

Oh, no - don’t twist my words.

“Twist your words”? Are you sure? Let’s see…

I keep wondering who was the one who first tried to separate the “will” from the “action”? What was he “smoking”?

“Irrational.”

any decent person would be abhorred to see such an extremely disproportional penalty

“Abhorrent”.

Not twisting your words, @Scowler … just quoting you. Big difference.

Don’t think YOU are the representative of ALL the Catholics - because you are NOT. As far as I can judge, many or maybe even most Catholics find the concept of eternal torture unacceptable, for the same reason I do.

Sorry then… let me be more precise: the Catholic Church.

And yes, you’re right: there are many who call themselves ‘Catholic’ but who either do not know or do not agree with their Church’s teaching. Doesn’t make them right, though.

Dang. So heaven is ‘disproportional’, and therefore, unjust?

Actually, heaven as you hope for would be disproportional and thus unjust. But no one complains if someone gets some undeserved “good stuff”, however, to get a disproportional punishment is really disturbing.

From a philosophical perspective, though, both should be disturbing. (And, if you really want to push this tangent, then those who attain to heaven are in a certain sense evil, since they know and still desire disproportionate reward. Since this is a manifest contradiction, your notion of ‘disproportionality’ must be rejected, I’d assert. )

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes, some people try to make a distinction between being free to “will” something, and being free to act on that will. If free will is only the “desire” to do something, even when the person is unable to act on it, then this “will” is only limited by the imagination of the person (but STILL limited, by the way ). But who cares? Who should worry about a poor sucker’s desire to perform something that he is unable to carry out? "

Who cares? Perhaps God does because he cares more about who and what we ARE than what we DO.

And if who we are is completely contingent upon our freedom of will – I.e, if our freedom to initiate novel courses of action forms the very definition of what it means to be an autonomous entity and autonomous moral agent (who and what we actually are) – then freedom of will, rather than freedom of action, would be the very nexus of what God would be interested in since ontologically speaking that would define and be the source of what we are as the initiators of what we do.

The physical world around us may, in fact, serve to temper and govern the impact of our free will in the way a simulation game provides a working environment to practice skills and gain understanding. Our free wills, as opposed to freedom of action, may be precisely what are critically important to God because exercising free will would essentially be the potential to create ourselves as who and what we are as autonomous beings destined for eternity, but currently within the controlled environment we know as “creation.”

It would be simpler to create the “passing” students directly into heaven, and create the “failing” ones directly into hell. There is no reason to have either ones to be created into this existence. Of course only a cruel “teacher” would create those who will be known to fail the one and only final test. They cannot benefit from the process.

Perhaps you are understating what is going on with creation in this existence. It isn’t a matter of merely “passing a test” to achieve an end but, rather, and more importantly, the undertaking of our own “self” creation, which God is leaving completely to us through the exercise of free will. In other words, we may not be completely free to act because exercising that level of freedom isn’t the test that God is concerned about as needing to be “passed.” The test that needs to be passed is what we turn ourselves into, I.e., what we become as persons and moral agents. Ergo, exercising freedom of will may, indeed, be the crucial feature with regard to making ourselves who and what we are.

Activity or freedom to act may be indicative to outside observers (humans vis a vis each other) regarding our internal state of being, but God’s knowledge would not be so limited.

Who we are, rather than what we do would be of far greater concern to God, which means freedom of will as the loci and necessary condition of subjective existence would be far more telling, as far as God is concerned, than our freedom to act.

 

[Gorgias]

It would be simpler to create the “passing” students directly into heaven, and create the “failing” ones directly into hell. There is no reason to have either ones to be created into this existence. Of course only a cruel “teacher” would create those who will be known to fail the one and only final test.

Actually, that would be the far more cruel approach. By your standard, those who had not achieved would be rewarded, and those who had not sinned would be punished.

(I think you just want to rail at God (and at those who believe in Him). That’s ok – if it’s therapeutic for you, go for it! Just don’t expect us to buy what you’re selling… 'cause it really is nonsensical. )

 

[Scowler]

After all, if I can conceive of something that I am physically incapable of doing, then free will does not exist.

An important addition: “…IN THAT RESPECT!” You are still able to conceive and carry out other instances of your will. An example: “if you are stuck in a locked room in a burning building, then you are unable to carry out your ‘will’ to escape unharmed. But you are free to pray and offer up your suffering”. Even your incorrect definition of free will is not “absolute”.

Actually, it is anything but irrelevant. Free will – that is, the ability to rationally engage one’s intellect and will some thing – is what makes us, at a certain fundamental level, human.

That is not free “will”. That is simply a freedom of thought. A “will” is an attempt to actualize a desire. “Willing” something without the ability to make it happen is simply wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is a wonderful thing. It leads to new discoveries, new books, new music… and unfortunately new ways to spread mayhem. Not all instances of new “ideas” are equally desirable. There would be enough free will, if only the desirable ones could be put into practice.

All it takes is a few of these events, and we realize that God is inserting Himself into the equation to prevent our actions. We would realize that He prevents us from doing evil. At that point, as you say, free will would be pointless.

Not true. You would still be free to engage in your wishful thinking. And since THAT is the free will - according to your definition, there would be no harm done. As for pointless… any desire which cannot be carried out IS pointless.

Nevertheless your analysis is extremely naïve. There is no need for an angel to come wielding a flaming sword and declare: “You cannot rape that girl! Not on MY watch!”. There is no need for this. Even if there would be a sudden cessation of atrocities, the intervention could be “hidden” behind all sorts of natural-looking causes. But there is no reason to allow the atrocities in the first place, and then start to interfere all of a sudden. That might be suspicious. However, that is not what I am suggesting. There is no reason for the atrocities to exist at all - unless somehow they are desirable on their own right. If having an atrocity is somehow the “better option”.

Some people assert that without atrocities there cannot be “love” either. What nonsense! Love is not contingent upon evil. A mother’s love for her child exists, even if she would be incapable of hurting that child.

By the way… what would be wrong with actually having undeniable evidence for God’s existence? The apologists tried to establish it via the “5 ways” and/or other incorrect lines of reasoning for many hundreds of years. Removing the ability of hurting others would not be a “price we pay”, it would be a “gift we would receive”.

By the way, I am still curious who was the first to suggest that “will” could be separated from the “action”? You evaded that question.

 

[Tbrightson]

Why couldnt God extend the protection from sinning to the rest of mankind like he did Mary? She still had free will did she not?

 

[Gorgias]

An important addition: “…IN THAT RESPECT!” You are still able to conceive and carry out other instances of your will.

Oh… you want to modify your stance? Fair enough. (I would, too, if I were you.)

Yet, what you said originally was:

Because the “will” without the “ability” to carry it out is irrelevant.

and

If free will is only the “desire” to do something, then … who cares? Who should worry about a poor sucker’s desire to perform something that he is unable to carry out?

Will is in the intellect. Act is in the physical realm. “Free will” is an intellectual consideration, not a physical one.

That is not free “will”. That is simply a freedom of thought. A “will” is an attempt to actualize a desire. “Willing” something without the ability to make it happen is simply wishful thinking.

OK… so we disagree on how we use the terms. That much has been obvious for a while. I’m discussing what the Catholic Church means by those terms. If you want them to mean something else entirely, have at it. Just don’t expect us to agree.

any desire which cannot be carried out IS pointless.

Again, the Catholic Church disagrees with you. God knows what is in the hearts of humans. Something desired but not able to be carried out is still known by God.

Nevertheless your analysis is extremely naïve.

No it isn’t. It’s just that yours just isn’t particularly well-thought-out carefully enough:

There is no need for an angel to come wielding a flaming sword and declare: “You cannot rape that girl! Not on MY watch!”. There is no need for this. Even if there would be a sudden cessation of atrocities, the intervention could be “hidden” behind all sorts of natural-looking causes.

Here’s a thought experiment as a counter-example:
Let’s suppose that I decide that I want to do something egregiously atrocious. (For example, let’s suppose that you walk down a certain path in a park every day at 5pm, and I decide I want to smack you upside the head.)
Day 1: there’s a policeman present. (Dang!)
Day 2: a crowd of long-distance runners show up, just at the same time as you appear on the trail. (Phooey!)
Day 3: a gaggle of violent geese walk up to my hiding place and accost me as you arrive. (Ugh!)
Day n: A Hari Krishna engages you on the trail, just as I approach.

Here’s the thing: for even the most clueless, least intuitive person out there, there comes a time when the realization hits: something is preventing me from putting my will into action! The brighter you are, the smaller the value of n is; the duller, the greater. Eventually, though, you’ll realize it, and when you do… you know that there’s a force that thwarts your free will.

(Let’s call this thought experiment the “Groundhog Day rebuttal” to your proposal… )

See? Not as naive as you might have thought!

 

[Gorgias]

Some people assert that without atrocities there cannot be “love” either.

WIthout the possibility of evil acts there cannot be the possibility of loving acts. (After all, how would you distinguish between the two, if only one existed?) But yes, I agree with you: the straw man you set up is nonsense!

By the way… what would be wrong with actually having undeniable evidence for God’s existence?

If it were completely, uncontrovertibly, unassailably undeniable, then the only rational response would be “I must accept God.” That’s not what God wants: He wants loving embrace, not coerced, begrudging acceptance of fact.

The apologists tried to establish it via the “5 ways”

Aquinas’ five ways are simply five demonstrations of the truth of his proposition that God exists. That’s not an attempt to prove undeniably; it’s merely an attempt to convince.

By the way, I am still curious who was the first to suggest that “will” could be separated from the “action”? You evaded that question.

Without researching it, I don’t know the answer. No ‘evasion’, just an implicit suggestion of an opportunity for you to do your own research…

 

[Scowler]

Oh… you want to modify your stance?

There is nothing to modify. Free will, whichever definition you prefer, is not “absolute”.

Again, the Catholic Church disagrees with you. God knows what is in the hearts of humans. Something desired but not able to be carried out is still known by God.

That is irrelevant. Your concept of God is just like the Big Brother, who condemns people for thought crimes. Of course if you can provide a proof for your version and for God’s existence, I will concede defeat. Any chance of that?

Here’s a thought experiment as a counter-example:

Let’s suppose that I decide that I want to do something egregiously atrocious. (For example, let’s suppose that you walk down a certain path in a park every day at 5pm, and I decide I want to smack you upside the head.)

Day 1: there’s a policeman present. (Dang!)
Day 2: a crowd of long-distance runners show up, just at the same time as you appear on the trail. (Phooey!)
Day 3: a gaggle of violent geese walk up to my hiding place and accost me as you arrive. (Ugh!)
Day n: A Hari Krishna engages you on the trail, just as I approach.

Here’s the thing: for even the most clueless, least intuitive person out there, there comes a time when the realization hits: something is preventing me from putting my will into action!

Something! - you say. Maybe… but that would not insinuate a “god” or “God”… only just that you are extremely unlucky. So your counter example is insufficient. Not to mention that if no instances of counter-examples could be found, then there would be reason to doubt that this is just another “law of nature”. Somehow atrocities are against the laws of nature… just like we cannot levitate at will. And no one would assume that the lack of levitation is a proof for God’s existence… (Well… some idiot might believe it.)

Without the possibility of evil acts there cannot be the possibility of loving acts.

That is baloney. I don’t need a hailstorm to appreciate the good weather. Good stuff is good, even without a contrast. Universal health is better even without “leprosy” or even without the possibility of “leprosy”.

If it were completely, uncontrovertibly, unassailably undeniable, then the only rational response would be “I must accept God.”

Yes, of course. To accept God’s existence… for sure. But simple existence does not lead to worship, or love, or adoration, or glorification, or whatever God is alleged to “crave”. Those must be earned! Looking around in this existence there is no reason to “worship” or “love” or “glorify” God.

 

[shanishani7]

Because God had given human Freewill when He created. That cannot be changed.

 

[steve-b]

Free will, whichever definition you prefer, is not “absolute”.

Yet If we don’t have it we aren’t responsible for anything.

Scowler:

if you can provide a proof for your version and for God’s existence, I will concede defeat. Any chance of that?

Consider
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I kinda like #20 paschal’s wager. I’ve used that in various ways (reformulated it my way ) in the past with friends in discussion, who are atheists.

 

[HarryStotle]

Scowler:

There is no need for an angel to come wielding a flaming sword and declare: “You cannot rape that girl! Not on MY watch!”. There is no need for this. Even if there would be a sudden cessation of atrocities, the intervention could be “hidden” behind all sorts of natural-looking causes.

Here’s a thought experiment as a counter-example:
Let’s suppose that I decide that I want to do something egregiously atrocious. (For example, let’s suppose that you walk down a certain path in a park every day at 5pm, and I decide I want to smack you upside the head.)
Day 1: there’s a policeman present. (Dang!)
Day 2: a crowd of long-distance runners show up, just at the same time as you appear on the trail. (Phooey!)
Day 3: a gaggle of violent geese walk up to my hiding place and accost me as you arrive. (Ugh!)
Day n: A Hari Krishna engages you on the trail, just as I approach.

Here’s the thing: for even the most clueless, least intuitive person out there, there comes a time when the realization hits: something is preventing me from putting my will into action! The brighter you are, the smaller the value of n is; the duller, the greater. Eventually, though, you’ll realize it, and when you do… you know that there’s a force that thwarts your free will.

(Let’s call this thought experiment the “Groundhog Day rebuttal” to your proposal… )

Again, I fail to see why God, to be a good God, must use external stimuli to thwart evil deeds from being done.

It would seem to me that God desires good moral agents who are worthy because of who and what they have made themselves (by cooperating with God’s grace and inspiration). I would think that the existence of moral truths, an environment with lots of opportunity to experience moral challenges and their repercussions and a continual oversight by conscience to shed light on the moral landscape is all that God needs to provide.

All the angels in the world slapping would-be wrong-doers upside the head and well-timed and orchestrated series of bothersome interruptions won’t add an iota of good to an agent bent upon being malicious, if moral truth and experiencing the fallout from evil deeds have not been successful.

God seems to have opted for the simplest, most elegant means of creating good moral agents worthy of life in eternity: moral truth, a challenging moral landscape and free will. What we create of ourselves from those is all that God needs from us.

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes, of course. To accept God’s existence… for sure. But simple existence does not lead to worship, or love, or adoration, or glorification, or whatever God is alleged to “crave”. Those must be earned! Looking around in this existence there is no reason to “worship” or “love” or “glorify” God.

I would submit that truth, beauty and goodness do, in themselves, engender “worship, or love, or adoration, or glorification” in any being who takes the time to truly apprehend them in their fullness. If your relationship with them is one of ambivalence or apprehension, then “accepting” them or being forced to acknowledge them unwillingly might translate to “no reason” or “must be earned.”

Your position vis a vis the nature of God seems misconceived, which explains why you view it as a matter of having to be convinced or persuaded.

Why would anyone need to be forced to love the good, coerced to know the truth or threatened to appreciate beauty? Just seems odd to me.

 

[Gorgias]

All the angels in the world slapping would-be wrong-doers upside the head and well-timed and orchestrated series of bothersome interruptions won’t add an iota of good to an agent bent upon being malicious, if moral truth and experiencing the fallout from evil deeds have not been successful.

It wouldn’t, of course. That’s not what the complaint is, I don’t think. Rather, it’s that the presence of evil in the world is being blamed on God, who – they say – should rid the world of evil if He’s really ‘good’. (In the end, it all comes down to “I don’t believe in God, in part because I hold my thought to be the highest wisdom in the world”… )

 

[Gorgias]

Of course if you can provide a proof for your version and for God’s existence, I will concede defeat. Any chance of that?

Ahh, yes: the noble gesture of atheists everywhere! “I’m a reasonable person, so if you provide proof, I will concede!” Problem is… “to those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient.” So, inevitably, you’ll walk away from this dialogue, continuing to be convinced of your own reasonableness and of believers’ irrationality.

Something! - you say. Maybe… but that would not insinuate a “god” or “God”… only just that you are extremely unlucky. So your counter example is insufficient.

No. Yet again, you’re not thinking it through sufficiently.
Sure, on day n-10 I think, “man! why can’t I get this right??? I’m so unlucky!” The point is that, in the aggregate – and perhaps not only for myself, but in discussion with others – eventually we all learn “an invisible force prevents me from doing evil.” And at that point, it’s game over.

Not to mention that if no instances of counter-examples could be found, then there would be reason to doubt that this is just another “law of nature”.

And for believers, that would mean that God – who created the universe and the natural law – prevents free action.
(Yes, for non-believers, some other convoluted explanation – that tried to keep God out of the picture – would be suggested.)

And no one would assume that the lack of levitation is a proof for God’s existence… (Well… some idiot might believe it.)

Oh, praise be the FSM, who keeps us idiots in check by means of the scowlers of this world!

That is baloney. I don’t need a hailstorm to appreciate the good weather. Good stuff is good, even without a contrast. Universal health is better even without “leprosy” or even without the possibility of “leprosy”.

No, it really isn’t. The funny thing is, any empiricist worth his salt knows it’s true. (The problem is that, to the unbeliever, there’s too much perceived utility in the so-called ‘problem of evil’ to abandon it, so it’s necessary to cling to it at all costs.)

Here’s the thing: in order to evaluate anything, we must compare it to others. Diamonds are hard; cotton is soft. Africa is hot, Antarctica is cold. “More moxie!” “Less calories!”

And so, without something to compare a thing to, we have no way to express difference. From a philosophical standpoint, without comparison, we have no way to perceive difference. So, “more good” / “less evil” compares to “less good” / “more evil”, and in the comparison, we learn the practical difference between “good” and “evil”.

I’m not saying, mind you, that you need a ‘Hitler’ to understand a mother’s love. Just that, if there weren’t degrees of good (and here, we understand “less good” to imply “more evil”, as evil is “the absence of good”), then we would never be able to perceive ‘good’.

 

[Scowler]

Yet If we don’t have it we aren’t responsible for anything.

If we don’t perform atrocities, then there is no reason to be held responsible.

Consider

Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)

I kinda like #20 paschal’s wager.

Do you really think that I am not intimately familiar with those? And Pascal’s wager is probably the worst one, so much so that most apologists simply do not mention it any more.

 

[HarryStotle]

That is baloney. I don’t need a hailstorm to appreciate the good weather. Good stuff is good, even without a contrast. Universal health is better even without “leprosy” or even without the possibility of “leprosy”.

Ah, yes, but YOU are only concerned with gaining a modicum of understanding of good vs evil and a sort-of, kind-of, lukewarm commitment to good. I would think that an enterprise which is all about forming high quality moral agents, saints even, to the point where absolute good is chosen and held to in the face of all manner of evil, that would require something more than the shallow understanding, callow appreciation, and tepid commitment that would result from a little blustery weather and the odd cough.